the lifestyle, commitment and satisfaction among male workers in tokyo

The Lifestyle, Commitment and Satisfaction among Male Workers in Tokyo

Shin Watanabe

A bslract This study examines the relationship between workers’ lifestyle, organizational commitment, and satisfaction. First, this study describes the lifestyle, i.e.. cluster of value orientations, of male workers in Tokyo. The sample of this study is 2.003 regular male private firm employees and public (government) employees aged 20-54 living in the Tokyo metropolitan areas. We measure attitudes of workers toward work and the place of work. The 33 measures of attitudes are analyzed by means of cluster analysis to construct typologies of lifestyle of workers. We obtained three clusters: cluster 1 (career-oriented generalists, i.e., company man), cluster 2 (stability-oriented family man), and cluster 3 (work-oriented specialist). Second, we found demographic differences among the three clusters. Workers in cluster 1 tend to be older. to be more university educated, to obtain higher income, and to have higher positions at their current job. Workers in cluster 2 are more likely to be young, to graduate from senior high school, and to be in the middle-income group. Workers in cluster 3 tend to graduate from special training school or university and to be in lower-income group. Finally, we found differences in organizational commitment and job satisfaction among the three clusters. Workers in cluster 2 are more likely than are those in the other two clusters to be dissatisfied with their current job. to have a lower level of identification with their current firm, and consequently to have a grea- ter propensity to leave their present company.

INTRODUCTION

“Lifetime commitment””-the practice of working for one f i rm through- out one’s work life has been referred to as one of the defining characteristics of Japanese employment relations. Hazama (1 960) indicated that the practices of lifetime employment are mainly observed in large companies. During 1960’s it was claimed that Japanese employment system is a reflection of the familial orientation of Japanese society, i.e., the traditional family ideology (Matsushima, 1962; Hazama, 1963). Since the 70’s the notion of groupism (collectivism) has been frequent- ly used to characterize Japanese employment system, compared to more individualistic orientation in Britain and United States (Nakane, 1970; Hazama, 1971, 1977; Tsuda, 1976; and Odaka, 1984). Therefore, many scholars argue that employee commitment and involvement in Japanese companies are derived from Japanese traditional values such as loyalty to the group and group collectivism. For example, American society is often characterized by much geographic mobility, and a strong emphasis on individualism and on individual success, which pull people away from building and maintaining strong networks (Alcalay, 1983). On the other hand, Japanese society is characterized by a col- lectivity or frame orientation which associates the individual, not with

I J J S Number 5 (1996) - 89 -

International Journal of Japanese Sociology

a position or role (attributes), but with the entire social group, whether family, community, or company. The setting of the institution has importance as the base which defines the individual's social world (Nakane, 1970: 1 2 5 ) . In most cases, the company provides the whole social world or a sense of genuine belongingness to a person. An individual's total emotional participation (commitment) to the company and loyalty are expected. These expectations have become moral values which lead to the existence and maintenance of lifetime commitment norms internalized by individuals in Japanese society. In sum, many of prior studies on workers' commitment to organization and satisfaction have emphasized the importance of values in determining workers' attitudes and behavior.

Though the literature on employee work"orientations in Japan is vast, several attitude surveys produced findings concerning the relationship between social values and commitment among Japanese workers (Odaka, 1960; Hazama, 1960; Ishikawa, 1975; and Inagami, 198 1 ) . Ishikawa (1975) found that the level of identification with the firm was declining over time in young cohorts. While young workers tended to have more individualistic orientation, they wanted to learn more about work and specialized skills. Therefore, Japanese young workers showed a low level of commitment to the company, but a high level of commitment to work. Inagami (1981) tested the hypothesis proposed by Dubin (1956) and Goldthorpe (1968) to examine the structure of employee work orientations among Japanese workers. The hypothesis was that the location of central interests among the affluent workers shifted from work and the place of work to private life, which is the formation of family-centered life style. In other words, the hypothesis states that industrial workers view work instrumentally, i.e., work as means to economic ends. Contrary to the hypothesis, Inagami found that Japanese workers viewed work more intrinsically rewarding. This value orientation was typically observed among young, highly educated, and white-collar workers. Both work and family were central life interests for blue-collar as well as white-collar workers in Japan.

This paper reexamines the issue of values among Japanese workers with attention to commitment and satisfaction. Guided by the lifestyle approach based on cluster analysis, the impact of worker's various value orientations upon their organizational commitment and job satisfaction is examined.

THE LIFESTYLE APPROACH

The conceptual orientation employed in this paper is a lifestyle approach. This paper focuses on the effects of lifestyles upon organizational commitment and job satisfaction by analyzing value orientations among male workers in Tokyo. We obtain distinct types of lifestyle of

- 90 -


workers by measuring attitudes of workers toward work and the place of work.

The concept of lifestyle has been long discussed in the literature of social stratification (Lynd & Lynd, 1929; Veblen, 1966; Warner and Lunt, 1941; Weber, 194612). A great deal of attention has been paid to variations in lifestyle stemming from the nature of class differences, particularly stressing a characteristic set of values that distinguish working-class from middle-class workers. These values have been attributed to particular work situations (Kohn, 1959; Kohn & Schooler, 1 9 6 9 ) . Moreover, the emergence of several alternative lifestyles indicated the proliferation of lifestyles and differentiation of lifestyle in American society since 1945. The notion of lifestyle has been associ- ated with classes, occupational groups, community, ethnicity and generation (Zablocki and Kanter, 1976).

In this paper, we adopt Sobel’s definition of lifestyle a t the individual level as “a distinctive, hence recognizable, mode of living (1983: 120> .” Conceptually lifestyle is supposed to be composed of clusters of value orientations”. Value orientations are modes of orientations in relation to values, “an enduring belief that a specific mode of conduct or end- state of existence is personally or socially preferable to an opposite or converse mode of conduct or end-state of existence (Rokeach, 1973: 5) .” We measure work-related value orientations operationally by asking respondents’ attitudes toward work and the place of work.

Izeki (1978) proposed a lifestyle approach to the study of labor mobility. Izeki and Morishima (1 982) operationalized the lifestyles by measuring attitudes of workers toward work and employer and did a cluster analysis to obtain distinct types of lifestyle of Japanese workers. The results of their analyses showed that the respondents in their sample could be classified into four types of workers“). They found that different lifestyles of workers were related to different patterns of behavior in searching for information in the labor market.

Izeki and Morishima’s lifestyle approach to measure worker’s attitudes toward work and the place of work is employed in this paper. We examine especially the effects of workers’ lifestyles on organizational commitment and job satisfaction. Organizational commitment is defined as the degree of attachment to and identification with the company (Porter, Crampon, and Smith, 1 9 7 6 ) . The concept of organizational commitment implies loyalty, identification with organizational goals, motivation to exert efforts on the organization’s behalf and intention to maintain the employment relationship (Lincoln and Kalleberg, 1990: 58 -70) . In this paper, identification with the current f i r m and propensity to leave the present company are examined as organizational commitment factors, i.e., subdimensions which constitute the concept of organizational commitment. Job satisfaction is defined as an overall affective orientation on the part of individuals toward work roles which they are presently occupying (Kalleberg, 1977: 126) .

-91-


Worker’s Demographic ---> Lifestyle---> Organizational Commitment and Characteristics (Value Satisfaction (Identification with (Age, Education, Orientations) Firm, Propensity to Leave, and Position and Income) Job Satisfaction)

Job the

Figure 1

Analytical Model of Lifestyle, Organizational Commitment and Job Satisfaction

As shown in Figure 1, the analytical model consists of three sets of factors: (1) demographic characterist ics of workers such a s age, education, position, and income, (2) lifestyles -(value orientations) of work- e rs , and (3) organizational commitment and job satisfaction. The inter- relationship among three sets of factors in the model is examined by analyzing the data of male workers in Tokyo. Firs t , th is s tudy de- scr ibes the lifestyle of workers. Second, we examine demographic differences among the types of lifestyle of workers. Finally, we identify the differences in organizational commitment and job satisfaction among the types of lifestyle.

D A T A

The s tudy was conducted in 1985 i n collaboration with Recruit Re- search. Data were collected in a sample of 2 , 5 9 3 male workers (excluding s tudents) aged 2 0 - 5 4 living in the a reas within a 50-kilo- meter rad ius of Tokyo (including Tokyo-to, Kanagawa prefecture, Chi- ba prefecture, and Saitama prefecture). Respondents were chosen by means of probability proportionate to size two-cluster sampling. Each respondent was visited and given a questionnaire by a researcher. The questionnaire was left to be completed and was picked up later by the researcher. 2 , 5 9 3 questionnaires were obtained for a response rate of 40.0 percent. Among them, 2,003 workers were regular employees of private firms and public (government) employees (i.e.. non-self-employed o r non-family-employed workers) of whom 8 1 2 workers changed their employers in the past. In this paper , 2 , 0 0 3 regular male workers were analyzed.

MEASURES AND METHOD

LIFES T YLE: V a1 u e orient a ti o ns Worke r s were asked questions concerning their att i tudes toward

work and the place of work. Thir ty- three question items devised by Izeki and Morishima ( 1 9 8 2 : 71-73) were used to measure workers’

- 92 -


value orientations. Questions were devised to tap ten major value orientations. These orientations were, as follows: (1) specialist vs. generalist orientation, which refers to the level of commitment to specialized or professional skills; (2) inner vs. outer reference group orientation, which refers to whether workers have a reference group within or outside their f i rm or their local community; (3) stayer vs. mover orientation, which refers to the level of loyalty to the employing organization (i.e., low propensity to leave the employing organization vs. high propensity to leave i t) ; (4) maintenance vs. improvement orientation, which refers to whether workers are satisfied with the current situation in the work life and try to maintain it, or make efforts to improve it for the purpose of obtaining better jobs or higher positions; (5) stability vs. change orientation, which refers to whether workers prefer living a stable work life or living a varied work life; (6) individualistic vs. collectivistic orientation, which refers to whether workers regard as of primary importance individual interest or the interest of the group to which they belong; (7 ) leisure vs. work orientation, which refers to whether workers think much of leisure-related activities or work-related activities; (8 ) family vs. company orientation, which refers to whether workers make much of family life or work life; (9) long-term plan vs. immediate consequences orientation, which refers to whether workers regulate their current behavior on the basis of anticipation of future payoffs or immediate consequences of their behavior; and (10) expressive vs. instrumental orientation, which refers to whether workers consider their work intrinsically significant/self-rewarding or instrumental to the attainment of other goals. These ten value orientations were measured by asking workers to indicate whether they agree or disagree with each of the following statements.

(1) Specialist vs. generalist orientation 2. I would rather experience a variety of work tasks than be thor-

oughly acquainted with only one specific work task. 7. I want to have a skil l which can be used at many companies.

18. I want to make the most of my skills at my place of work.

(2) Inner vs. outer reference group orientation 21. I often read magazines or newspapers concerning economics and

business. 24. The most suitable place for doing one’s work well is the place

where one has lived a long time.

(3) Stayer vs. mover orientation 16. It is better to work a t one company for a long time, even i f one

is offered a better job a t another company. 27. It is often the case that if you change your job or company fre-

quently, you will hurt your reputation.

- 93 -


(4) Maintenance vs. improvement orientation 1. I want to continue s tudying in order to do a better job. 9 . I ’ w a n t to make efforts to achieve a higher s ta tus in my occupa-

tion. 14. Sacrificing something i s inevitable in order to improve one’s

s tandard of living. 32. I t i s quite sufficient to do only that work which i s specified by

the company.

(5) Stabil i ty vs. change orientation 4. I do not like a job whose contents a r e varied.

13. I prefer to choose a company in terms of i ts future stabil i ty ra ther than its present stability.

20. I like the challenge of doing different kinds of work all the time. 25. I would rather maintain my cur ren t position than s t r ive for a

higher position that requires more work. 31. I a lways want to t ry to improve the way I do my job.

( 6 ) Individualistic vs. collectivistic orientation 3. I se t a high value on getting along with other workers a t my

place of work. 6. Personal interests a r e more important than those of the com-

pany. 26. Subordinates should obey a superior’s order even if they dis-

agree with it. 30. T h e most important pa r t of a job is getting along with cowor-

kers .

(7) Leisure vs. work orientation 8. I will endure anything in order to do my work well.

19 . Leisure is very important in order to do one’s work well. 22. In addition to work, I like to follow my hobby. 28. I like to clearly distinguish between work and my personal time.

(8) Family vs. company orientation 10. I would rather go home regularly than work over-time. 17. Work is done for one’s family. 33. I reserve holidays and weekends mainly for my family, even i f I

have lots of work to do.

(9) Long-term plan vs. immediate consequences orientation 11. I have a clear objective o r perspective regarding my future life. 15. I like to think of ideas and insights about my work. 29. A detailed plan is important to do one’s job.

(1 0 ) Expressive vs. Instrumental orientation

- 94 -


5. Work is only a means to achieve one’s goal in one’s life. 12. Work is only a means to gain a living. 23. People should have some objective in their life other than their

work.

The 33 measures (i.e., variables) of attitudes were analyzed by means of cluster analysis; “agree” was coded 1 while “disagree” was coded 2. In this paper, cluster analysis was employed for the construc- tion of typologies of lifestyle of workers’). Though we obtained four clusters6), the number of cases in one of the four clusters is extremely small (i.e., 9). Therefore, we examined the characteristics of other three clusters. Univariate F-tests (analysis of variance test) for each clustering variable indicated that 32 of 3 3 variables have a probability-value less than -05. However, Aldenderfer and Blashfield (1984: 64-66) argue that cluster analysis methods, by definition, will separate entities into clusters that have virtually no overlap along the variables being used to create clusters and that significance tests for differences among the clusters along these variables should always be positive. Therefore, univariate F-tests as internal validation may not be sufficient for the validation of cluster solution. We need to perform significance tests on external variables, i.e., significance tests that compare clusters on variables not used to generate the cluster solution. We performed external validation tests by using four demographic variables that were not used in forming the clusters and found statistically significant differences along all of these four variables. The result of external validation test will be explained later.

Organizational Commitment and Job Satis faction: For the measure of identification with the current firm, we asked re-

spondents how much sense of identification (belongingness) or how loyal they felt toward their current company, in terms of a percentage ranging 0 to 100. Propensity to leave the present company was measured by asking respondents whether they were thinking about leaving their present company. In addition, respondents were asked how satisfied they were with their present job. The level of job satisfaction was measured 1 to 5 for (1) very satisfied, (2) fairly satisfied, (3) neither satisfied nor dissatisfied, (4) fairly dissatisfied, and (5) very dissatisfied.

When the three clusters were cross-classified by selected variables such as demographic characteristics of workers, organizational commitment, and job satisfaction, we used chi-square tests of significance in order to evaluate differences in lifestyle among workers of the three clusters.

-95-


PROFILES OF LIFESTYLES OF WORKERS IN THE THREE CLUSTERS

These three clusters were cross-classified by the 33 measures of attitudes in order to examine the differences in attitudes toward work and the place of work between the three clusters, that is, the profiles of lifestyles of workers. Profiles of three types of lifestyle among male workers in Tokyo are presented in Table 17). The attitudes of workers in the three clusters toward work and the place of work were as follows:

Cluster 1. Career-oriented Generalist (Company Man) : Workers in this cluster are defined as typical company men because

they put more importance on company life than on family life. About half of all the regular workers belong to this duster . They are general-

Table 1

Profiles of Three Types of Lifestyle among Japanese Workers (N= 1727)

Cluster 1: Career-oriented Generalist (Company Man) (N=878)

A. Agreed Question Items:

2. I would rather experience a variety of work tasks than be thoroughly acquainted with

7. I want to have a skill which can be used at many companies. (generalist) 1. I want to continue studying in order to do a better job. (improvement) 9. I want to make efforts to achieve higher status in the occupation. (improvement)

14. Sacrificing something is inevitable to improve one’s living. (improvement) 1 1 . I have a clear objective or perspective regarding my future life. (long-term plan) 15. I like to think of ideas and insights about my work. (long-term plan) 29. A detailed plan is important to d o one’s job. (long-term plan) 20. I want to challenge different kinds of work all the time. (change) 21. I often read magazines or newspapers concerning economics and business. (outer

8. I could endure anything to d o my work well. (work)

only one specific work task. (generalist)

reference group)

B. Disagreed Question Items:

10. I would rather go home regularly than work overtime. (company) 17. Work is done for one’s family. (company) 33. I reserve holidays and weekends mainly for may family, even if I have lots of work

25. I would rather maintain the current position than strive for a higher position

5. Work is only a means to achieve one’s goal in a one’s life (expressive) 12. Work is only a means to gain a living. (expressive) 6. Personal interests are more important than those of the company. (collectivistic)

to do. (company)

with great efforts. (change)

Notes: a. Because those cases with missing values on any of the clustering variable are deleted

in this cluster analysis, 2,003 regular workers were reduced to 1,727 workers.

- 96 -


Table 1 (Continued) __________I__-_--__----------- I_ ____------------ ------*--

Cluster 2: Stability-oriented Family Man (N=570) -


10. I would rather go home regularly than work overtime. (family) 17. Work is done for one’s family. (family) 33. I reserve holidays and weekends mainly for my family, even if I have lots of work

4. I d o not like a work whose contents are vaned. (stability) 13. I prefer to choose a company in terms of its future stability rather than its present

stability. (stability) 25. I would rather maintain the current position than strive for a higher

position than strive for a higher position with great efforts. (stability) 5. Work is only a means to achieve one’s goal in a one’s life. (instrumental) 12. Work is only a means to gain a living. (instrumental) 2. I would rather experience a variety of work tasks than be thoroughly

7. I want to have a skill which can be used at many companies. (generalist) 28. I like to clearly distinguish between work and my personal time. (leisure) 6. Personal interests are more important than those of the company. (individualistic)

11. I have a clear objective or perspective regarding my future life. (long-time plan) 14. Sacrificing something is inevitable to improve one’s living. (improvement) 24. The most suitable place for doing one’s work well is the place where one has lived

32. It IS quite sufficient to do only that work which is specified by the company.

to do. (family)

acquainted with only one specific work task. (generalist)

a long time. (inner reference group)

(maintenance)


8. I could endure anything to d o my work well. (leisure) 20. I want to challenge different kinds of work all the time. (stability)

....................................................................................................................... Notes: a. Because those cases with missing values on any of the clustering variable are deleted


ists rather than specialists, because they are not as concerned about specialized roles or skills. They consider their work intrinsically rewarding and significant. Workers in this cluster are career-oriented in the sense that they make efforts to improve their work life for the purpose of obtaining better jobs or higher positions on the basis of long- term plans. They prefer living a varied work life rather than a stable one. They are collectivistic in the sense that they think their company’s interests are more important than their personal interests.

Cluster 2. Stability-oriented Family Man: Workers in this cluster are family men rather than company men, be-

cause family life is more important to them than is company life. About a third of all the regular workers belong to this cluster. They are oriented to stability in the sense that they prefer living a stable work

- 97 -


Table 1 (Continued)

Cluster 3. Work-oriented Specialist (N=279)


8. I could endure anything to d o my work well. (work)


2. I would rather experience a variety of work tasks than be thoroughly

7. I want to have a skill which can be used at many companies. (specialist) 5 . Work is only a means to achieve one’s goal in a one’s life. (expressive) 12. Work is only a means to gain a living. (expressive) 19. Leisure is very important in order to do one’s work well. (work) 28. I l ike to clearly distinguish between work and my personal time. (work) 11. I have a clear objective OJ perspective regarding my future life. (immediate

1.5. I like to think of ideas and insights about my work. (immediate consequences) 29. A detailed plan is important to d o one’s job. (immediate consequences) 10. I would rather go home regularly than work overtime. (company) 17. Work is done for one’s family. (company) 33. I reserve holidays and weekends mainly for my family, even if I have lots of work to

acquainted with only one specific work task. (specialist)

consequences)

do. (company)

(maintenance) 9. I want to make efforts to achieve higher status in the occupation.

14. Sacrificing something is inevitable to improve one‘s living. (maintenance) 6. Personal interests are more important than those of the company. (collectivistic) 4. I do not like a work whose contents are vaned. (change)

13. I prefer to choose a company in terms of its future stability rather than its present

20. I like the challenge of doing different kinds of work a!! the time. (stability) 21. I often read magazines or newspapers concerning economics and business. (inner

24. The most suitable place for doing one’s work well is the place where one has lived

stability. (change)

reference group)

a long time. (outer reference group)

Notes: a. Because those cases with missing values on any of the clustering variable are deleted


life to a challenging, varied work life. They a r e more oriented to lei- su re than to work. They a r e instrumentally oriented to work. T o them, work is not rewarding in itself, bu t is only a means to gain a living. They a re generalists. They a re individualistic in the sense tha t their personal interests a r e more important than their company’s interests.

Cluster 3. Work-oriented Specialist: About 16% of all the regular workers belong to this cluster. Work-

e r s in th i s cluster a r e oriented to work rather than to leisure. They are specialists in the sense tha t they a re committed to a higher level of professional role or specialized skills. They consider their work intr in-

- 98 -


sically satisfying. As the same with workers in cluster 1, they think more of a company life than a family life and have a collectivistic orientation. However, in contrast to cluster 1, they behave on the basis of immediate consequences rather than a long-term plan and they prefer maintaining the current situation to improving it, because they do not want to make efforts to achieve higher status.

DEMOGRAPHIC DIFFERENCES BETWEEN WORKERS IN THE THREECLUSTERS

We performed an external validation test of a cluster solution. As mentioned above, we contrasted these three clusters along four demographic variables that were not used in forming the clusters. In other words, the three clusters were cross-classified by demographic variables in order to compare workers in the three clusters on selected demographic characteristics. As shown in Table 2, we found statistically significant differences along four demographic variables between the three clusters. Thus, we can say that the cluster solution has passed an external validation test and this supports the generality of the cluster solution.

The age differences between workers in the three clusters lie in the lower proportion of the 20-29 age category among workers in cluster 1, the lower proportion of the 40-54 age category among the workers in cluster 2, and the lower proportion of the 30-39 age category among the workers in the cluster 3. This means that workers in cluster 1 are relatively older and that workers in cluster 2 are relatively younger, compared to those in other clusters.

Regarding educational differences between the clusters, workers in cluster 1 are more highly educated than those in other two clusters, because cluster 1 contains the highest proportion of those who graduated from university/graduate school. The educational differences between workers in clusters 2 and 3 lie in the higher proportion of graduates of senior high school in cluster 2 and the higher proportion of those who graduated from special training school and university/graduate school in cluster 3.

Cluster 1 contains a higher proportion of the higher-income group than other two clusters. The income differences in clusters 2 and 3 lie in the higher proportion of the middle-income group category in cluster 2 and the higher proportion of the lower-income group category in cluster 3.

Workers in cluster 1 are more likely than workers in other two clusters to occupy higher positions (i.e., above section head). Workers in cluster 2 are more likely than other two clusters to occupy lower positions (i.e., below section head).

Overall, workers in cluster I (career-oriented generalist: company

- 99 -


Table 2

Demographic Characteristics of Workers in the Three Clusters -------------_-_-_______________________-------------------------------------------------

Current Age of Workers 20 to 29 30 to 39 40 to 54 (N)

Cluster 1 25.5 49.9 24.6 (878)

Cluster 2 34.6 50.5 14.9 (570)

Cluster 3 34.8 43.4 21.9 (279) p = .oooo

Education Junior- Senior- Special University/

School School School School High High Training Graduate (N)

Cluster 1 5.0 29.5 7.9 57.6 (875)

Cluster 2 7.4 37.4 13.3 41.9 (570)

Cluster 3 7.2 30.2 16.2 46.4 (278) p = .oooo

Annual Income (million yen) 3.2 or less 3.21 to 4.66 4.67 or more (N)

Cluster 1 27.8 31.1 41.1 (878)

Cluster 2 37.7 36.8 25.4 (570)

Cluster 3 42.3 30.5 27.2 (279) p = .oooo

Position at Current Job Director or Deputy Dept Head Positions Below (N) Dept Head or Section Head Section Head

Cluster 1 9.6 15.9 74.5 (874)

Cluster 2 4.2 7.1 88.7 (565)

Cluster 3 7.9 7.9 84.2 (279) p = .oooo

man) are more likely than those in other two clusters to be older, to be university educated, to obtain higher income, and to have higher position a t their cur ren t job. Workers in cluster 2 (stability-oriented family man) a r e more likely than those in other two clusters to be younger, to graduate from senior high school, to be in the middle-income group, and to have lower position a t their cur ren t job,. Workers in c luster 3 (work-oriented specialist) a r e less likely than those in other two clus- te rs to be in their thirt ies and a r e more likely to graduate from special

- 100 -


training school, and to be in lower-income group. Since lifetime employment system is supposed to be the pattern of

employment among large firms in Japan (Hazama, 1960; Marsh and Mannari, 1976; and Odaka, 1984), in addition to demographic variables, we examined the relationship between the size of firm where workers were currently employed and their lifestyle. Though it was not shown in Table 2, there were no statistically significant differences among workers of three clusters by the size of the firm where workers were currently employed: 43.2% of workers in cluster 1 were currently employed in large f i rms (i.e., f i r m s of 1.000 employees or more), compared to 41.1% of those in cluster 2 and 41.9% of those in cluster 3 (A?- [6 dfl = 5.87, p=.438).

COMMITMENT AND SATISFACTION OF WORKERS IN THE THREE CLUSTERS

Table 3 displays organizational commitment and job satisfaction of workers in the three clusters. Major differences in commitment and satisfaction are found between workers in clusters 1 and 3 and those in cluster 2.

Workers in clusters 1 and 3 (career-oriented generalists and work- oriented specialists) tend to be satisfied with their current job. They also tend to have a low level of propensity to leave their current company. Workers in cluster 1 (career-oriented generalist) are more likely than those in other clusters to have a higher level of identification with the current firm. On the other hand, workers in cluster 2 (stability-oriented family man) seem to be alienated from work situations. Because they are not as satisfied with the current job as those in other clusters and did not feel a sense of belongingness toward the current company, they tend to think about leaving the company.

Are there any differences in job-changing experiences between these clusters? Job-changing experiences refer to whether workers changed their employer in the past. As Table 3 displays, we found no statistically significant differences in job-changing experiences between workers in the three clusters.

DISCUSSION

In this paper, we examine the effects of workers’ value orientations on organizational commitment and job satisfaction. We employ the lifestyle approach to explain organizational commitment and job satisfaction among male workers in Tokyo. We identified three types of lifestyle among workers.

About half of all the regular workers belong to “company man” type,

- 101 -


Table 3

Organizational Commitment and Job Satisfaction of Workers in the Three Clusters

Job Satisfaction Fairly Neither Fairly or Very Satisfied nor or Very (N)

Satisfied Dissatisfied Dissatisfied

Cluster 1 66.9 15.2 17.9 (876)

Cluster 2 47.6 27.2 25.1 (569)

Cluster 3 61.9 21.2 16.9 (278) p=.OoOo

which confirms the popular impression of Japanese workers as strongly committed to their companies. About a third of workers belong to “stability-oriented family man” type. As is mentioned above, workers in this cluster are relatively young and less educated. They have a lower level of organizational commitment and a lower level of job satisfaction than those in other clusters. They are individualistic in the sense that their personal interests are more important than their com-

- 102-


pany’s interests. This is consistent with Ishikawa’s findings (1975) that young workers exhibited a low level of commitment to their organization because they have more individualistic orientations. In addition, “work-oriented specialist” type workers seem to correspond to those young workers in Ishikawa’s sample who wanted to learn more about work and specialized skills.

Since “stability-oriented family man” type workers are reIatively young, it is not certain whether this type of lifestyle is a product of young age, i.e., as a result of being young and of being in early stage of the life cycle, or a product of generation because of unique formative experiences and “cohort situations”. It remains to be seen if the lifestyle among young workers will change as they grow older. We should also keep in mind that since we tend to overidentify particular lifestyles with their modal age cohorts, we might ignore the wide range in age distribution actually found among the adherents of most lifestyles (Zablocki and Kanter, 1976: 280) .

The results of our analysis are also consistent with Dubin-Gold- thorpe’s hypothesis concerning the emergence of family-centered life style and the instrumentally-oriented workers, which Inagami (1 98 1) tested in his study. We identify what we call “stability-oriented family man” type in our sample. To workers of this type, family life is more important than is company life. They are also instrumentally oriented, i.e., they view work as a means to other ends. On the other hand, “company man” type in our sample seems to correspond to workers who have “bureaucratic orientations” proposed by Goldthorpe et al. (1968) .

Segmented labor-market theorists argued that workers in different market segments such as upper-primary, lower-primary, and secondary sectors have different lifestyles or subcultures which lead to different kinds of decision making (Piore, 1979: xiii-xiv & 1 4 1 ) . Since lifetime employment practices are observed in large firms in Japan, we would hypothesize that the lifestyle of workers who work for large f i rms dif- fers from that of other workers. However, we found that the size of firm where workers were currently employed had no particular effects on their lifestyle.

We found that the value orientations of workers were important correlates of organizational commitment and job satisfaction. The lifestyle of workers is also related to demographic characteristics. The lifestyle of workers seems to be an important intervening variable link- ing demographic factors to organizational commitment and job satisfaction.

Because the data in this study were collected in 1985, whether the types of lifestyle we obtained in this study still apply to workers in re- cent economic situation is not certain. We need to replicate this study in the future to check the generalizability of these findings. Moreover, this study focuses on the role of lifestyles only among male workers. There seem to be gender differences in work-related value orientations.

- 103 -


W e need to examine the effects of gender upon lifestyles in a future study.

,4c k no w 1 e dgmen t s

I would like to thank the anonymous reviewers for their helpful comments and suggestions on a n ear l ie r d r a f t of th i s article.

Notes

1) Before Abegglen ( 1 9 5 8 , introduced the concept of lifetime commitment, Japanese scho- l a r s had a l ready indicated the existence of lifetime employment pract ices in Japan (Ohkochi. 1 9 5 4 ; Fuj i ta , 1 9 6 1 ; Matsushima, 1951 & 1 9 6 2 ; Hazama, 1960 & 1 9 6 3 ; Oda- ka, 1965; and Ujihara , 1 9 6 6 ) . F o r example. Fujita (1961) referred to Japanese employment pract ices a s labor-management relations composed of hierarchy, lifetime employment, senior i ty-based wages and promotion, and an elaborate system of fringe benefits.

2 ) F o r example, W e b e r uses the concept of lifestyle to indicate s t a t u s cul tures by arguing tha t s t a t u s groups, as differentiated from classes, a r e composed of people with a common lifestyle, values and at t i tudes (Weber . 1 9 4 6 : 186-193). Similarly. Veblen (1966) con- s i d e r s lifestyle a s a means of s t a t u s competition, arguing that stratification is orgaaized by s imilar i ty to a "leisure-class" cultural ideal. Recently, DiMaggio ( 1 9 9 4 : 4 6 3 ) includes at t i tudes, values, cul tural capital, linguistic capital, social networks, and health a s a wide range of life-style variables.

3) F o r example, Gouldner constructed the typology of cosmopolitans and locals on the bas i s of three value or ientat ions of workers: level of commitment to specialized o r profcs- sional ski l ls (general is t vs. special is t ) , the level of loyalty to the employing organization ( s tayer or mover) . and the use of inner o r outer reference group orientation (Gouldncr. 1958). Cosmopolitans a r e high on commitment to specialized skills, low on loyalty to the employing organization, and have an outer reference group orientation, while locals a r e low on commitment to specialized skills, high on loyalty to the employing organization. and have a n inner reference group orientation (Bailey. 1 9 9 4 : 3 6 8 ) .

4) T h e four types of lifestyle among workers a re , as follows: "Peaceful life"-oriented type. Non-commitment type, Stabi l i ty-preferred career-or iented type, and Challenging career-de- velopment type (Izeki and Morishima, 1982).

5) Bailey (1975: 59) s ta tes that "cluster analysis seeks to divide a se t of objects into a small number of relatively homogeneous groups on the bas i s of their similarity over N var iables . Conversely var iables can be grouped according to their similarity across all objects. Clus te r analysis can be viewed ei ther a s a means of summarizing a da ta set or as a means of construct ing a topology."

6 ) A statistical p rocedure called Quick Cluster included in statistical packages, SPSSx. which can cluster a v e r y large number of cases into a requested number of groups, w a s employed because the number of cases in this s tudy w a s large (i.e.. 2,003). A hierarchic- al agglomerative method w a s used a s the cluster ing method. Euclidean dis tance w a s employed as s imilar i ty measure. Originally four c lusters were requested, because Izeki and Morishima found f o u r types of workers in their s tudy (Izeki and Morishima, 1982).

7) Because of c lus te r analysis methods, 31 of 33 items obtained a value for chi-square which w a s statistically significant a t the level of .001 o r less. W e used Cramer 's V for accessing the s t rength of association between nominal var iables (i.e.. each of 31 items and three clusters) in o r d e r to omit items which did not discriminate between three clusters . Items t h a t did not exceed 1.5 value of V were omitted in Table 1.

- 104 -


References

.\begglen. James. 1958. The Japanese Factory, New York:The Free Press. Alcalay, Rina. 1983. "Health and Social Support Networks." Social Networks 5:7 1-88. Aldenderfer, Mark S. and Blashfield. Roger K. 1984. Cluster Analysis. Beverly Hi1ls:Sage. Eailey, Kenneth D. 1975. "Cluster Analysis." Pp.59-127 in Sociological Methodology. San

Bailey, Kenneth D. 1994. Methods of Social Research 4th ed. New York:The Free Press. DiJlaggio, Paul. 1994. "Social Stratification, Life-style, and Social Cognition." Pp.458-565 in

Social Stratification. edited by David Grusky. Boulder, Co1orado:Westview Press. Dubin, R. 1956. "Industrial Workers' World: a Study of the Central Life Interests of Indust-

rial Workers." Social Problems 3:131-142. Fujita, Wakao. 1961. N i h rodo kyoyaku-ron (Theory of Labor Agreement in Japan). Tokyo:

University of Tokyo Press. Goldthorpe, J.H.. D. Lockwood, F. Bechhofer, and J. Platt. 1968. The Affluent Worker: Indust-

rial Attitudes and Behavior. CambridgeCambridge University Press. Gouldner, Alvin. 1958. 'Cosmopolitans and Locals: Toward an Analysis of Latent Social

Roles:I and 11." Administratioe Science Quarterly 2:281-306. 44 1-480. Hazama. Hiroshi. 1960. "Rodosha no ishiki (Workers' Consciousness, Part I) ." in Nihmjin

no Shakai Ishiki (Social Consciousness among the Japanese), edited by Fukutake. Tokyo:University of Tokyo Press.

Hazama, Hiroshi. 1963. Nihonteki keiei no keifu (The Descent of Japanese Management). Nihon Noritsu Kyokai.

Hazama, Hiroshi. 1971. Nihmiteki keiei:Shudanshugi no kozai (Japanese Management: Merits and Demerits of Collectivism). Tokyo:Nihon Keizai Shinbunsha.

Hazama. Hiroshi (ed.). 1977. Nihon no kigyo to shakai (Japanese Firms and Society). Tokyo: Yihon Keizai Shinbunsha.

Inagami. Takeshi. 1981. "Nihon no yutakana rodosha (Japanese Affluent Workers) ." in Roslzi Kankei no shakaigaku (Sociology of Labor-Management Relations). Tokyo: Uni- versity of Tokyo Press.

Ishikawa. Akihiro. 1975. Shakaihendo to rodosha ishiki (Social Change and Worker Consciousness). Nihon Rod0 Kyokai.

Izeki. Toshiaki. 1978. "Shugyo sentaku no kodo kagaku riron (Behavioral Science Theory of Employment Choice)." Pp.153-195 in Rod0 ido no kenkyu (The Study of Labor Mobility) edited by Ishida Hideo, Izeki Toshiaki. and Sano Yoko. TokyoSogo Rod0 Kenkyujo.

Izeki. Toshiaki. and Morishima. Motohiro. 1982. "The Analysis of Lifestyle." Pp.71-82 in Rod0 shijo to joho (Labor Market and Information), edited by Izeki. Toshiaki. Ishida. Hideo, and Sano. Yoko. Tokyo:Keio Tsushin.

Kalleberg. Arne L. 1977. "Work Values and Job Rewards:A Theory of Job Satisfaction." -4 merican Sociological Review 4 2: 1 24- 1 4 3.

Kohn. Melvin L. 1959. "Social Class and Parental Values." Americaii Jounzal of Sociology 64:

Kohn. Melvin, L., and Carmi Schooler. 1969. "Class, Occupation, and Orientation." American Sociological Review 34:6 5 9- 6 78.

Lincoln, James, R.. and Kalleberg, Arne L. 1985. "Work Organization and Workforce Corn- mitment:A Study of Plants and Employees in the U.S. and Japan." American Sociological Review 5 0 (December) :738-760.

Lincoln, James, R.. and Kalleberg, Arne L. 1990. Culture, Control, and Commitment. Cam- bridge:Cambridge University Press.

Lynd, Robert S., and Hellen Merrell Lynd. 1929. Middletown. New York:Harcourt Brace Jov- anovich.

Marsh. Robert M., and Mannarai, Hiroshi. 1971. "Lifetime employment in Japan: Roles, Norms, and Values." American Journal of Sociology 76:795-812.

Matsushima, Shizuo. 1951, Rod0 shakaigaku josetsu (Introduction to Sociology of Work).

Franciscojossey-Bass Publishers.

337-351 .

- 105 -


Tokyo:Fukumura Shuppan.

istics of Labor Management and Thei r Change) . Tokyo:Diamond Press . Matsushima. Shizuo. 1 9 6 2 . Romu kanri no nihonteki tokushitsu to hensen (Japanese Charac te r -

Nakane. Chie. 1970. Japanese Society. Ha1mondsworth:Penguin Books. Odaka. Kunio. 1960. "Kumiai ishiki to kigyo ishiki:Rodosha ishiki no kozo bunseki (Union

Identification and Company Identification: S t ruc tura l Analysis of W o r k e r Conscious- ness." Nihon rodo kyokai zasshi 1 8 : 1 8 - 3 5 .

Odaka. Kunio. 1965. Nihm nu keiei Uananese Management). Tokyo:Chuo Koronsha. Odaka, Kunio. 1984. Nihonteki keiei (Japanese Management). Tokyo:Chuo Koronsha. Ohkochi, Kazuo. 1 9 5 4 . Keihin kogyo chitai chousa hokokusho (Research Report on Keihin In-

Piore. Michael J. ed. 1979. Unemployment and Inflation. M.E. Sharpe Inc. Porter , Lyman W.. William J. Crampon. and F r a n k J. Smith. 1 9 7 6 . "OrganizationalCommit-

ment and Managerial Turnover:A Longitudinal Study." Organizational Behavior and Hu- man Performance 15:87-98.

dus t r ia l Areas) . Kanagawa Prefectural Government.

Rokeach. Milton. 1973. The Nature of Human Values. New York:The Free Press . Sobel, Michael E. 1983. "Lifestyle Differentiation And Stratification in Contemporary U.S.

Society." Resfarch in Social Sfrati/ication and Mobility 2: 11 5-1 4 4 . Greenwhich, Conn:JAI Press Inc.

T s u d a , Masumi. 1976. Nihonfeki keiei nu yogo (Defending Japanese Management). Tokyo: Toyo Keizai Shinposha.

Ujihara . Seijiro. 1966. Nihon rodo mondai kcnkyu (The Study of Labor Problems in Japan) Tokyo:Universi ty of Tokyo Press .

Veblen. Thorstein. 1966 (1899). Theory of the Leisure Class. Viking Press . W a r n e r , William Lloyd and Paul S. Lunt. 1 9 4 1 . Social Life of a M o d e m Commiinity. New

Haven, Conn:Yale Universi ty Press . Weber , Max. 1 9 4 6 . From Max CVeber:Essays in Sociology edited by H.H. Gerth and C.Wright

Mills. New York:Oxford University Press . Zablocki, Benjamin D., and Rosabeth Moss Kanter . 1976. "The Differentiation of Life-styles."

Anriual Review of Sociology 21269.298.

Shin Watanabe is a n Associate Professor a t Sophia University.

- 106 -

the lifestyle, commitment and satisfaction among male workers in tokyo

Documents