Arieli Et Al-2019-Applied Psychology PDF

APPLIED PSYCHOLOGY: AN INTERNATIONAL REVIEW, 2019, 0 (0), 1–46
doi: 10.1111/apps.12181
Values at Work: The Impact of Personal Values in

Organisations
Sharon Arieli* and Lilach Sagiv
The Hebrew University of Jerusalem, Israel
Sonia Roccas
The Open University of Israel, Israel
This paper reviews and integrates past research on personal values in work
organisations, seeking to portray the role personal values play in shaping the
choices and behaviour of individuals in work settings. We start by addressing
the role of values in the occupational choice people make. We then review
research on the relationships of personal values to a variety of behaviours at
work. We continue with discussing the multiple paths through which manag-
ers’ values affect organisations and their members. In the last section, we
address the interplay between organisational levels, and discuss the congru-
ency between personal and organisational values and its implications for
organisations and their employees. Together, the research reviewed indicates
how the broadness and stability of values make them an important predictor
of behaviour at various levels of the organisation. We end by discussing direc-
tions for future research on values in organisations.
Values play a central role in guiding organisations (Rokeach, 2008;

Suddaby, Elsbach, Greenwood, Meyer, & Zilber, 2010; Bourne & Jenkins,
2013). Values exist at multiple levels, defining what is considered right, wor-
thy and desirable for employees, teams, organisations and nations (Sagiv
et al., 2011a; Bourne & Jenkins, 2013). Extensive research has investigated
the impact of nation-level values on individuals and organisations (reviews
* Address for correspondence: Sharon Arieli, School of Business Administration, The

Hebrew University of Israel, Mount Scopus, Jerusalem, 91905 Israel. Email: sharon.arieli@
mail.huji.ac.il
This paper was funded by multiple sources: grants from the Israeli Science Foundation to the
first author (655/17) and to the second and third authors (847/14); grants from the Recanati
Fund of the School of Business Administration, and from the Mandel Scholion Interdisciplinary
Research Centre, both at the Hebrew University of Jerusalem, to the second author; A grant
from the research authority of the Open University of Israel to the third authors. We thank Adva
Liberman for her useful comments on earlier drafts of this paper.
© 2018 International Association of Applied Psychology.

2 Arieli et al.
in Hofstede, 2001; Kirkman, Lowe, & Gibson, 2006; Taras, Kirkman, &
Steel, 2010; Sagiv et al., 2011a). Research has also focused, albeit to a lesser
extent, on the impact of organisation-level values (for a conceptual review
see Bourne & Jenkins, 2013). Appendix A lists major models of organi-
sational and national level values. In the current paper, we focus on indi-
vidual-level values, values that individuals (e.g., a manager, an employee)
emphasise and express. Appendix B details our review approach.
In what follows we integrate theories and empirical studies aiming to
portray the role of personal values in shaping the choices and behaviour in
work settings. Figure 1 presents the theoretical constructs addressed in this
review and outlines their associations. In reviewing past research we draw
on Schwartz’s theory of personal values (1992). This model is currently the
dominant theory in values’ research (Rohan, 2000; Knafo, Roccas, & Sagiv,
2011; see also Maio, 2010) and many of the studies on the implications of
values in organisational settings in the last two decades are based on it.
Schwartz’s model aims at a comprehensive coverage of the major basic
motivations that underlie personal values (Schwartz, 1992). To integrate stud-
ies drawn from other theoretical perspectives (e.g., studies on work-values
models) we analysed the content of the values in these studies and mapped
them according to the dimensions proposed in Schwartz’s values model. Thus,
drawing on a single comprehensive theoretical model allowed us to integrate
and compare findings from a wide range of programmes of research (De
Clercq, Fontaine, & Anseel, 2008).
FIGURE 1. Personal values in work settings.

3
Values at Work
This paper has six sections. We first discuss the nature of values portray-
ing how they are similar to and distinct from related constructs. We then
describe Schwartz’s values model and the evidence that supports it. In the
third section, we address the role of values in the occupational choices people
make during different stages in their career. We next review research on the
impact of personal values on behaviour at work. The fifth section portrays
how value priorities of managers, the upper echelon in organisations, impact
the behaviour of their organisations and subordinates. Finally, we address the
interplay between organisational levels, discussing the congruency between
personal and organisational values and its implications for organisations and
their employees.
THE NATURE OF PERSONAL VALUES

Personal values are defined as broad, trans-situational, desirable goals
that serve as guiding principles in people’s lives (Schwartz, 1992; see also
Kluckhohn, 1951; Rokeach, 1973). These features of values have conse-
quences for individuals’ choices and behaviour (Roccas & Sagiv, 2010; Sagiv
& Roccas, 2017). First, values represent the goals that people consider to be
desirable; they reflect preferences about what is viewed as worthy and im-
portant (Rokeach, 1973). As such, values serve as a powerful drive for action.
Individuals wish to act in ways that allow them to promote their important
values and attain the goals underlying them. Second, personal values are cog-
nitive representations of basic motivational goals (Schwartz, 1992). Thus,
they apply across situations and over time. A person who emphasises achieve-
ment values, for example, is likely to be guided by these values in choosing an
occupation (e.g., choose a prestigious profession), in preparing for this choice
(e.g., invest time and effort in training), and then in her behaviour at work
(e.g., working overtime and applying for promotion when possible).
Third, personal values are ordered in hierarchies according to their sub-
jective importance. The more important a value, the more motivated the per-
son is to rely on this value as a guiding principle (Rokeach, 1973; Schwartz,
1996). Thus, although for most people all values are important to some
extent, individuals differ in the values that motivate them for action. Finally,
people rely on their values to form standards and criteria to evaluate and jus-
tify choices and actions of themselves and others (Rokeach, 1973; Schwartz,
1992). Emphasising achievement values, for example, is likely to translate
into viewing favourably hard work and personal ambition. Thus, a person
emphasising these values is likely to judge others according to how persistent
they are in their efforts to be successful and how ambitious their choices are.
Personal values develop as a combination of inherited factors (e.g., temper-
ament, needs) and social factors (e.g., family, social and cultural environment,

4 Arieli et al.
Hitlin & Piliavin, 2004; Schwartz, 2004; Knafo & Plomin, 2006; Knafo &
Spinath, 2011; Cieciuch, Davidov, & Algesheimer, 2016; see a review in Sagiv,
Roccas, Cieciuch, & Schwartz, 2017). They are stable across time and contexts
(e.g., Schwartz, 2005; Milfont, Milojev, & Sibley, 2016; Vecchione et al., 2016;
for a review of earlier work see Bardi & Goodwin, 2011). The importance of
values changes during childhood, stabilises during adolescence and remains
stable later on (Berzonsky, Cieciuch, Duriez, & Soenens, 2011). Value change
is still possible, however. Bardi and Goodwin (2011) proposed five mecha-
nisms that could foster value change, through an effortful and/or an auto-
matic path: priming, persuasion, adaptation, identification, and consistency
maintenance. Few studies documented change in value priorities following
a significant life-event that could trigger one or more of these mechanisms
(e.g., immigration, see Lönnqvist, Jasinskaja-Lahti, & Verkasalo, 2011; Bardi,
Buchanan, Goodwin, Slabu, & Robinson, 2014). Cross-sectional research
comparing between age groups has also shown mean-level value change
across the life span. The observed change was consistent with age-related
life circumstances and development (Gouveia, Vione, Milfont, & Fischer,
2015). Even when value-change occurs, however, values stability is still high.
For example, longitudinal studies showed stability in values after 2–8 years
(Schwartz, 2005; Milfont et al., 2016; Vecchione et al., 2016) and the correla-
tions between the importance of values before and after immigration ranged
from 0.50 to 0.69 (Bardi et al., 2014) and 0.37–0.63 (Lönnqvist et al., 2011).
COMMONALITIES AND DIFFERENCES BETWEEN VALUES

AND RELATED CONSTRUCTS
Personal values are a central content-aspect of the self (Miles, 2015). They
are related, yet distinct, from other aspects of the self, such as traits, mo-
tives, interests, goals and attitudes. Traits and values are both broad and
trans-situational. Like values, people often perceive their own traits as de-
sirable, because people tend to have a positive self-concept and to cher-
ish most of their personal attributes. Values are more desirable than traits,
however: People are more satisfied with their values, view their values
as closer to their ideal self than their traits, and wish less to change their
values than their traits (Roccas, Sagiv, Oppenheim, Elster, & Gal, 2014).
Empirical research studying the associations between values and traits has
revealed the commonalities and differences between them (e.g., Roccas,
Sagiv, Schwartz, & Knafo, 2002; for meta-analyses see Fischer & Boer, 2015;
Parks-Leduc, Feldman, & Bardi, 2015).
Motives are also stable and trans-situational. Unlike values, some motives
are personally undesirable (e.g., hate, envy). Furthermore, key theories
of motives postulate that people are often unaware of their motives (e.g.,
McClelland, 1985). In contrast, theories of values emphasise that they are

5
Values at Work
represented in ways that allow people to reflect and communicate about them
(Schwartz, 1992). Like values, vocational interests motivate people’s choices
and actions (Dobson, Gardner, Metz, & Gore, 2014). Vocational interests
apply, however, to work contexts only. They may explain behaviour, but they
do not serve as criteria for judging its morality. We discuss the relationships
between values and vocational interests below.
Specific goals and attitudes differ from values in that they are narrowly
defined by and related to specific situations, whereas values represent abstract,
broad goals that guide action (Schwartz, 1992). Values can be expressed in
specific attitudes (Katz, 1960; see Maio & Olson, 1995) and goals. For exam-
ple, the value of “being successful” can be implemented in the specific goal
of succeeding in a job interview. These differences have implications for the
behaviours that can be predicted by values and by specific goals and atti-
tudes. Whereas specific attitudes predict specific behaviours better than they
predict general behaviours (Ajzen & Fishbein, 1973; see a meta-analysis in
Kraus, 1995), values predict both specific and general behaviours (see Roccas,
Sagiv, & Navon, 2017). In addition, specific goals and attitudes may be more
strongly related than values to specific actions that match them, but they may
be less useful in explaining the underlying reason for the behaviour. Finally,
unlike values, specific goals are not organised in hierarchal order and do not
form an integrated system (Verplanken & Holland, 2002). Thus, values, but
not attitudes, serve to generate integrated predictions of behaviours that take
into account the full spectrum of values (Sagiv & Schwartz, 1995).
SCHWARTZ’S THEORY OF PERSONAL VALUES

Building on the pioneering research of Rokeach (1973), Schwartz (1992) pro-
posed a theory of the content and the structure of personal values. He sug-
gested that values differ in the type of motivational goal they express. Taking
a cross-cultural perspective Schwartz focused on identifying values that have
the same meaning across cultures. He identified ten values that express dis-
tinct motivations: power, achievement, hedonism, stimulation, self-direc-
tion, universalism, benevolence, tradition, conformity, and security.
People are motivated to behave in ways that help them express their
important values. Some values are compatible with each other – they reflect
motivational goals that can be attained at the same time, sometimes by the
same behaviour. Other values conflict with each other – actions that promote
one of them are likely to impede the attainment of the other. The pattern
of conflict and compatibility among the values determines their structure.
Values are organised according to the motivations underlying them, forming
a continuous circular structure in which adjacent values reflect compatible
motivations, and opposing values reflect conflicting motivations (Figure 2).

6 Arieli et al.
Self-Direction Universalism
Stimulation Benevolence
Hedonism Tradition
Conformity
Achievement
Power Security
FIGURE 2. The content and structure of human values (Davidov et al., 2008,
p. 425).
The circular continuum of values can be summarised into four higher-order

values that form two basic conflicts. The first conflict contrasts openness to
change with conservation. Openness to change values emphasise openness to
new experiences: autonomy of thought and action (self-direction), or novelty
and excitement (stimulation). These values conflict with conservation values
that emphasise preserving the status quo: commitment to past beliefs and
customs (tradition), adhering to social norms and expectations (conformity),
and preference for stability and security for the self and close others (secu-
rity). The second conflict contrasts self-enhancement with self-transcendence.
Self-enhancement values emphasise the pursuit of self-interest by focusing
on gaining control over people and resources (power), or by demonstrat-
ing ambition and competence according to social standards and attaining
success (achievement). These values conflict with self-transcendence values
that emphasise concern for others: Expressing concern and care for those
with whom one has frequent contact (benevolence) or displaying acceptance,
tolerance, and concern for nature, and for all people regardless of group

7
Values at Work
membership (universalism). Hedonism values share elements of both open-

ness and self-enhancement, and are in conflict with self-transcendence and
conservation values.
The circular structure of values entails predictions regarding the trade-
offs between values. Consider the case of planning a team-building activity.
Emphasising security values would lead the HRM to choose an activity that
has been used in the organisation many times before, which has a systematic
manual and predictable outcomes. Such a choice also conforms to organisa-
tional norms and expectations, and is thus compatible with conformity val-
ues. This choice is incompatible, however, with self-direction values, because
it does not allow for much curiosity and creativity. Emphasising self-direction
values would lead to plan team-building activities “off the beaten path”, that
would allow expressing independence and creativity. Such an adventurous
choice would challenge the status quo and express novelty. It is thus also
compatible with stimulation values.
Schwartz’s theory has been studied in cross-cultural research in more than
200 samples from over 70 countries. Overall, the findings provide strong
support for the theory, regarding both the content and the structure of val-
ues (Schwartz, 2005, 2015; Schwartz & Rubel, 2005; Davidov, Schmidt, &
Schwartz, 2008). The findings indicate that the meaning of the 10 value types
is similar across cultures. This makes values an invaluable tool for cross-cul-
tural research in general, and for investigating the meaning of behaviours
across cultures in particular (Roccas & Sagiv, 2010; Sagiv & Roccas, 2017).
Comparing the values of people from more than 50 nations reveals that peo-
ple generally agree about which values are most important (e.g., benevolence
values) and which are at the bottom of the hierarchy (e.g., power, tradition,
and stimulation values, Schwartz & Bardi, 2001). Despite this shared hierar-
chy, individuals differ substantially in how important each value is for them
and societies vary in the importance their members attribute to each value
(Schwartz, 1999; see a review in Sagiv et al., 2011a).
The research on personal values has led to the developments of a large
number of instruments measuring values. These instruments vary in length,
abstractness, broadness of items, response format, and more, all of which
have methodological implications (for a detailed discussion see Roccas et al.,
2017). Research indicates that the structure of values and their associations
with other variables are independent of the specific instrument used (e.g.,
Oishi, Schimmack, Diener, & Suh, 1998; Schwartz et al., 2001; Bardi, Lee,
Hofmann-Towfigh, & Soutar, 2009; Roccas & Elster, 2014; see a review in
Roccas et al., 2017). This allows for integrating the findings of research that
used different instruments to reach comprehensive conclusions.
Schwartz’s theory aims to comprehensively describe the basic human moti-
vational goals (Schwartz, 1992). Consequently, other models of values can
be interpreted in terms of this model. For example, Bilsky and Jehn (2002)
8 Arieli et al.
conceptually classified the work-value dimensions of the Organizational
Culture Profile (OCP; O’Reilly, Chatman, & Caldwell, 1991) into Schwartz’s
four higher-order values. Thus, innovation and risk taking were conceptual-
ised as manifestations of openness to change values, whereas stability and
decisiveness were conceptualised as manifestations of conservation values.
Multi-dimensional scaling (MDS) indicated that the structure of the OCP
dimensions resembles Schwartz’s value circle (Figure 2, Bilsky & Jehn, 2002).
In another research, McDonald and Gandz’s scale (1991) clustered their 24
items into three main groups that correspond with three of Schwartz’s high-
er-order values (Abbott, White, & Charles, 2005; see also Finegan, 2000).
The value cluster of humanity included values expressing self-transcendence
(e.g., cooperation, forgiveness), the vision cluster included values expressing
openness to change (e.g., creativity, initiatives), and the conservatism cluster
included values expressing conservation values (e.g., obedience, cautiousness).
A large-scale project provides further support for our claim that models of
work-values can be interpreted according to Schwartz’s typology (De Clercq
et al., 2008). Five experts classified 1,578 value items in 42 instruments and
typologies of work-values into one of the 10 value types in Schwartz’s model.
The experts were able to classify 92.5 per cent of the work-values items as
represented by one of the 10 values in Schwartz’s model. Drawing on these
findings, in the present review we integrated findings of studies drawing from
Schwartz’s values model and findings of other studies, by mapping all the
studies according to Schwartz’s model.
VALUES AND CAREER CHOICE

Values are influential in the development of vocational interests and career
choice (e.g., Rounds, 1990; Dawis & Lofquist, 1993). Choosing an occupa-
tion is a fruitful avenue to express values (Knafo & Sagiv, 2004). Values di-
rect the career paths people take even before they join a work organisation.
They are associated with aspects of the career choice, such as vocational
interests and work orientations.
Values and Vocational Interests

Vocational interests reflect individuals’ preferences for the activities that
are prevalent and the skills that are required in their work. Holland (1997)
identified six vocational interests, each corresponding to a compatible vo-
cational field: Conventional, Enterprising, Social, Artistic, Investigative
and Realistic. Like values, vocational interests are structured according
to their compatibilities and contradictions. Several studies in different cul-
tures investigated the relationships of values and interests. The first was
conducted among counsellees in career counselling in Israel (Sagiv, 2002).

9
Values at Work
Conventional interests reflect a preference for systematic tasks and an

avoidance of unsystematic, ambiguous or free activities (Holland, 1997).
They conflict with Artistic interests, which reflect a preference for free, ambig-
uous, unsystematic activities, and an avoidance of activities that are system-
atic, organised or restricted (Holland, 1997).
The contradiction between these interests is reflected in their associations
with values: Conventional interests were found associated with conservation
values that express the motivation to preserve the status quo. These interests
conflict with openness to change that express the motivation of openness to
new ideas and experiences, and to universalism values that express the moti-
vation for accepting all people. The opposite pattern of relationships was
found for Artistic interests.
Investigative interests reflect a preference for systematic, symbolic and cre-
ative investigation of abstract phenomena. Artistic and Investigative interests
differ in preferred activities and skills. However, their relationships with val-
ues are similar, reflecting their shared emphases on openness to new ideas and
experiences (Sagiv, 2002).
Social and Enterprising interests are adjacent according to Holland’s
model, sharing a preference for working with other people (Holland, 1997).
These interests, however, reflect different approaches towards people. Social
interests entail a preference for guiding, consulting and helping others. In
contrast, Enterprising interests entail a preference for convincing or lead-
ing others, aiming at gaining financial or organisational goals. Sagiv (2002)
proposed and showed that whereas Social and Enterprising interests reflect
similar abilities and skills, they differ and even conflict in the motivations
underlying them. Social interests positively correlate with benevolence values,
expressing the motivation of caring for others. Enterprising interests, in con-
trast, positively correlate with achievement and power that focus on self-in-
terest, and negatively correlate with universalism.
Finally, Realistic interests that reflect a preference for systematic manipu-
lation of objects, instruments or machines, are consistent with several differ-
ent, even conflicting, motivations (e.g., achievement, stimulation, security, see
Sagiv, 2002). Consequently, they were hypothesised and found to be unrelated
to any specific value.
These relationships are relatively stable across cultures, contexts and mea-
sures of values and vocational interests. They emerged in studies conducted
among university students in the USA (Sun, 2011) and Hong Kong (Bond,
Leung, Au, Tong, & Chemonges-Nielson, 2004), and among high-school stu-
dents in Brazil (Gouveia et al., 2008). Overall, the correlations between val-
ues and vocational interests are of weak to medium size (correlations range
0.15–0.50). We suggest that the social context may impact the strength of the
relationships between values and vocational interests. Strong relationships

10 Arieli et al.
are only possible in social contexts in which people can choose, at least to
some extent, the activities they engage in. In contrast, when choice is limited
– due to economic hardship, tight social norms and expectations, or lack of
role models – vocational interests may be unrelated to values (for a similar
approach regarding values and attitudes, see a meta-analysis by Boer and
Fischer, 2013).
VALUES AND OCCUPATIONS

Individuals in different occupations have different value profiles. For ex-
ample, conservation values, expressing a preference for stability, are more
important to accountants, bank front-line workers, shopkeepers, secre-
taries, medical technicians, and bookkeepers than to people from other
professions (e.g., Knafo & Sagiv, 2004; Tartakovsky & Cohen, 2014; Ariza-
Montes, Arjona-Fuentes, Han, & Law, 2017). In contrast, self-direction val-
ues, expressing the motivation for autonomy are particularly important to
artists and scientists (e.g., Sagiv & Werner, 2003; Knafo & Sagiv, 2004).
Self-transcendence values, expressing care for others, are particularly
important to teachers, psychologists, social-workers, physiotherapists and
counsellors, whereas the opposing self-enhancement values, expressing the
motivation for success, dominance and control, are particularly important
to economists, businesspeople, accountants, and managers (e.g., Sagiv &
Schwartz, 2000; Knafo & Sagiv, 2004; Gandal, Roccas, Sagiv, & Wrzesniewski,
2005; Nosse & Sagiv, 2005; Bardi et al., 2014; Arieli, Sagiv, & Cohen-Shalem,
2016; Ariza-Montes et al., 2017).
VALUE PROFILE OF MANAGERS

Do managers have a distinctive value profile? As an enterprising occupation,
management is associated with emphasising self-enhancement values (vs.
self-transcendence values). In a study comparing values of 32 professional
groups, managers valued self-enhancement more and self-transcendence less
compared to individuals in other professions (Knafo & Sagiv, 2004). Similar
value patterns were found in research investigating business schools, where
many managers-to-be gain their training. An emphasis on self-enhancement
was documented in organisational artifacts (Arieli et al., 2016), among fac-
ulty members (Arieli, 2006), and among business students in the UK (Bardi et
al., 2014), Finland (Myyry & Helkama, 2001), and Israel (Arieli et al., 2016).
Nevertheless, “managers” is a general term that applies to a large variety
of roles in organisations that may vary extensively in their mission. These
differences have implications for values. For example, research has shown that
school principals valued self-enhancement (versus self-transcendence) less
than managers in other organisations did (Knafo & Sagiv, 2004). A similar

11
Values at Work
pattern was found in a research comparing managers in non-profit organisa-

tions and managers in for-profit organisations from the same industry (Egri
& Herman, 2000). Ariza-Montes and colleagues (2017) compared managers
holding different roles (e.g., marketing, HR, finance). Their findings revealed
that although all managers shared an emphasis on self-enhancement (vs.
self-transcendence) values, they differed in their emphasis on other values.
For example, finance managers valued conservation more, and openness to
change less, than marketing managers.
Although research has documented mean differences between the values
of managers and those of people in other occupations, these findings do not
imply that all managers hold the same values. Individual managers vary in the
extent to which they emphasise self-enhancement versus self-transcendence
values, and these differences have implications for attitudes and behaviour. A
study of business students has shown, for example, that the importance they
attribute to power values was negatively associated with their moral reason-
ing (Lan, Gowing, McMahon, Rieger, & King, 2008).
Values and Work Orientations

Another way in which values relate to work is through their relationships
with work orientations. Work orientations reflect the way in which peo-
ple think about work (Rosso et al., 2010). Wrzesniewski and colleagues
(Wrzesniewski et al., 1997) distinguished between Job, Career and Calling
orientations towards work. The Job work-orientation reflects viewing work
as a means to gaining financial security. People endorsing this orientation
work to support themselves, and would relinquish work if they could afford
to do so. The Career orientation reflects a view of work as an opportunity
to advance oneself and as a means to climbing the career ladder. Finally,
the Calling orientation reflects viewing work as an opportunity for self-ful-
filment and as a means to making the world a better place (Wrzesniewski,
McCauley, Rozin, & Schwartz, 1997).
Values are related to these orientations because the work orientations dif-
fer in their emphasis on self-interests versus the interests of others, and thus
vary in how compatible they are with self-enhancement versus self-transcen-
dence values (Gandal et al., 2005). The Job orientation negatively correlated
with emphasising achievement values. The Career orientation, in contrast,
positively correlated with achievement and power values, and negatively cor-
related with universalism values. Finally, the Calling orientation positively
correlated with benevolence values (but, surprisingly, not with universalism).
This pattern of relationships was replicated both among Israeli undergrad-
uate students who were asked about their future work, and among American
working MBAs who were asked about their current job (Gandal et al., 2005).
A similar pattern was found among accountants in six cities in China in a

12 Arieli et al.
research focusing on career and calling orientations (Lan et al., 2013). The
consistency in findings across cultures and at different career stages points to
the stable motivations underlying work orientations.
In sum, the research reviewed in this section indicates that value priori-
ties of individuals are associated with the content of their professional choice
(i.e., which profession they choose for themselves), and with the meaning they
attribute to work. We next discuss the relationships between the values that
organisational members endorse, and their behaviour at work.
Values and Behaviour at Work

Individuals are motivated to act in ways that allow them to express their
important values and attain their underlying goals (e.g., Sagiv & Schwartz,
1995). Values predict behaviour in situations that are relevant to their core
motivational goals. Extensive research has documented relationships of
values and behaviour in the workplace. We organise the review of this body
of research according to the two main value conflicts in Schwartz’s the-
ory: openness to change versus conservation values, and self-enhancement
versus self-transcendence values. For each value conflict, we analyse the
behaviours that allow or hinder the expression of these values and review
the relevant empirical research (see Table 1 for a summary).
Openness to Change versus Conservation Values

In organisations, openness to change versus conservation values are rel-
evant to behaviours that involve change in the status quo, encourage or
threaten autonomy, or require deference or compliance to authorities (e.g.,
management, leaders). Our review of the literature revealed findings in
three organisational domains that are related to change in the organisa-
tion: creativity and innovation, proactivity and reaction to organisational
change. We also found research on compliance. We next discuss each.
Creativity and Innovation. Creativity is considered essential for

organisational prosperity and success (Miron, Erez, & Naveh, 2004; Cheng,
Sanchez-Burks, & Lee, 2008). Thus, ample research has been conducted,
aiming at identifying personal and situational factors that could foster
creativity. Generating novel, original ideas is a core aspect of creativity
(Guilford, 1950; Amabile, 1983). It is thus most compatible with openness
to change values and least compatible, even conflicting, with conservation.
The relationships of values to overt creative performance have been stud-
ied in several cultures. American students were presented with a series of
tasks that required creativity, such as writing a story, or solving an ambig-
uous mathematic problem. Independent judges then rated the products for

TABLE 1
Studies Investigating the Associations between Values and Behaviour at Work
Value Conflict Main Relevant Research Topic Research Projects Participants Culture
Themes
Openness to Change vs. Creativity and Arsenijević et al., 2012; Students, employees USA, Portugal, Egypt,
change vs. stability innovation Dollinger et al., 2007; in various Turkey, Serbia, Croatia
conservation Kasof et al., 2007; Kurt industries (banks, and
and Yahyagil, 2015; social service, Bosnia-Herzegovina
Rice, 2006; Sousa and more)
Coelho, 2011.
Proactive behaviour Grant and Rothbard, 2013 Employees in a water USA
in organisations treatment plant
Initiating organisa- Lipponen et al., 2008; Employees in day Finland
tional change Seppälä et al., 2012 care centres, social
service organisa-
tions, restaurant
chains

Reaction to Sverdlik and Oreg, 2009 University employees Israel
organisational and students
change initiated by
management
Autonomy vs. Organisational Elster and Sagiv, 2018; University employ- Israel
compliance identification Sverdlik and Oreg, ees, university
2015. faculty
Avoidance style in Anjum et al., 2014; Bond Students, some Hong Kong, China,
conflict resolution et al., 2004; Morris working adults India, the Philippines,
et al., 1998. USA, Pakistan
(Continued)
Values at Work
13
TABLE 1
(Continued)
Value Conflict Main Relevant Research Topic Research Projects Participants Culture
Themes
Self- Others’ Altruistic behaviour Arieli et al., 2014; Bardi Students and USA, Israel, UK,
Enhancement well-being and Schwartz, 2003; working adults Canada, the
vs. Maio and Olsen, 1995; Netherlands.
14 Arieli et al.
Self- Maio et al., 2009;

Transcendence Verplanken and
Holland, 2002.
Altruistic behaviour Cohen and Liu, 2011; Teachers, cadets in a USA, Israel, Finland
in organisations Grant, 2008; Lönnqvist military college,
et al., 2006; McNeely students in
and Meglino, 1994; Executive MBA
Sosik et al., 2009. programme,
admin employees,
employees in

fundraising
organisation
Self-promotion Status and prestige Fischer and Smith, 2004; Germany, UK, Israel
Gandal et al., 2005;
Roccas, 2003.
Competition vs. Lönnqvist et al., 2013; Students and Germany, Finland,
cooperation Sagiv et al., 2011b. employees China, West Bank,
Israel, USA
Competition conflict Anjum et al., 2014; Bond Students Hong Kong, China,
resolution et al., 2004; Morris et al., India, the Philippines,
1998. USA, Pakistan
15
Values at Work
their creativity. In both studies creative performance was positively cor-

related with openness to change values (self-direction and stimulation) and
negatively correlated with conservation values (tradition, conformity and
security; Dollinger, Burke, & Gump, 2007; Kasof, Chuansheng, Himsel, &
Greenberger, 2007). Similarly, self-direction and stimulation values correlated
positively, and tradition values correlated negatively with self-reported cre-
ativity among media students in Serbia, Croatia and Bosnia-Herzegovina
(Arsenijević, Bulatović, & Bulatović, 2012).
Research conducted among employees who reported their own creativity
yielded similar findings. Self-reported creativity of frontline-service employ-
ees in a large bank in Portugal correlated positively with openness to change
versus conservation values (Sousa & Coelho, 2011). Similarly, self-reported
creativity correlated positively with self-direction values and negatively with
conformity values among employees from diverse industries in Egypt (Rice,
2006), and it correlated positively with self-direction values among members
of service organisations in Turkey (Kurt & Yahyagil, 2015).
Taken together, a consistent pattern of relationships between creativity
and openness to change versus conservation values was found in studies con-
ducted in organisations – in which the behaviour was self-reported, and in
controlled studies among students – in which overt behaviour was observed
and the creative product was judged by experts. The correlations of creativity
to other values were also investigated in several studies, yielding some cor-
relations between creativity and the importance of self-enhancement versus
self-transcendence values. However, the findings were inconsistent in strength
and sometimes in their directions across studies. This may indicate that the
relationships are context-dependent (Sousa & Coelho, 2011).
Creativity is but one path towards change in organisations. Organisational
change can be initiated by employees, through bottom-up processes, or it can
be encouraged, sometimes imposed, by the management, through top-down
policies and procedures. We next review research on the relationship of val-
ues to organisational change. We start with studies investigating employees’
proactivity and initiatives for possible change. We then discuss research on
reactions to organisational change initiated by the management, comparing
reactions to voluntary versus imposed change.
Proactive Behaviour in Organisations. Proactive behaviour involves

striving for change to achieve a better future, and is considered self-
driven, change-oriented, and focused on the future. These characteristics
are most compatible with openness to change values and least compatible
with conservation values (Parker, Bindl, & Strausss, 2010). So far, only
few studies investigated these relationships empirically. For example, the
importance of openness to change work-values predicted inclination for

16 Arieli et al.
proactivity at work (e.g., Nascimento, Porto, & Kwantes, 2018). Grant and
Rothbard (2013) studied proactive behaviour in a water treatment plant, by
asking employees to report their security and prosocial values, and their
supervisors to report the employees’ proactive work behaviour. Consistent
with the analysis of Parker and colleagues (2010) proactivity was negatively
predicted by security values. Interestingly, it was also positively predicted
by prosocial behaviour.
Initiating ideas for organisational change is a proactive behaviour that is
often regarded as an important type of organisational citizenship behaviour
(Initiative OCB). Studying day care centres in Finland, Lipponen, Bardi, and
Haapamäki (2008) reasoned that coming up with initiatives for change in the
organisation is compatible with novelty seeking and with the motivation to
express independence of thought and action. Consistent with this reason-
ing, emphasising openness to change (vs. conservation) values was associated
with suggestion-making at work. This was found when the extent of sugges-
tion-making was self-reported by the employees as well as when it was rated
by the employees’ supervisors (albeit to a lesser extent).
Interestingly, the impact of openness to change values on suggestion-mak-
ing was stronger among employees who identified highly with the organi-
sation. Lipponen and colleagues (2008) reasoned that employees who value
openness to change but do not identify with the organisation, are likely to
find alternative venues for initiatives (i.e., for expressing their openness to
change values). Identification with the organisation motivates individuals
to contribute to the organisation. Thus, when combined with identification,
openness to change values are more likely to yield initiative OCB.
In a follow-up study in two other sectors in Finland (a restaurant chain
and a social service organisation), supervisors rated the extent to which their
subordinates engaged in initiative OCB. Again, the behaviour was more
prominent among employees who emphasised openness to change (vs. con-
servation) values and highly identified with the organisation. This pattern
emerged mainly among participants with a strong sense of power (Seppälä,
Lipponen, Bardi, & Pirttilä-Backman, 2012). Thus, the relationships between
values and initiatives for organisational change may be moderated by per-
sonal factors (e.g., identification, sense of power). Future studies are needed,
however, in order to investigate such factors in depth.
Contextual factors may also affect the relationship of values to the will-
ingness to propose change in organisations. For example, in the research on
proactivity at work reviewed above (Grant & Rothbard, 2013), ambiguity of
the organisational context (conceptualised as absence of certainty and clarity)
moderated the relationships between values and behaviour. When ambiguity
was high, engagement in proactive behaviour at work correlated negatively with
the importance attributed to security values, and positively with the importance

17
Values at Work
attributed to prosocial values. In contrast, under clarity (i.e., low ambiguity),

values did not predict proactivity. These results are consistent with the idea that
in “strong” situations (i.e., when behavioural expectations are clear and ambi-
guity is low) personal characteristics have less influence on behaviour (Cooper
& Withey, 2009). Future research may consider additional contextual factors,
such as the size of the organisation, or its prevailing norms, and investigate
their effect on the relationships between values and initiatives for change.
Reactions to Organisational Change Initiated by the Management. Change

that is initiated by management may have different meaning and motivational
implications than change initiated by employees. The distinction between
imposed and voluntary change has almost never been examined in the
context of values. We have located one programme of research that focused
on this distinction. In a series of studies, Sverdlik and Oreg (2009) theorised
that the relationship of values to organisational change depends on whether
the change is voluntary (i.e., members can choose whether to adopt it), or
imposed (i.e., members have no choice but to adapt to it). The relationships
of values to voluntary change are straightforward: voluntary changes are
compatible with the motivation at the core of openness to change values,
and incompatible with the motivation at the core of conservation values.
Imposed organisational changes, however, produce conflicting motiva-
tional reactions. Change allows novelty and is thus compatible with openness
to change values. When change is imposed, however, it hinders one’s auton-
omy and independence, and is thus incompatible with openness to change
values. The same conflict emerges with regards to conservation values: change
threatens the status quo, and is thus incompatible with conservation values.
However, when the change is imposed by the organisation it allows employ-
ees to express the motivation for obedience and compliance, and is therefore
likely to yield positive reactions the more important conservation values are.
To tease apart the conflicting effects of novelty versus stability, and auton-
omy versus compliance, Sverdlik and Oreg (2009) examined the relationships
of values to organisational change, while controlling for the trait of resistance
for change (Oreg, 2003). They postulated that resistance for change is com-
patible with the stability aspect of conservation values and is incompatible
with the novelty aspect of openness to change values. Thus, when resistance
to change was controlled for, support for imposed organisational change –
relocation of a university campus to a different town – was positively cor-
related with conservation and negatively correlated with openness to change
values. In other words, when the desire for novelty was controlled for, imposed
change was embraced by those who value compliance (i.e., emphasise conser-
vation values) and rejected by those who value autonomy (i.e., emphasise
openness to change values).

18 Arieli et al.
To further show the moderating role of imposed (versus voluntary) change,
Sverdlik and Oreg (2009) conducted an experiment in which they investigated
reactions of students to alleged changes in the university’s teaching meth-
ods (e.g., adding mandatory online courses). The students were randomly
assigned to an imposed condition (the change in teaching methods would
take place the following year and affect all students), or a voluntary condition
(the change would take place in the distant future and students will be able
to choose whether to take part of it or not). When the organisational change
was voluntary, support was positively correlated with openness to change val-
ues and negatively correlated with conservation values. Under the imposed
condition, the correlations were insignificant, in the opposite direction. Here
again, when the trait of resistance to change was controlled for, conservation
values positively predicted support in the imposed change.
Together, these findings indicate that emphasising openness to change val-
ues is associated with support for voluntary change. In contrast, those who
emphasise conservation values are less likely to initiate or embrace change.
When change is imposed, however, they may be more likely to support it than
those who emphasise openness to change values. This support does not reflect
a desire for change but rather the motivation to comply with the expectation
of authority figures.
In sum, values shed light on the mechanisms underlying reactions to organ-
isational change, initiated by employees or by their managers. Organisational
members, however, are part of teams, units and departments, whose values
are likely to affect initiation of change and reactions to it. Thus, for exam-
ple, organisational members may be more likely to propose changes the more
their team members emphasise openness to change values, because they may
expect that in such an environment their proposal will be seriously consid-
ered. Similarly, managers may be more likely to impose change the more their
board directors emphasise openness values, because board members may
expect the organisation to implement new policies and practices. Research
on reactions to organisational change is still at its early stages. Future stud-
ies could identify contexts and inter-dynamics in organisations, and con-
sider their impact on the relationships of values to organisational change. In
addition, research could delve into the content and direction of changes in
organisations and investigate how they are affected by personal values of the
leaders and employees. For example, would leaders that emphasise openness
to change values promote organisational culture emphasising adhocracy?
Compliance and Accommodation in the Work Context. Several studies

have exemplified the positive impact of conservation values on compliance
to organisational authorities. Sverdlik and Oreg (2015) found that when
organisational change was imposed, emphasising conservation (vs. openness

19
Values at Work
to change) values positively predicted identification with the organisation.

In an ongoing research among university faculty members (Elster and
Sagiv, 2018), emphasising conformity values predicted satisfaction with
top management and deference identification (i.e., idealisation of the
organisational symbols and leadership, see Roccas et al., 2008), two and
four years after the participants reported their values.
Studies on conflict resolution styles among students from multiple cultures
(China, India, the Philippines, the United States, and Hong Kong) indicated
that emphasising conservation values was positively associated with conflict
avoidance, an accommodating, yielding style of conflict resolution (Morris
et al., 1998; Bond et al., 2004). This finding was replicated in a recent study
conducted in Pakistan, among a combined sample of students and working
adults (Anjum, Karim, & Bibi, 2014).
In sum, the value dimension contrasting openness to change to conser-
vation is relevant to organisational contexts of change versus stability, and
autonomy versus compliance. Individuals who value conservation are likely
to thrive in contexts of stability and to play along with managements’ require-
ments. Those who value openness to change are likely to thrive in contexts
that require novelty and allow autonomy. The pattern of results is consistent
across cultures and industries, indicating their robustness.
Self-Enhancement versus Self-Transcendence Values

In organisations, self-transcendence versus self-enhancement values are
relevant to behaviours directed at promoting the welfare and well-being of
others, and to behaviours expressing competitiveness, pursuing position
and status. Below we review the most studied behaviours that are related to
this conflict: Altruistic behaviour, actions directed at achieving status and
prestige, and competition versus cooperation.
Altruistic Behaviour. Altruistic behaviour is intended to protect or

enhance the welfare and well-being of others. Self-transcendence values
were found consistently related to altruistic behaviours, such as volunteering
to help others (Maio, Pakizeh, Cheung, & Rees, 2009; Arieli et al., 2014),
donating money to charity or to social organisations (Maio & Olson, 1995;
Verplanken & Holland, 2002), and acts of everyday kindness (e.g., Bardi &
Schwartz, 2003; see a review in Sanderson & McQuilkin, 2017).
The relationships of values to altruistic behaviours in organisations have
been studied less extensively. So far, the findings are similar to those found
in other social contexts. For example, the importance managers attributed to
self-transcendence values was positively correlated with the extent to which
their employees described them as acting altruistically (Sosik, Jung, & Dinger,

20 Arieli et al.
2009). In a study among secretaries in an American university, social concern
values (measured by the CES, Ravlin & Meglino, 1987) predicted behaviour
directed at benefiting other employees (McNeely & Meglino, 1994). Similarly,
in a study among Israeli teachers, altruistic OCB (e.g., being helpful to col-
leagues) was associated mainly with benevolence values (Cohen & Liu, 2011).
A research among male cadets in a military college in Finland has shown
that the extent to which they engage in altruistic behaviour (as reported by
their peers) was positively related with valuing universalism and negatively
related with valuing power and achievement (Lönnqvist, Leikas, Paunonen,
Nissinen, & Verkasalo, 2006). Interestingly, conformity values moderated
these relationships: universalism values predicted the altruistic behaviour
more, the less importance the cadets attributed to conformity values. That is,
cadets who attribute low importance to conformity were more likely to act on
their values than those who emphasised conformity.
The impact of self-transcendence values on altruistic behaviour was also
studied in a field experiment conducted in a university fundraising organ-
isation (Study 3, Grant, 2008). The participants were callers who solicited
donations for students’ scholarships. In the experimental condition, the par-
ticipants read letters from students who received financial support from the
foundation, and have shared their personal stories, detailing how the schol-
arships helped them. Participants in the control condition read materials
about organisational policy and procedures. Fundraising (i.e., the number of
pledges that callers obtained for donations) was significantly higher in the
experimental (vs. control) condition – but only among those who attributed
high importance to benevolence values. That is, only employees who strongly
valued concern for others were influenced by an intervention emphasising the
significance of their work for the welfare of others.
Emphasising Status and Prestige. Status and prestige are key aspects of
organisations, defining the placement of employees in the organisation, and
the placement of the organisation in the industry. Self-enhancement values
are related to both aspects of status. A case in point is the relationships of
values to the support of specific reward systems. Reward systems are one
of the ways in which organisations formally assign status to their members,
and they vary in how competitive and differentiating among organisational
members they are (e.g., everybody receives the same salary vs. a pyramid
system in which few receive a high salary and many receive a low salary). A
study conducted in Germany and the UK focused on reward systems based
on work performance and on seniority. Both types of systems are competitive
in nature and intensify individual differences. Both are therefore compatible
with the motivation underlying self-enhancement values, and conflict with
the emphasis on equality and justice underlying self-transcendence values.

21
Values at Work
Accordingly, organisational members perceived these reward systems as

just, the more they emphasised self-enhancement values and the less they
emphasised self-transcendence values (Fischer & Smith, 2004).
Values also affect the importance members attribute to the status and pres-
tige of their organisations. Ample research showed that individuals identify
more strongly with groups that enjoy high status or prestige (Tajfel & Turner,
1979; Mael & Ashforth, 1992). Roccas (2003) reasoned, however, that these
relationships depend on values. Studying university students, she showed that
the prestige-identification relationship was positive the more students valued
self-enhancement and the less they valued self-transcendence. These find-
ings were replicated in a study comparing two groups that differed in their
value emphasis: economics students (who emphasise self-enhancement val-
ues) and employees of an environmental organisation (who emphasise self-
transcendence values). As expected, the perceived status of the organisation
was related to the level of identification with it among economics students, but
not among employees of the environmental organisation (Gandal et al., 2005).
Competition versus Cooperation. Organisational members often have

to choose whether to compete – aiming at personal gain, possibly at the
expense of others – or to cooperate with others, possibly at some cost
to themselves. To simulate competition versus cooperation situations,
researchers often study behaviour in social-dilemma games (also termed
economic or strategic games). In these games, the incentives and costs of
each decision are made clear to the participants, and the researchers can
observe overt behaviour that simulates real life behaviour. Various games
have been developed to study different contextual factors that can influence
competition and cooperation. In some games, the possible choices of the
participants can lead to attaining a distinct motivational goal. In these
situations, values are likely to guide the behaviour.
Consider, for example, the “Trust” game. In this social-dilemma game one
partner (the Trustor) receives an amount of money from the experimenter,
and has to decide whether to forward the sum to her partner or save it for
herself. If money is forwarded, it is tripled. The partner (the Trustee) then
has to decide whether and how much of the tripled amount to send back to
the Trustor. Lönnqvist and colleagues (Lönnqvist, Verkasalo, Wichardt, &
Walkowitz, 2013) reasoned that the behavioural choice of the Trustee allows
for expressing mainly the motivation to care for others. Reciprocating in this
game is therefore compatible with self-transcendence values. The Trustor’s
role, in contrast, allows for both the motivation to care for others, and the
motivation to gain money (because the sum will be tripled if the trustee
reciprocates). Thus, this behaviour may be compatible with either self-
transcendence or self-enhancement values.

22 Arieli et al.
Demonstrating this reasoning, Lönnqvist and colleagues (2013) conducted
a meta-analysis on a large number of studies conducted in Finland, Germany
and Israel. These studies included several types of games (e.g., the Trust game,
Ultimatum, Prisoner’s Dilemma). The researchers classified the roles in these
games, distinguishing between roles that clearly allowed expressing the moti-
vation of care for others (e.g., the Trustee role) and roles that could express
multiple, even conflicting motivations (e.g., the Trustor role). As expected,
in the first type of roles participants were more likely to cooperate, the more
importance they attributed to self-transcendence values (universalism in par-
ticular), and the less importance they attributed to power values. In contrast,
the behaviours in the second type of roles (e.g., the Trustors) were weakly and
inconsistently related to values.
Sagiv et al. (2011b) developed and studied two dilemma games designed
to simulate organisational situations of competition versus cooperation. The
participants had to decide whether to cooperate by contributing an amount
of money to their partner (Study 1, conducted in Israel) or to their group
(Study 2, conducted in the USA), or to compete by keeping the money for
themselves. Competing resulted in receiving more money, regardless of what
the other participants in the game chose to do. Thus, competing would
be compatible with emphasising power values, whereas cooperating (i.e.,
contributing money) would be compatible with self-transcendence (in partic-
ular benevolence) values. The findings in both studies supported the expected
pattern. Moreover, values predicted the competition/cooperation behaviour
above and beyond the prediction of personality traits (Study 1, Sagiv et al.,
2011b).
Conflict resolution styles provide another example for the association
between values and the tendency to compete. In studies conducted in multiple
cultures, the importance attributed to self-enhancement values was positively
related to a competing style of conflict resolution (i.e., focusing on self-gain)
(MBA and psychology students from China, India, the Philippines, the USA,
and Hong Kong, as well as students and working adults in Pakistan; Morris
et al., 1998; Bond et al., 2004; Anjum et al., 2014).
In sum, past research consistently shows that self-transcendence versus
self-enhancement values are relevant to organisational contexts of help and
contribution to others, and to competition versus cooperation. Employees
who value self-transcendence are more likely to engage in altruistic behaviour,
and to opt for cooperation over competition. In contrast, employees who
value self-enhancement pay close attention to status and prestige and opt for
competitive actions. As both cooperation and competition are essential for
organisational thriving, leaders could rely on these findings to build work
teams and assign tasks, considering the values of their employees and the
extent to which these tasks require collaboration.

23
Values at Work
Values and Behaviour in Organisations: Summary

Our review outlines the behaviours that have been studied so far. Additional
organisational behaviours, that have not been studied yet, are also likely to
be associated with values. For example, emphasising openness to change ver-
sus conservation values is also likely to predict risk taking, coping with role
ambiguity, and actions that may affect organisational agility. Emphasising
self-transcendence versus self-enhancement values may predict engaging
in impression management, implementing policies ensuring employment
equality, and corporate responsible behaviour. Future research could in-
vestigate these and other behaviours, thus broadening the knowledge of the
associations between values and behaviour.
The strength of the associations between values and behaviour vary across
studies, ranging from small to medium effect sizes (0.15–0.60). Many factors
may moderate, either amplifying or hindering, the strength of the associa-
tions. We discussed some moderators, including personal (e.g., identification,
sense of power, conformism) and situational factors (e.g., ambiguity), but
there are probably more that have not been studied yet. For example, eco-
logical and economic constraints (e.g., living in an underdeveloped country,
or experiencing disease stress) weaken the association between values and
attitudes (Boer & Fischer, 2013). These constraints may also affect the extent
to which values guide behaviour.
Most of the behaviours reviewed above allow attaining primarily one
set of motivations (e.g., creativity expressing openness to change, altruistic
behaviour expressing self-transcendence). Other behaviours, however, may
allow attaining multiple motivations, even conflicting ones. Consider the case
of Organisational Citizenship Behaviours (OCB). There are multiple types of
OCBs and they differ in the motivations they allow to express (Koys, 2001;
LePine, Erez, & Johnson, 2002). Initiatives OCB is associated with openness
to change values (Lipponen, Bardi, & Haapamäki, 2008), whereas altruistic
OCB is associated with benevolence values (Cohen & Liu, 2011). When the
general tendency to engage in OCB is measured, however, multiple values,
even conflicting ones, may predict it (for an empirical example see Arthaud-
Day, Rode, & Turnley, 2012).
Managers’ Values and their Impact on Other

Organisational Levels
The strategic leadership echelon of organisations (e.g., founders, top man-
agement executives) influence organisations through a top-down, hier-
archical, process. They have a central role in shaping the organisational
culture and climate (Schneider, Goldstein, & Smith, 1995; E. H. Schein,

24 Arieli et al.
2010). Like other organisational members, people in leadership roles seek
to act on their values. Their position in the organisation, however, allows
them to infuse their values into the organisation, influencing the organisa-
tion and their employees. Several studies have demonstrated how managers’
values penetrate other organisational levels, influencing strategic decisions,
organisational culture, and subordinate behaviour.
Value preferences of top managers are expected to shape their strategic
decisions, and thereby affect the organisation (e.g., Hambrick & Mason,
1984). However, empirical evidence for the impact of managers’ values on
their decisions is still scarce. A study of directors of public corporations in
Sweden investigated this relationship (Adams, Licht, & Sagiv, 2011). The par-
ticipants were presented with managerial dilemmas contrasting the interests
of shareholders with those of other stakeholders of the firm (e.g., employees,
customers). They had to state whether they would side with the shareholders
or with the stakeholders. One dilemma, for example, described a firm that
is about to close down. After filling all legal obligations, there is still some
money left. The managers were asked to decide whether to split the money
among the shareholders, or to use some of it to pay the companies’ employ-
ees more than the minimum to which they are legally entitled. The decisions
of the managers reflected their values: valuing power, achievement, and to
a lesser extent, self-direction, predicted siding with shareholders’ interests,
whereas valuing universalism predicted siding with the interests of other
stakeholders. Managers’ values predicted significantly their decisions even
when controlling for personal factors (e.g., gender, age, organisational role)
and firm-level factors (e.g., size, profitability, industry).
Due to their role in organisations, managers’ values affect not only their
own decisions and actions but also those of their subordinates. Oreg and
Berson (2011) studied public schools in Israel during a governmental initia-
tive for an organisational reform. They reasoned that under conditions of
ambiguity and potential change, followers (in this case, the schools’ teach-
ers) are especially likely to look up to their leaders (here, schools’ principals)
as a source of certainty and guidance, and hence be especially attentive to
their views and expectations. Accordingly, the more importance the principal
attributed to openness to change (vs. conservation) values, the less likely were
the teachers in his/her school to resist the proposed change.
Another path through which managers’ values may impact their employees
is through their impact on the organisational culture, which, in turn, affects
the behaviour of organisational members. Studying Israeli companies in mul-
tiple industries (i.e., high-tech, appliances, paper, and food), Berson, Oreg,
and Dvir (2008) exemplified this path: the values emphasised by the CEOs
were related to the organisational culture, which in turn predicted organisa-
tional behaviour of the employees. Thus, the importance CEOs attributed

25
Values at Work
to self-direction values positively predicted an “innovative” culture, which,

in turn, positively predicted the companies’ sales growth as well as employ-
ees’ satisfaction. The importance CEOs attributed to security values, in
contrast, positively predicted a “bureaucratic” culture, which, in turn, posi-
tively predicted organisational efficiency and negatively predicted employees’
satisfaction. Finally, the importance CEOs attributed to benevolence values
positively predicted a “supportive” culture, which, in turn, positively pre-
dicted employees’ satisfaction, but negatively predicted the sales growth.
In sum, the value profile of managers can impact organisations through
multiple pathways. They affect the decisions and behaviours of managers, as
well as those of their subordinates. The values that are important to manag-
ers also impact the organisational culture, and through it further affect what
happens in the organisation. So far, only few studies have examined these
pathways. Thus, little is yet known on the processes through which values at
one organisational level are diffused into other organisational levels.
Person-Organisation Value Fit

Our review above indicates that managers and other organisational mem-
bers tend to act in ways that are consistent with their values and hence
allow them to attain their important goals. This is not always possible,
however. For example, in organisations that value stability and adherence
to well-established traditions, employees are unlikely to make suggestions
for change or act creatively, even if they emphasise openness to change val-
ues. To understand how values are related to behaviour in organisational
settings we thus need to understand the personal values of organisational
members, the values emphasised in their work environment, and the align-
ment between them. This alignment, or fit, between people and their work
environment has been the focus of ample research.
Person-Environment fit has been conceptualised in terms of skills, voca-
tional interests, values and more (see conceptual and empirical reviews in
Spokane, 1985; Chatman, 1989; Edwards, 1996; Tsabari, Tziner, & Meir,
2005; Edwards & Cable, 2009). Organisational scholars advocated for focus-
ing on value-based fit, because values are enduring characteristics of both
individuals and organisations (e.g., Chatman, 1991; Schneider et al., 1995).
The organisational environment incorporates multiple elements that can be
characterised in terms of their prominent values. Researchers have studied
the fit between personal values and the values of one’s organisation, job,
supervisor and work group (see a review and meta-analysis in Kristof-Brown,
Zimmerman, & Johnson, 2005).
Person-Environment fit has been understood either as complementary
or as supplementary. Both types of fit predict similar positive outcomes,

26 Arieli et al.
such as performance, job satisfaction, and well-being, but they offer differ-
ent theoretical explanations for why fit should lead to such positive effects.
Complementary fit focuses on need fulfillment, arguing that employees
are influenced by the extent to which their skills qualify the organisation’s
requirements, or their wishes are met by the features of the environment.
Supplementary fit, in contrast, focuses on values congruency, arguing that
employees are influenced by the extent to which their values are similar to
those of the organisation. Most research on value-based fit focused on sup-
plementary fit (see Cable & Edwards, 2004). Below we focus mainly on stud-
ies stemming from the supplementary fit tradition.
Implications and Consequences of Person-Environment

Fit
The notion that person-organisation values congruency, or fit, has positive
implications for people and organisations, has been central in decades of
organisational and psychological research, relying on a variety of theories
(e.g., Chatman, 1989; Edwards, 1996; Kristof-Brown et al., 2005; Edwards &
Cable, 2009). We next review some of the main findings.
Job Satisfaction and Work Engagement. Extensive research supports

the notion that value-based fit is related to job satisfaction, organisational
commitment, and low turnover intentions (e.g., Chatman, 1989; Edwards,
1996; Kristof-Brown et al., 2005; Edwards & Cable, 2009). In their seminal
research, O’Reilly, Chatman, and Caldwell (1991) assessed the fit between
the values emphasised by their participants (accountants and MBA students)
and by their organisations. Value fit predicted higher job satisfaction, and
organisational commitment a year later, and lower turnover intentions
two years later. A meta-analysis (Kristof-Brown et al., 2005) revealed the
robustness of this pattern of results. Value-based fit positively predicted
job satisfaction [k = 45, N = 23,211; average r = 0.41] and organisational
commitment [k = 28, N = 18,589; average r = 0.56]. In contrast, value
fit negatively predicted turnover intentions [k = 32, N = 18,222, average
r = −0.38].
Edwards and Cable (2009) investigated some of the mechanisms that
account for these effects of fit. They proposed that value fit improves com-
munication in the organisation, increases employees’ sense of predictability
regarding organisational behaviour, their attraction to other organisational
members, and their trust in the organisation. Each of these four factors was
expected to yield job satisfaction, organisational commitment and intentions
to stay in the organisation. Studying water treatment agencies, the researchers
found that the correlations of subjective value fit with job satisfaction and

27
Values at Work
organisational identification were partly mediated by trust and, to a lesser

extent, by interpersonal attraction. Thus, the findings provided some support
for the processes through which fit exerts its effects. Additional research is
needed, however, to further test this model.
Subjective Well-being. Alignment between the values of the individual

and those prevailing in the environment is also beneficial to individuals’
well-being (see review in Sagiv et al., 2015). For example, Edwards and
Rothbard (1999) showed that the congruency between one’s values and the
values emphasised in her work and family environments predicted well-
being. Similarly, studying business and psychology students, Sagiv and
Schwartz (2000) found that well-being was predicted by the fit between
students’ values and the values prevailing in their academic department.
Sagiv and Schwartz (2000) proposed three mechanisms that could explain
the link between value fit and well-being. The first, termed affordances, sug-
gests that value-congruent environments provide individuals with oppor-
tunities to act on their values and fulfil their important goals. The second
mechanism suggests that agreement between the person and those working
with her regarding value priorities yields social support, which is crucial for
subjective well-being. In contrast, individuals who express values that oppose
those prevailing in the environment, are more likely to be ignored, even ostra-
cised. The third mechanism suggests that when individuals are exposed to
a new environment in which the prevailing values differ, or even contradict
their own, they are likely to experience a clash between their original value
patterns and the value patterns they are expected to internalise. This inter-
nal conflict may be detrimental to their subjective well-being. Indirect evi-
dence provides support to these mechanisms (Sagiv & Schwartz, 2000). More
research is needed, however, to directly test them.
Performance. So far, little is known about the effect of fit on

performance. We were able to locate one study that exemplified the positive
effect that value fit may have on performance (Andersson, Huysentruyt,
Miettinen, & Stephan, 2016). Using an experimental paradigm, this study
investigated the impact of person-organisation fit on performance in
a team-game that required exerting effort to win a prize that would be
equally distributed among the team members. The participants’ values were
assessed and the organisational values were primed. Performance reached
the highest level when both the participant and the organisation emphasised
prosocial (vs. pro-self) values. This effect did not emerge in a game in which
individuals rather than teams competed.
In sum, ample research provides evidence for the positive impact of val-
ue-based fit on personal and organisational outcomes. Relatively little is

28 Arieli et al.
known about the processes, or mechanisms, through which value fit leads
to these positive outcomes – or how value misfit blocks them. Studying the
mechanisms that have been proposed (e.g., Sagiv & Schwartz, 2000; Edwards
& Cable, 2009) requires complex, longitudinal research designs and diverse
research methods. Such studies should take into account macro-level moder-
ators such as culture, or economic growth (e.g., Sortheix & Lönnqvist, 2014).
Two Paths towards Person-Environment Fit: Selection

and Socialisation
The congruency in values between the person and the work environment
could be a product of selection, socialisation, or both. Below we discuss
each in turn.
Selection. Selection is a dual process: Organisational selection is the

process through which organisations select their members. Self-selection is
the process through which people actively choose to engage in a specific
occupation or join a specific organisation. To date, organisational selection
is typically based on skills, accomplishments or background, and rarely
addresses values (e.g., Judge & Ferris, 1992; Elms, Nicholson, & Pugliese,
2015). In contrast, people often prefer work environments that express
values similar to their own (Pervin, 1989; Schneider et al., 1995; Sagiv &
Schwartz, 2000).
To find whether self-selection occurs, it is important to examine value pro-
files of people at the very beginning of their career, before they were socialised
to internalise the values prevalent in their profession or organisation. Arieli
and her colleagues (2016) studied the value priorities of freshmen, comparing
business and social work students in an Israeli university. The researchers
focused on these two academic departments because they express opposing
value patterns, despite being similar in many structural respects (e.g., teach-
ing-programme structure, selection processes, and acceptance thresholds).
The findings indicated that as early as in the first week of studies, the stu-
dents in the two departments differed in their values, and hold value patterns
that matched the value profile of their department. The business students
emphasised self-enhancement more and self-transcendence less than social
work students. Similar findings were found in a study comparing business
and psychology students in the UK (Bardi et al., 2014).
Self-selection processes are not limited to choosing a field of study. Past
studies indicated that individuals self-select themselves into organisations
and jobs that match their preferences and goals (e.g., Chatman, 1991; Turban
& Keon, 1993; Cable & Judge, 1997). Studying accounting firms, Chatman
(1991) showed that even organisations from the same industry differed in

29
Values at Work
their organisational values, each having a unique profile, thus attracting and
selecting candidates whose values fit the values of the organisation.
Socialisation. Organisational socialisation is the process through

which employees learn how to comply with and adopt to organisational
practices and values (Van Maanen & Schein, 1979; Fisher, 1986; Louis,
1990). Research on value socialisation investigated both students at the
beginning of their career and employees in work organisations.
To examine whether students’ values change in light of the socialisation
they experience during their studies, Arieli and colleagues (2016) compared
the value patterns of first- and third-year business and social work students.
The findings did not reveal any value difference between the two cohorts. A
followed-up longitudinal study tracking the value patterns of business stu-
dents at the beginning and at the end of their first year yielded similar find-
ings. The only significant change was in benevolence values, which became
somewhat less important throughout the year. Similar findings emerged in a
one-year longitudinal study in the UK among business and psychology stu-
dents (Bardi et al., 2014) and in a cross-sectional study among economics
students (Gandal et al., 2005).
Together, these results indicate that the value patterns of students in differ-
ent academic departments are quite stable throughout their studies, and that
socialisation during the academic training cannot account for the differences
in value patterns of individuals in various professions. University depart-
ments seem to have little effect on the values of their students. Importantly,
however, these studies focused on basic values. Socialisation during profes-
sional training may yield change in other personal attributes, such as work-
related attitudes, specific goals and behaviours.
It is also possible that socialisation effects on personal values of university
students are moderated by the cultural context. Students in individualistic
cultures (e.g., Israel and the UK) are encouraged to choose a profession that
fits their personal characteristics (abilities, traits, values). They are therefore
likely to self-select themselves to professions that are congruent with their
values and will allow them to attain their underlying goals. Individuals in
collectivistic cultures, in contrast, are expected to follow social norms and
expectations. Moreover, they are likely to be especially attentive to cues in the
environment regarding what is important and worthy (see Boer & Fischer,
2013). Thus, students in such cultures are likely to rely less on self-selection
and be more affected by socialisation (Wheeler, Reis, & Bond, 1989; Chatard
& Selimbegovic, 2007). Consistent with this rationale, a study among eco-
nomics students in Latvia (a relatively collectivistic culture) found an increase
in the importance of power and hedonism values over a two-year period,

30 Arieli et al.
especially for students in programmes that focused exclusively on econom-
ics and whose friends were fellow economics students (Racko, Strauss, &
Burchell, 2017).
What about employees in work organisations? Researchers argued that
socialisation can strengthen person-organisation fit, which in turn is expected
to increase organisational commitment and decrease turnover (see a review
in Cable & Parsons, 2001). Thus, for example, in a study of accounting firms,
exposure to organisational socialisation during the first year of employment
(e.g., attending the firm’s social activities, spending time with a mentor) pre-
dicted person-organisation fit at the end of that year. That is, the personal
values of these newcomers changed to match the values of the organisa-
tion. As expected, this value change resulted in increased satisfaction and
decreased turnover intentions among the new employees (Chatman, 1991).
In another study, the perceived value fit between employees and their organi-
sation correlated with socialisation tactics that focused on social interactions
and on the content of the information given through the socialisation process
(Cable & Parsons, 2001).
Most studies on value-based socialisation reviewed so far have investigated
perceived fit or work-related values. Perceived fit may not indicate an actual
value change, but rather a change in the perception of organisational values.
Work-related values are more contextual than basic values, and are hence
more likely to be malleable. Indeed, some researchers have doubted the power
of socialisation process in altering personal values of employees (Lusk &
Oliver, 1974; Dose, 1997). Studying basic values, Bardi and colleagues (2014)
investigated police trainees in the UK at the beginning of their training and
nine months later. Training included classroom studies, field experience and
mentoring by police organisational members. There was evidence of marginal
value change, but it was not in the direction expected due to organisational
socialisation. Thus, even extensive, planned organisational socialisation may
yield only minimal change of basic values. Alternatively, a year may not be
long enough to elicit value change. Professional training is a long-term pro-
cess; it is possible that values socialisation requires more time and may occur
at later stages of the career. More research is needed to investigate the effects
of organisational socialisation along varying periods of time.
Finally, the processes that lead to person-organisation fit, also lead to
similarity among organisational members, resulting in organisational homo-
geneity. Whereas the consequences of person-environment fit are usually
considered positive, theory and research on organisational homogeneity has
pointed to both positive outcomes (e.g., harmony) and negative outcomes
(e.g., stagnation and inability to adapt to changing environments, Schneider
et al., 1995). So far, research on the negative outcomes of organisational
homogeneity did not focus directly on value homogeneity (see a review in

31
Values at Work
Schneider et al., 1995). The impact of value homogeneity may depend on

content of values, the type of tasks, and organisational levels. For example, it
is possible that homogeneity in emphasising self-direction values will lead to
higher flexibility than heterogeneity in these values. Also, homogeneity may
be more detrimental in a marketing department (e.g., leading to a single strat-
egy for all of the consumers) than on R&D teams, whose task is to come up
with new ideas, or HR teams, which aim to promote organisational cohesive-
ness. Future research could delve into such nuanced investigation.
GENERAL DISCUSSION
Our review of research on the relationships between values and behaviour
shows that values impact behaviour in contexts that are relevant to their
underlying motivations. Openness to change and conservation values are
relevant in contexts of novelty and independence versus stability and com-
pliance. These values are associated with novelty-related behaviour, such
as creativity and proactivity, and with reactions to autonomy threat and
to demand of compliance. Self-transcendence and self-enhancement values
are relevant in contexts of competition versus cooperation and when the
welfare or well-being of others are in question. They are related to altruistic
behaviour and decisions in social dilemma situations. To-date, most studies
on values and behaviour are correlational and therefore do not provide a
causality path. Whereas most researchers assume that the causal path goes
from values to behaviour, recent endeavours attempt to show that values
could also be affected by behaviour (Fischer, 2017). Our review reveals some
gaps in the literature, raising questions regarding additional consequences
of personal values on organisational behaviour. We next discuss venues for
future research.
FROM DIMENSIONS TO PROFILES

Most research on values and behaviour, reports findings regarding each
value type separately. We propose that a novel fruitful direction in the study
of values could examine value profiles, that is, the effects of possible combi-
nations of values from the two basic dimensions. Emphasising openness to
change, for example, is likely to have different meaning and consequences
when it is coupled with an emphasis on self-enhancement than when it is
coupled with self-transcendence values.
Profiles of values have not been studied systematically yet, but some
studies point to the usefulness of this direction. For example, recent stud-
ies indicate that students’ entrepreneurial intentions are best predicted by
the value profile that combines an emphasis on openness to change and self
enhancement values (Hirschi & Fischer, 2013; Gorgievski, Stephan, Laguna,

32 Arieli et al.
& Moriano, 2018). The combination of emphasising openness to change and
self-transcendence values forms a different value profile, one that predicts
tolerance towards others (see review in Sagiv et al., 2017). Thus, moving from
examining each dimension separately to studying value profiles may uncover
important ways in which value combinations affect behaviour, performance,
or satisfaction.
Extending the Scope of Values Addressed in

Organisational Research
In reviewing past research we built on Schwartz’s theory of personal val-
ues. Drawing on one theoretical model, which aims at comprehensiveness
of basic motivations, allowed us to integrate and compare findings from a
wide range of programmes of research, including research that stemmed
from other theories and methods. This choice is in line with De Clercq and
colleagues (2008) who reported that experts were able to reliably classify
most work-values items as representing one of the 10 values in Schwartz’s
model. This project also revealed, however, that 7.5 per cent of the val-
ue-items could not be classified to any of the 10 values. The researchers
identified two additional work-related value types. The first, labelled
goal-orientedness was found in six instruments. It expresses the motivation
to fulfil a purpose, show persistence and take initiatives, and was proposed
to be related to self-enhancement values. The second, labelled relations,
was found in 13 instruments. It expresses the motivation to form good
relationships with others in the workplace and was viewed as related to
self-transcendence values.
De Clercq and colleagues (2008) further suggested that power and univer-
salism values should be divided into narrower categories. These are in line
with Schwartz’s refined theory of personal values (Schwartz et al., 2012;
Schwartz, 2017), which breaks the 10 value types into 19 narrower value cat-
egories. Narrow values may be better predictors of specific behaviours, thus
refining our understanding of the meaning of work behaviours.
From Direct Relationships to Indirect Effects of Values in

Organisations
Current research on values in organisations usually focuses on direct
values-behaviour links. Future research could also address indirect, com-
plex mechanisms through which values are related to behaviour in organ-
isations. We have discussed how personal values of managers predict not
only their own behaviour, but also behaviours of their subordinates. Other
paths of influence are possible. For example, when organisational members

33
Values at Work
have a say in whom is positioned to be a manager (e.g., in public companies

that have employees’ representatives as directors), the values of the organi-
sations’ members may affect the behaviour of their managers both directly
through their choice for manager, and indirectly through the wish of the
manager to ensure the continuation of her tenure.
Finally, research could profit from considering the consequences of per-
ception and attribution regarding values of others. For example, the values
attributed to managers could affect the behaviour they evoke from employees
(Is the manager perceived as valuing self enhancement and thus as being less
concerned about the welfare of others? Is she perceived as valuing conserva-
tion, and thus as blocking suggestions for innovation?). Of special impor-
tance are perceptions regarding the values related to dedication to work (e.g.,
hard-working, punctual, and long-term planning, see Myyry & Helkama,
2001). People in organisations are likely to seek to be perceived as endorsing
these values, and attributions regarding their endorsement may have implica-
tions for their success.
Values in a Rapidly Changing World

The rapid technological changes are accompanied by rapid changes in the
social environment influencing individuals, institutions, industries and
markets. These changes are reflected in personal values. China, for ex-
ample, has undergone major change following the social reform of the last
decades. Research among professionals and managers and of three genera-
tional cohorts (Consolidation, Cultural Revolution, Social Reform) found
that the younger cohort emphasises self-enhancement and openness to
change more, and conservation and self-transcendent less than the other
cohorts. Similar value differences were found between three cohorts in the
USA (Egri & Ralston, 2004).
The most recent generational cohort, born between 1979 and 1994 and
labelled millennials, Generation Y, Nexters, or the Nexus Generation, is
expected to become the dominant group in the workforce. We are not aware
of large-scale studies that examined how this cohort differs in values from
previous cohorts. Studying Canadian students indicated that they place great
importance on individualistic aspects of their job (Ng, Schweitzer, & Lyons,
2010). A study among job seekers in Canada found that those who empha-
sise openness to change placed relatively high emphasis on corporate social
responsibility in organisations and on having a psychologically healthy work-
place (Catano & Morrow Hines, 2016). However, it is not known if these
patterns are new, or whether they existed in the past. A better understand-
ing of the value priorities of the different cohorts would help managers and

34 Arieli et al.
organisations craft work environments and jobs that may increase employees’
engagement, and consequently decrease attrition.
CONCLUSIONS
Values play a role in many aspects of organisations: they are associated
with occupational choices at the very beginning of the career and predict
specific behaviours and decisions. Their broadness and stability make val-
ues a predictor of organisational behaviour over time and across contexts.
In this paper, we focused on personal values. Values of social collectives,
such as teams, departments and organisations, also influence organisa-
tions. Although researchers took a multilevel perspective when studying
the impact of value in work setting (e.g., person-environment value-fit), val-
ues theories typically focus on either the personal level, the organisational
level, or the cultural level (for a review of the latter two levels see Table 1).
Researchers have called for developing an overarching framework that will
incorporate values in multiple organisational levels (Meglino & Ravlin,
1998; Bourne & Jenkins, 2013). Considering values of the society in which
the organisation is nested would also be beneficial. So far, most studies on
values at work have been conducted in Western cultures. Linking values
and behaviour assumes that the social environment allows people to act on
their values. This might not be the case in cultures that strongly emphasise
adherence to social norms. We extend the call for a framework that consid-
ers the society in which the organisation operates.
REFERENCES
Abbott, G.N., White, F.A., & Charles, M.A. (2005). Linking values and organi-
zational commitment: a correlational and experimental investigation in two
organizations. Journal of Occupational and Organizational Psychology, 78(4),
531–551. https://doi.org/10.1348/096317905X26174.
Adams, R.B., Licht, A.N., & Sagiv, L. (2011). Shareholders and stakeholders: how
do directors decide? Strategic Management Journal, 32(12), 1331–1355. https://
doi.org/10.1002/smj.940.
Ajzen, I., & Fishbein, M. (1973). Attitudinal and normative variables as predictors
of specific behaviors. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 27(1), 41–57.
https://doi.org/10.1037/h0034440.
Amabile, T.M. (1983). The social psychology of creativity: a componential concep-
tualization. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 45(2), 357–376. https://
doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.45.2.357.
Andersson, O., Huysentruyt, M., Miettinen, T., & Stephan, U. (2016). Person–or-
ganization fit and incentives: a causal test. Management Science, 63(1), 73–96.
https://doi.org/10.1287/mnsc.2015.2331.

35
Values at Work
Anjum, M.A., Karim, J., & Bibi, Z. (2014). Relationship of values and conflict man-
agement styles. IBA Business Review, 9(1), 92–103.
Arieli, S. (2006). Value congruency between students and academic disciplines:
Self-selection or socialization? MBA thesis. Jerusalem: Hebrew University of
Jerusalem.
Arieli, S., Grant, A.M., & Sagiv, L. (2014). Convincing yourself to care about others:
An intervention for enhancing benevolence values. Journal of Personality, 82(1),
15–24. https://doi.org/10.1111/jopy.12029.
Arieli, S., Sagiv, L., & Cohen-Shalem, E. (2016). Values in business schools: The
role of self-selection and socialization. Academy of Management Learning &
Education, 15(3), 493–507. https://doi.org/10.5465/amle.2014.0064.
Ariza-Montes, A., Arjona-Fuentes, J.M., Han, H., & Law, R. (2017). Employee
responsibility and basic human values in the hospitality sector. International
Journal of Hospitality Management, 62, 78–87. https://doi.org/10.1016/
j.ijhm.2016.12.001.
Arsenijević, O., Bulatović, L., & Bulatović, G. (2012). The connection between
value system and innovativity of media students in Serbia, Croatia and Bosnia
Herzegovina. Praktični Menadžment, 3(1), 7–15.
Arthaud-Day, M.L., Rode, J.C., & Turnley, W.H. (2012). Direct and contextual
effects of individual values on organizational citizenship behavior in teams.
Journal of Applied Psychology, 97(4), 792–807. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0027352.
Bardi, A., Buchanan, K.E., Goodwin, R., Slabu, L., & Robinson, M. (2014). Value
stability and change during self-chosen life transitions: self-selection versus so-
cialization effects. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 106(1), 131–147.
https://doi.org/10.1037/a0034818.
Bardi, A., & Goodwin, R. (2011). The dual route to value change: individual pro-
cesses and cultural moderators. Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology, 42(2),
271–287. https://doi.org/10.1177/0022022110396916.
Bardi, A., Lee, J.A., Hofmann-Towfigh, N., & Soutar, G. (2009). The structure of
intra individual value change. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology,
97(5), 913–929. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0016617.
Bardi, A., & Schwartz, S.H. (2003). Values and behavior: Strength and structure of
relations. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 29(10), 1207–1220. https://
doi.org/10.1177/0146167203254602.
Berson, Y., Oreg, S., & Dvir, T. (2008). CEO values, organizational culture and
firm outcomes. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 29(5), 615–633. https://doi.
org/10.1002/job.499.
Berzonsky, M.D., Cieciuch, J., Duriez, B., & Soenens, B. (2011). The how and what of
identity formation: associations between identity styles and value orientations.
Personality and Individual Differences, 50(2), 295–299. https://doi.org/10.1016/
j.paid.2010.10.007.
Bilsky, W., & Jehn, K. (2002). Organizational culture and individual values: evi-
dence for a common structure. In: M. Myrtek (Ed.), Die Person im Biologischen
und Sozialen Kontext (pp. 211–228). Göttingen, Germany: Hogrefe.

36 Arieli et al.
Boer, D., & Fischer, R. (2013). How and when do personal values guide our attitudes
and sociality? Explaining cross-cultural variability in attitude–value linkages.
Psychological Bulletin, 139(5), 1113–1147. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0031347.
Bond, M.H., Leung, K., Au, A., Tong, K.-K., & Chemonges-Nielson, Z. (2004).
Combining social axioms with values in predicting social behaviours. European
Journal of Personality, 18(3), 177–191. https://doi.org/10.1002/per.509.
Bourne, H., & Jenkins, M. (2013). Organizational values: A dynamic perspective.
Organization Studies, 34(4), 495–514. https://doi.org/10.1177/0170840612467155.
Cable, D.M., & Edwards, J.R. (2004). Complementary and supplementary fit: A
theoretical and empirical integration. Journal of Applied Psychology, 89(5),
822–834. https://doi.org/10.1037/0021-9010.89.5.822.
Cable, D.M., & Judge, T.A. (1997). Interviewers’ perceptions of person: Organization
fit and organizational selection decisions. Journal of Applied Psychology, 82(4),
546–561. https://doi.org/10.1037/0021-9010.82.4.546.
Cable, D.M., & Parsons, C.K. (2001). Socialization tactics and person-organization
fit. Personnel Psychology, 54(1), 1–23. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1744-6570.2001.
tb00083.x.
Cameron, K.S., & Quinn, R.E. (2006). Diagnosing and Changing Organizational
Culture: Based on the Competing Values Framework (revised edn). San Fransisco,
CA: John Wiley & Sons.
Catano, V.M., & Morrow Hines, H. (2016). The influence of corporate social re-
sponsibility, psychologically healthy workplaces, and individual values in at-
tracting millennial job applicants. Canadian Journal of Behavioural Science
/ Revue Canadienne des Sciences du Comportement, 48(2), 142–154. https://doi.
org/10.1037/cbs0000036.
Chatard, A., & Selimbegovic, L. (2007). The impact of higher education on
egalitarian attitudes and values: Contextual and cultural determinants.
Social and Personality Psychology Compass, 1(1), 541–556. https://doi.
org/10.1111/j.1751-9004.2007.00024.x.
Chatman, J.A. (1989). Improving interactional organizational research: A model of
person-organization fit. Academy of Management Review, 14(3), 333–349. https://
doi.org/10.5465/AMR.1989.4279063.
Chatman, J.A. (1991). Matching people and organizations: Selection and social-
ization in public accounting firms. Administrative Science Quarterly, 36(3),
459–484. https://doi.org/10.5465/AMBPP.1989.4980837.
Cheng, C.-Y., Sanchez-Burks, J., & Lee, F. (2008). Connecting the dots within
creative performance and identity integration. Psychological Science, 19(11),
1178–1184. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-9280.2008.02220.x.
Cieciuch, J., Davidov, E., & Algesheimer, R. (2016). The stability and change of value
structure and priorities in childhood: A longitudinal study. Social Development,
25(3), 503–527. https://doi.org/10.1111/sode.12147.
Cohen, A., & Liu, Y. (2011). Relationships between in-role performance and in-
dividual values, commitment, and organizational citizenship behavior among
Israeli teachers. International Journal of Psychology, 46(4), 271–287. https://doi.
org/10.1080/00207594.2010.539613.

37
Values at Work
Cooper, W.H., & Withey, M.J. (2009). The strong situation hypothesis. Personality and
Social Psychology Review, 13(1), 62–72. https://doi.org/10.1177/1088868308329378.
Davidov, E., Schmidt, P., & Schwartz, S.H. (2008). Bringing values back in the ad-
equacy of the European Social Survey to measure values in 20 countries. Public
Opinion Quarterly, 72(3), 420–445. https://doi.org/10.1093/poq/nfn035.
Dawis, R.V., & Lofquist, L.H. (1993). From TWA to PEC. Journal of Vocational
Behavior, 43, 113–121. https://doi.org/10.1006/jvbe.1993.1037.
De Clercq, S., Fontaine, J.R., & Anseel, F. (2008). In search of a comprehensive
value model for assessing supplementary person–organization fit. Journal of
Psychology, 142(3), 277–302. https://doi.org/10.3200/JRLP.142.3.277-302.
Dobson, L.K., Gardner, M.K., Metz, A.J., & Gore, P.A. Jr (2014). The relationship
between interests and values in career decision making: The need for an alterna-
tive method of measuring values. Journal of Career Assessment, 22(1), 113–122.
https://doi.org/10.1177/1069072713492929.
Dollinger, S.J., Burke, P.A., & Gump, N.W. (2007). Creativity and values. Creativity
Research Journal, 19(2/3), 91–103. https://doi.org/10.1080/10400410701395028.
Dose, J.J. (1997). Work values: An integrative framework and illustrative applica-
tion to organizational socialization. Journal of Occupational and Organizational
Psychology, 70(3), 219–240. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.2044-8325.1997.tb00645.x.
Edwards, J.R. (1996). An examination of competing versions of the person-envi-
ronment fit approach to stress. Academy of Management Journal, 39(2), 292–339.
https://doi.org/10.5465/256782.
Edwards, J.R., & Cable, D.M. (2009). The value of value congruence. Journal of
Applied Psychology, 94(3), 654–677. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0014891.
Edwards, J.R., & Rothbard, N.P. (1999). Work and family stress and well-being:
An examination of person-environment fit in the work and family domains.
Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 77(2), 85–129. https://
doi.org/10.1006/obhd.1998.2813.
Egri, C.P., & Herman, S. (2000). Leadership in the North American environmen-
tal sector: Values, leadership styles, and contexts of environmental leaders and
their organizations. Academy of Management Journal, 43(4), 571–604.:https://
doi.org/10.5465/1556356.
Egri, C.P., & Ralston, D.A. (2004). Generation cohorts and personal values: A com-
parison of China and the United States. Organization Science, 15(2), 210–220.
https://doi.org/10.1287/orsc.1030.0048.
Elster, A., & Sagiv, L. (2018). Values and conformity in organizations. Manuscript in
preparation.
Finegan, J.E. (2000). The impact of person and organizational values on organi-
zational commitment. Journal of Occupational and Organizational Psychology,
73(2), 149–169. https://doi.org/10.1348/096317900166958.
Fischer, R. (2017). From values to behavior and from behavior to values. In: S.
Roccas & L. Sagiv (Eds.), Values and behavior: Taking a cross-cultural perspective
(pp. 219–235). Cham: Springer.
Fischer, R., & Boer, D. (2015). Motivational basis of personality traits: A meta-anal-
ysis of value-personality correlations. Journal of Personality, 83(5), 491–510.
https://doi.org/10.1111/jopy.12125.

38 Arieli et al.
Fischer, R., & Smith, P.B. (2004). Values and organizational justice: Performance-
and seniority-based allocation criteria in the United Kingdom and
Germany. Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology, 35(6), 669–688. https://doi.
org/10.1177/0022022104270110.
Fisher, C.D. (1986). Organizational socialization: An integrative review. In: K. M.
Rowland & G. R. Ferris (Eds.), Research in personnel and human resources man-
agement (Vol. 4, pp. 101–145). Greenwich, CT: JAI Press.
Gandal, N., Roccas, S., Sagiv, L., & Wrzesniewski, A. (2005). Personal value
priorities of economists. Human Relations, 58(10), 1227–1252. https://doi.
org/10.1177/0018726705058911.
Gorgievski, M.J., Stephan, U., Laguna, M., & Moriano, J.A. (2018). Predicting entre-
preneurial career intentions: values and the theory of planned behavior. Journal
of Career Assessment, 26(3), 457–475. https://doi.org/10.1177/1069072717714541.
Gouveia, V.V., Meira, M., Gusmão, E.É.D.S., Souza Filho, M.L.D., & Souza, L.E.C.D.
(2008). Human values and vocational interests: A correlated analysis. Psicologia
em Estudo, 13(3), 603–611. https://doi.org/10.1590/S1413-73722008000300022.
Gouveia, V.V., Vione, K.C., Milfont, T.L., & Fischer, R. (2015). Patterns of value
change during the life span: Some evidence from a functional approach to val-
ues. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 41(9), 1276–1290. https://doi.
org/10.1177/0146167215594189.
Grant, A.M. (2008). The significance of task significance: Job performance effects,
relational mechanisms, and boundary conditions. Journal of Applied Psychology,
93(1), 108–124. https://doi.org/10.1037/0021-9010.93.1.108.
Grant, A.M., & Rothbard, N.P. (2013). When in doubt, seize the day? Security
values, prosocial values, and proactivity under ambiguity. Journal of Applied
Psychology, 98(5), 810–819. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0032873.
Guilford, J.P. (1950). Creativity. American Psychologist, 5, 444–454. https://doi.
org/10.1037/h0063487.
Hambrick, D.C., & Mason, P.A. (1984). Upper echelons: The organization as a re-
flection of its top managers. Academy of Management Review, 9(2), 193–206.
https://doi.org/10.5465/amr.1984.4277628.
Hartnell, C.A., Ou, A.Y., & Kinicki, A. (2011). Organizational culture and orga-
nizational effectiveness: A meta-analytic investigation of the competing val-
ues framework’s theoretical suppositions. Journal of Applied Psychology, 96(4),
677–694. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0021987.
Hirschi, A., & Fischer, S. (2013). Work values as predictors of entrepreneurial ca-
reer intentions. Career Development International, 18(3), 216–231. https://doi.
org/10.1108/CDI-04-2012-0047.
Hitlin, S., & Piliavin, J.A. (2004). Values: reviving a dormant concept. Annual Review
of Sociology, 30, 359–393. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev.soc.30.012703.110640.
Hofstede, G. (1980). Culture’s consequences: International differences in work-related
values. Beverly Hills, CA: Sage.
Hofstede, G. (2001). Culture’s consequences: Comparing values, behaviors, institu-
tions, and organizations across cultures. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

39
Values at Work
Hofstede, G., Hofstede, G. J., & Minkov, M. (2010). Cultures and organizations:
Software of the mind: Intercultural cooperation and its importance for survival,
3rd edition. New York, NY: McGraw Hill.
Hofstede, G., Neuijen, B., Ohayv, D.D., & Sanders, G. (1990). Measuring orga-
nizational cultures: a qualitative and quantitative study across twenty cases.
Administrative Science Quarterly, 35(2), 286–316. https://doi.org/10.2307/2393392.
Holland, J.L. (1997). Making vocational choices: A theory of vocational personali-
ties and work environments, 3rd edition. Odessa, FL: Psychological Assessment
Resources.
House, R.J., Hanges, P.J., Javidan, M., Dorfman, P.W., & Gupta, V. (Eds.). (2004).
Culture, leadership, and organizations: The GLOBE study of 62 societies.
Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage publications.
House, R., Javidan, M., & Dorfman, P. (2001). Project globe: An introduction.
Applied Psychology: An International Review, 50(4), 489–505. https://doi.
org/10.1111/1464-0597.00070.
Judge, T.A., & Ferris, G.R. (1992). The elusive criterion of fit in human resources
staffing decisions. HR.Human Resource Planning, 15(4), 47–67.
Kasof, J., Chuansheng, C., Himsel, A., & Greenberger, E. (2007). Values
and creativity. Creativity Research Journal, 19(2/3), 105–122. https://doi.
org/10.1080/10400410701397164.
Katz, D. (1960). The functional approach to the study of attitudes. Public Opinion
Quarterly, 24(2), 163–204. https://doi.org/10.1086/266945.
Kirkman, B.L., Lowe, K.B., & Gibson, C.B. (2006). A quarter century of culture’s
consequences: A review of empirical research incorporating Hofstede’s cultural
values framework. Journal of International Business Studies, 37(3), 285–320.
https://doi.org/10.1057/palgrave.jibs.8400202.
Kluckhohn, C. (1951). Values and value-orientations in the theory of action: An
exploration in definition and classification. In: T. Parsons & E. Shils (Eds.),
Toward a general theory of action (pp. 388–433). Cambridge, MA: Harvard
University Press.
Knafo, A., & Plomin, R. (2006). Prosocial behavior from early to middle childhood:
Genetic and environmental influences on stability and change. Developmental
Psychology, 42(5), 771–786. https://doi.org/10.1037/0012-1649.42.5.771.
Knafo, A., Roccas, S., & Sagiv, L. (2011). The value of values in cross-cultural re-
search: a special issue in honor of Shalom Schwartz. Journal of Cross-Cultural
Psychology, 42(2), 178–185. https://doi.org/10.1177/0022022110396863.
Knafo, A., & Sagiv, L. (2004). Values and work environment: Mapping 32 occupa-
tions. European Journal of Psychology of Education, 19(3), 255–273. https://doi.
org/10.1007/bf03173223.
Knafo, A., & Spinath, F.M. (2011). Genetic and environmental influences on girls’
and boys’ gender-typed and gender-neutral values. Developmental Psychology,
47, 726–731. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0021910.
Koys, D.J. (2001). The effects of employee satisfaction, organizational citizenship
behavior, and turnover on organizational effectiveness: A unit-level, longitudinal
study. Personnel Psychology, 54, 101–114. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1744-6570.2001.
tb00087.x.

40 Arieli et al.
Kraus, S.J. (1995). Attitudes and the prediction of behavior: A meta-analysis of
the empirical literature. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 21(1), 58–75.
https://doi.org/10.1177/0146167295211007.
Kristof-Brown, A.L., Zimmerman, R.D., & Johnson, E.C. (2005). Consequences
of individuals’ fit at work: A meta-analysis of person-job, person-organization,
person-group, and person-supervisor fit. Personnel Psychology, 58(2), 281–342.
https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1744-6570.2005.00672.x.
Kurt, I., & Yahyagil, M.Y. (2015). Universal values, creative behavior and lead-
ership: Turkish case. International Business Research, 8(6), 89–103. https://doi.
org/10.5539/ibr.v8n6p89.
Lan, G., Gowing, M., McMahon, S., Rieger, F., & King, N. (2008). A study of the re-
lationship between personal values and moral reasoning of undergraduate busi-
ness students. Journal of Business Ethics, 78(1), 121–139. https://doi.org/10.1007/
s10551-006-9322-z.
Lan, G., Okechuku, C., Zhang, H., & Cao, J. (2013). Impact of job satisfaction
and personal values on the work orientation of Chinese accounting practi-
tioners. Journal of Business Ethics, 112(4), 627–640. https://doi.org/10.1007/
s10551-012-1562-5.
LePine, J.A., Erez, A., & Johnson, D.E. (2002). The nature and dimensionality of
organizational citizenship behavior: A critical review and meta-analysis. Journal
of Applied Psychology, 87(1), 52–65. https://doi.org/10.1037/0021-9010.87.1.52.
Lipponen, J., Bardi, A., & Haapamäki, J. (2008). The interaction between values
and organizational identification in predicting suggestion-making at work.
Journal of Occupational and Organizational Psychology, 81(2), 241–248. https://
doi.org/10.1348/096317907X216658.
Lönnqvist, J.-E., Jasinskaja-Lahti, I., & Verkasalo, M. (2011). Personal values be-
fore and after migration: A longitudinal case study on value change in Ingrian-
Finnish migrants. Social Psychological and Personality Science, 2(6), 584–591.
https://doi.org/10.1177/1948550611402362.
Lönnqvist, J.-E., Leikas, S., Paunonen, S., Nissinen, V., & Verkasalo, M. (2006).
Conformism moderates the relations between values, anticipated regret, and be-
havior. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 32(11), 1469–1481. https://doi.
org/10.1177/0146167206291672.
Lönnqvist, J.-E., Verkasalo, M., Wichardt, P.C., & Walkowitz, G. (2013). Personal
values and prosocial behaviour in strategic interactions: Distinguishing val-
ue-expressive from value-ambivalent behaviours. European Journal of Social
Psychology, 43(6), 554–569. https://doi.org/10.1002/ejsp.1976.
Louis, M.R. (1990). Newcomers as lay ethnographers: acculturation during social-
ization. In: B. Schneider (Ed.), Organizational climates and cultures (pp. 85–129).
San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
Lusk, E.J., & Oliver, B.L. (1974). American managers’ personal value sys-
tems—revisited. Academy of Management Journal, 17(3), 549–554. https://doi.
org/10.5465/254656.
Mael, F., & Ashforth, B.E. (1992). Alumni and their alma mater: A partial test of the
reformulated model of organizational identification. Journal of Organizational
Behavior, 13(2), 103–123. https://doi.org/10.1002/job.4030130202.

41
Values at Work
Maio, G.R. (2010). Chapter 1: Mental representations of social values. Advances

in Experimental Social Psychology, 42, 1–43. https://doi.org/10.1016/
S0065-2601(10)42001-8.
Maio, G.R., & Olson, J.M. (1995). Relations between values, attitudes, and behav-
ioral intentions: The moderating role of attitude function. Journal of Experimental
Social Psychology, 31(3), 266–285. https://doi.org/10.1006/jesp.1995.1013.
Maio, G.R., Pakizeh, A., Cheung, W.Y., & Rees, K.J. (2009). Changing, priming, and
acting on values: Effects via motivational relations in a circular model. Journal
of Personality and Social Psychology, 97(4), 699–715. https://doi.org/10.1037/
a0016420.
McClelland, D.C. (1985). How motives, skills, and values determine what people do.
American Psychologist, 40(7), 812–825. https://doi.org/10.1037/0003-066X.40.7.812.
McDonald, P., & Gandz, J. (1991). Identification of values relevant to business re-
search. Human Resource Management, 30(2), 217–236. https://doi.org/10.1002/
hrm.3930300205.
McNeely, B.L., & Meglino, B.M. (1994). The role of dispositional and situational
antecedents in prosocial organizational behavior: An examination of the in-
tended beneficiaries of prosocial behavior. Journal of Applied Psychology, 79(6),
836–844. https://doi.org/10.1037/0021-9010.79.6.836.
Meglino, B.M., & Ravlin, E.C. (1998). Individual values in organizations: Concepts,
controversies, and research. Journal of Management, 24(3), 351–389. https://doi.
org/10.1177/014920639802400304.
Miles, A. (2015). The (re)genesis of values: Examining the importance of val-
ues for action. American Sociological Review, 80(4), 680–704. https://doi.
org/10.1177/0003122415591800.
Milfont, T.L., Milojev, P., & Sibley, C.G. (2016). Values stability and change in
adulthood: A 3-year longitudinal study of rank-order stability and mean-level
differences. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 42(5), 572–588. https://
doi.org/10.1177/0146167216639245.
Miron, E., Erez, M., & Naveh, E. (2004). Do personal characteristics and cultural
values that promote innovation, quality, and efficiency compete or comple-
ment each other? Journal of Organizational Behavior, 25(2), 175–199. https://doi.
org/10.1002/job.237.
Myyry, L., & Helkama, K. (2001). University students’ value priorities and
emotional empathy. Educational Psychology, 21(1), 25–40. https://doi.
org/10.1080/01443410123128.
Nascimento, T.T.D., Porto, J.B., & Kwantes, C.T. (2018). Transformational leader-
ship and follower proactivity in a volunteer workforce. Nonprofit Management
and Leadership, 28(4), 565–576. https://doi.org/10.1002/nml.21308.
Elms, N., Nicholson, G., & Pugliese, A. (2015). The importance of group-fit in
new director selection. Management Decision, 53(6), 1312–1328. https://doi.
org/10.1108/MD-10-2014-0598.
Ng, E.S.W., Schweitzer, L., & Lyons, S.T. (2010). New generation, great expectations:
A field study of the millennial generation. Journal of Business and Psychology,
25(2), 281–292. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10869-010-9159-4.

42 Arieli et al.
Nosse, L.J., & Sagiv, L. (2005). Theory-based study of the basic values of 565
physical therapists. Physical Therapy, 85(9), 834–850. https://doi.org/10.1093/
ptj/85.9.834.
Oishi, S., Schimmack, U., Diener, E., & Suh, E.M. (1998). The measurement of val-
ues and individualism-collectivism. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin,
24(11), 1177–1189. https://doi.org/10.1177/01461672982411005.
Oreg, S. (2003). Resistance to change: developing an individual differ-
ences measure. Journal of Applied Psychology, 88(4), 680–693. https://doi.
org/10.1037/0021-9010.88.4.680.
Oreg, S., & Berson, Y. (2011). Leadership and employees’ reactions to change: The role
of leaders’ personal attributes and transformational leadership style. Personnel
Psychology, 64(3), 627–659. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1744-6570.2011.01221.x.
O’Reilly, C.A., Chatman, J., & Caldwell, D.F. (1991). People and organizational
culture: A profile comparison approach to assessing person-organization fit.
Academy of Management Journal, 34(3), 487–516. https://doi.org/10.5465/256404.
Parker, S.K., Bindl, U.K., & Strauss, K. (2010). Making things happen: A model
of proactive motivation. Journal of Management, 36(4), 827–856. https://doi.
org/10.1177/0149206310363732.
Parks-Leduc, L., Feldman, G., & Bardi, A. (2015). Personality traits and personal
values: A meta-analysis. Personality and Social Psychology Review, 19(1), 3–29.
https://doi.org/10.1177/1088868314538548.
Pervin, L.A. (1989). Goal concepts in personality and social psychology. Hillsdale,
NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
Racko, G., Strauss, K., & Burchell, B. (2017). Economics education and value
change: The role of program-normative oomogeneity and peer influence.
Academy of Management Learning & Education, 16(3), 373–392. https://doi.
org/10.5465/amle.2014.0280.
Ravlin, E.C., & Meglino, B.M. (1987). Issues in work values measurement. In: W.
C. Frederick (Ed.), Research in corporate social performance and policy (Vol. 9,
pp. 153–183). Greenwich, CT: JAI Press.
Rice, G. (2006). Individual values, organizational context, and self-perceptions of
employee creativity: Evidence from Egyptian organizations. Journal of Business
Research, 59(2), 233–241. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jbusres.2005.08.001.
Roccas, S. (2003). Identification and status revisited: The moderating role of self-en-
hancement and self-transcendence values. Personality and Social Psychology
Bulletin, 29(6), 726–736. https://doi.org/10.1177/0146167203029006005.
Roccas, S., & Elster, A. (2014). Values and religiosity. In: V. Saroglou (Ed.), Religion,
personality, and social behavior (pp. 193–212). New York, NY: Psychology Press.
Roccas, S., & Sagiv, L. (2010). Personal values and behavior: Taking the cultural
context into account. Social and Personality Psychology Compass, 4(1), 30–41.
https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1751-9004.2009.00234.x.
Roccas, S., Sagiv, L., & Navon, M. (2017). Methodological issues in studying per-
sonal values. In: S. Roccas & L. Sagiv (Eds.), Values and behavior: Taking a
cross-cultural perspective (pp. 15–50). Cham: Springer.

43
Values at Work
Roccas, S., Sagiv, L., Oppenheim, S., Elster, A., & Gal, A. (2014). Integrating con-
tent and structure aspects of the self: Traits, values, and self-improvement.
Journal of Personality, 82(2), 144–157. https://doi.org/10.1111/jopy.12041.
Roccas, S., Sagiv, L., Schwartz, S.H., Halevy, N., & Eidelson, R. (2008). Towards
a unifying model of identification with groups: Integrating theoretical per-
spectives. Personality and Social Psychology Review, 12, 280–306. https://doi.
org/10.1177/1088868308319225.
Roccas, S., Sagiv, L., Schwartz, S.H., & Knafo, A. (2002). The big five personality
factors and personal values. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 28(6),
789–801. https://doi.org/10.1177/0146167202289008.
Rohan, M.J. (2000). A rose by any name? The values construct. Personality and Social
Psychology Review, 4(3), 255–277. https://doi.org/10.1207/S15327957PSPR0403_4.
Rokeach, M. (1973). The nature of human values. New York, NY: Free Press.
Rokeach, M. (2008). Understanding human values. New York, NY: Simon and
Schuster.
Rosso, B.D., Dekas, K.H., & Wrzesniewski, A. (2010). On the meaning of work:
A theoretical integration and review. Research in Organizational Behavior, 30,
91–127. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.riob.2010.09.001.
Rounds, J.B. (1990). The comparative and combined utility of work value and in-
terest data in career counseling with adults. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 37,
32–45. https://doi.org/10.1016/0001-8791(90)90005-M.
Sagiv, L. (2002). Vocational interests and basic values. Journal of Career Assessment,
10(2), 233–257. https://doi.org/10.1177/1069072702010002007.
Sagiv, L., & Roccas, S. (2017). What personal values are and what they are not:
taking a cross-cultural perspective. In: S. Roccas & L. Sagiv (Eds.), Values and
behavior: Taking a cross-cultural perspective (pp. 3–13). Cham: Springer.
Sagiv, L., & Werner, Y. (2003). Reviewer attitudes to treatment of animals and to
conservation of species: preliminary study. In: K. Richmond (Ed.), Proceedings
of the 9th International Conference of Science Editors, Sharm-El-Sheikh 1998.
Sagiv, L., Roccas, S., Cieciuch, J., & Schwartz, S.H. (2017). Personal values in
human life. Nature Human Behaviour, 1(9), 630–639. https://doi.org/10.1038/
s41562-017-0185-3.
Sagiv, L., Roccas, S., & Oppenheim, S. (2015). Values and well-being: content,
process, context. In: S. Joseph (Ed.). Positive psychology in practice (2nd ed.).
New York, NY: John Wiley.
Sagiv, L., & Schwartz, S.H. (1995). Value priorities and readiness for out-group so-
cial contact. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 69(3), 437–448. https://
doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.69.3.437.
Sagiv, L., & Schwartz, S.H. (2000). Value priorities and subjec-
tive well-being: Direct relations and congruity effects. European
Journal of Social Psychology, 30(2), 177–198. https://doi.org/10.1002/
(sici)1099-0992(200003/04)30:2<177:aid-ejsp982>3.0.co;2-z.
Sagiv, L., Schwartz, S.H., & Arieli, S. (2011a). Personal values, national culture
and organizations: Insights applying the Schwartz value framework. In: N. N.
Ashkanasy, C. Wilderom, & M. F. Peterson (Eds.), The handbook of organiza-
tional culture and climate (pp. 515–537). Newbury Park, CA: Sage.

44 Arieli et al.
Sagiv, L., Sverdlik, N., & Schwarz, N. (2011b). To compete or to cooperate? Values’
impact on perception and action in social dilemma games. European Journal of
Social Psychology, 41(1), 64–77. https://doi.org/10.1002/ejsp.729.
Sanderson, R., & McQuilkin, J. (2017). Many kinds of kindness: The relationship
between values and pro-social behavior. In: S. Roccas & L. Sagiv (Eds.), Values
and behavior: Taking a cross-cultural perspective (pp. 75–96). Cham: Springer.
Schein, V.E. (1985). Organizational realities: The politics of change. Performance
Improvement, 24(2), 1–5. https://doi.org/10.1002/pfi.4150240202.
Schein, E.H. (2010). Organizational culture and leadership, 4th edition. San
Fransisco, CA: John Wiley & Sons.
Schneider, B., Goldstein, H.W., & Smith, D.B. (1995). The ASA framework: An update.
Personnel Psychology, 48(4), 747–773. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1744-6570.1995.
tb01780.x.
Schwartz, S.H. (1992). Universals in the content and structure of values: Theoretical
advances and empirical tests in 20 countries. In: M. Zanna (Ed.), Advances in ex-
perimental social psychology (vol. 25, pp. 1–65). New York, NY: Academic Press.
Schwartz, S.H. (1996). Value priorities and behavior: Applying a theory of inte-
grated value systems. In: C. Seligman, J. M. Olson, & M. P. Zanna (Eds.), The
Ontario Symposium: The psychology of values (vol. 8, pp. 1–24). Hillsdale, NJ:
Lawrence Erlbaum.
Schwartz, S.H. (1999). A theory of cultural value and some implications for
work. Applied Psychology: An International Review, 48(1), 23–47. https://doi.
org/10.1111/j.1464-0597.1999.tb00047.x.
Schwartz, S.H. (2004). Mapping and interpreting cultural differences around
the world. In: H. Vinken, J. Soeters, & P. Ester (Eds.), Comparing cultures:
Dimensions of culture in a comparative perspective (pp. 43–73). Leiden, The
Netherlands: Brill.
Schwartz, S.H. (2005). Robustness and fruitfulness of a theory of universals in in-
dividual human values. In: A. Tamayo & J. B. Porto (Eds.), Valores e Trabalho
[Values and work] (pp. 56–95). Petrópolis, Brazil: Vozes.
Schwartz, S.H. (2015). Basic individual values: Sources and consequences. In: T.
Brosch & D. Sander (Eds.), Handbook of value: Perspectives from economics, neu-
roscience, philosophy, psychology and sociology (pp. 63–84). Oxford, UK: Oxford
University Press.
Schwartz, S.H. (2017). The refined theory of basic values. In: S. Roccas & L. Sagiv
(Eds.), Values and behavior: Taking a cross-cultural perspective (pp. 51–72).
Cham: Springer.
Schwartz, S.H., & Bardi, A. (2001). Value hierarchies across cultures. Journal of
Cross-Cultural Psychology, 32(3), 268–290. https://doi.org/10.1177/002202210103
2003002.
Schwartz, S.H., & Rubel, T. (2005). Sex differences in value priorities: Cross-
cultural and multimethod studies. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology,
89(6), 1010–1028. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.89.6.1010.
Schwartz, S.H., Cieciuch, J., Vecchione, M., Davidov, E., Fischer, R., Beierlein,
C., Konty, M. (2012). Refining the theory of basic individual values. Journal

45
Values at Work
of Personality and Social Psychology, 103(4), 663–688. https://doi.org/10.1037/

a0029393.
Schwartz, S.H., Melech, G., Lehmann, A., Burgess, S., Harris, M., & Owens, V.
(2001). Extending the cross-cultural validity of the theory of basic human values
with a different method of measurement. Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology,
32(5), 519–542. https://doi.org/10.1177/0022022101032005001.
Seppälä, T., Lipponen, J., Bardi, A., & Pirttilä-Backman, A.M. (2012). Change-
oriented organizational citizenship behaviour: An interactive product of open-
ness to change values, work unit identification, and sense of power. Journal
of Occupational and Organizational Psychology, 85(1), 136–155. https://doi.
org/10.1111/j.2044-8325.2010.02010.x.
Sortheix, F.M., & Lönnqvist, J.E. (2014). Personal value priorities and life satisfac-
tion in Europe: The moderating role of socioeconomic development. Journal of
Cross Cultural Psychology, 45, 282–299. https://doi.org/10.1177/0022022113504621.
Sosik, J.J., Jung, D., & Dinger, S.L. (2009). Values in authentic action: Examining the
roots and rewards of altruistic leadership. Group & Organization Management,
34(4), 395–431. https://doi.org/10.1177/1059601108329212.
Sousa, C.M., & Coelho, F. (2011). From personal values to creativity: Evidence from
frontline service employees. European Journal of Marketing, 45(7/8), 1029–1050.
https://doi.org/10.1108/03090561111137598.
Spokane, A.R. (1985). A review of research on person–environment congruence
in Holland’s theory of careers. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 26(3), 306–343.
https://doi.org/10.1016/0001-8791(85)90009-0.
Suddaby, R., Elsbach, K.D., Greenwood, R., Meyer, J.W., & Zilber, T.B. (2010).
Organizations and their institutional environments – bringing meaning, val-
ues, and culture back in: introduction to the special research forum. Academy
of Management Journal, 53(6), 1234–1240. https://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.2266086.
Sun, J.T. (2011). Major life goals of college students: An investigation of personality
traits, vocational interests, and values (Doctoral dissertation). Champaign, IL:
University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign.
Sverdlik, N., & Oreg, S. (2009). Personal values and conflicting motivational forces
in the context of imposed change. Journal of Personality, 77(5), 1437–1466. https://
doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-6494.2009.00588.x.
Sverdlik, N., & Oreg, S. (2015). Identification during imposed change: The roles
of personal values, type of change, and anxiety. Journal of Personality, 83(3),
307–319. https://doi.org/10.1111/jopy.12105.
Tajfel, H., & Turner, J.C. (1979). An integrative theory of intergroup conflict. In: W.
G. Austin & S. Worchel (Eds.), The social psychology of intergroup relations (pp.
33–47). Monterey, CA: Brooks Cole Publishing.
Taras, V., Kirkman, B.L., & Steel, P. (2010). Examining the impact of culture’s con-
sequences: A three-decade, multilevel, meta-analytic review of Hofstede’s cul-
tural value dimensions. Journal of Applied Psychology, 95(3), 405–439. https://
doi.org/10.1037/a0018938.
Tartakovsky, E., & Cohen, E. (2014). Values in the bank: Value preferences of
bank frontline workers and branch managers. European Journal of Work

46 Arieli et al.
and Organizational Psychology, 23(5), 769–782. https://doi.org/10.1080/13594
32X.2013.794933.
Tsabari, O., Tziner, A., & Meir, E.I. (2005). Updated meta-analysis on the relation-
ship between congruence and satisfaction. Journal of Career Assessment, 13(2),
216–232. https://doi.org/10.1177/1069072704273165.
Turban, D.B., & Keon, T.L. (1993). Organizational attractiveness: An interac-
tionist perspective. Journal of Applied Psychology, 78(2), 184–193. https://doi.
org/10.1037/0021-9010.78.2.184.
Van Maanen, J., & Schein, E.H. (1979). Towards a theory of organizational so-
cialization. In: B. Staw (Ed.), Research in organizational behaviour (Vol. 1, pp.
209–264). Greenwich, CT: JAI Press.
Vecchione, M., Schwartz, S., Alessandri, G., Döring, A.K., Castellani, V., &
Caprara, M.G. (2016). Stability and change of basic personal values in early
adulthood: An 8-year longitudinal study. Journal of Research in Personality, 63,
111–122. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jrp.2016.06.002.
Verplanken, B., & Holland, R.W. (2002). Motivated decision making: Effects of acti-
vation and self-centrality of values on choices and behavior. Journal of Personality
and Social Psychology, 82(3), 434–447. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.82.3.434.
Wheeler, L., Reis, H.T., & Bond, M.H. (1989). Collectivism-individualism in every-
day social life: The middle kingdom and the melting pot. Journal of Personality
and Social Psychology, 57(1), 79–86. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.57.1.79.
Morris, M.W., Williams, K.Y., Leung, K., Larrick, R., Mendoza, M.T., Bhatnagar,
D., & Hu, J.-C. (1998). Conflict management style: accounting for cross-national
differences. Journal of International Business Studies, 29(4), 729–747. doi:10.1057/
palgrave.jibs.8490050.
Wrzesniewski, A., McCauley, C., Rozin, P., & Schwartz, B. (1997). Jobs, careers,
and callings: People’s relations to their work. Journal of Research in Personality,
31(1), 21–33. https://doi.org/10.1006/jrpe.1997.2162.
SUPPORTING INFORMATION
Additional supporting information may be found in the online version
of this article at the publisher’s web site:
Appendix A Values at the Nation- and Organisation-Levels
Appendix B Literature Review Procedure

Arieli Et Al-2019-Applied Psychology PDF

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Arieli Et Al-2019-Applied Psychology PDF

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Arieli Et Al-2019-Applied Psychology PDF

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

APPLIED PSYCHOLOGY: AN INTERNATIONAL REVIEW, 2019, 0 (0), 1–46

Values at Work: The Impact of Personal Values in

Values play a central role in guiding organisations (Rokeach, 2008;

* Address for correspondence: Sharon Arieli, School of Business Administration, The

© 2018 International Association of Applied Psychology.

FIGURE 1. Personal values in work settings.

© 2018 International Association of Applied Psychology.

THE NATURE OF PERSONAL VALUES

© 2018 International Association of Applied Psychology.

COMMONALITIES AND DIFFERENCES BETWEEN VALUES

© 2018 International Association of Applied Psychology.

SCHWARTZ’S THEORY OF PERSONAL VALUES

© 2018 International Association of Applied Psychology.

The circular continuum of values can be summarised into four higher-order

© 2018 International Association of Applied Psychology.

membership (universalism). Hedonism values share elements of both open-

VALUES AND CAREER CHOICE

Values and Vocational Interests

© 2018 International Association of Applied Psychology.

Conventional interests reflect a preference for systematic tasks and an

© 2018 International Association of Applied Psychology.

VALUES AND OCCUPATIONS

VALUE PROFILE OF MANAGERS

© 2018 International Association of Applied Psychology.

pattern was found in a research comparing managers in non-profit organisa-

Values and Work Orientations

© 2018 International Association of Applied Psychology.

Values and Behaviour at Work

Openness to Change versus Conservation Values

Creativity and Innovation. Creativity is considered essential for

© 2018 International Association of Applied Psychology.

© 2018 International Association of Applied Psychology.

Self- Maio et al., 2009;

© 2018 International Association of Applied Psychology.

their creativity. In both studies creative performance was positively cor-

Proactive Behaviour in Organisations. Proactive behaviour involves

© 2018 International Association of Applied Psychology.

© 2018 International Association of Applied Psychology.

attributed to prosocial values. In contrast, under clarity (i.e., low ambiguity),

Reactions to Organisational Change Initiated by the Management. Change

© 2018 International Association of Applied Psychology.

Compliance and Accommodation in the Work Context. Several studies

© 2018 International Association of Applied Psychology.

to change) values positively predicted identification with the organisation.

Self-Enhancement versus Self-Transcendence Values

Altruistic Behaviour. Altruistic behaviour is intended to protect or

© 2018 International Association of Applied Psychology.

© 2018 International Association of Applied Psychology.

Accordingly, organisational members perceived these reward systems as

Competition versus Cooperation. Organisational members often have

© 2018 International Association of Applied Psychology.

© 2018 International Association of Applied Psychology.

Values and Behaviour in Organisations: Summary

Managers’ Values and their Impact on Other

© 2018 International Association of Applied Psychology.

© 2018 International Association of Applied Psychology.

to self-direction values positively predicted an “innovative” culture, which,

Person-Organisation Value Fit

© 2018 International Association of Applied Psychology.