Rokeach’s instrumental and terminal values as descriptors of modern organisation values

Full text

International Journal of Organizational Leadership 5(2016) 151–161
INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF
ORGANIZATIONAL LEADERSHIP
WWW.AIMIJOURNAL.COM
INDUSTRIAL
MANAGEMENT
INSTITUTE
Rokeach’s instrumental and terminal values
as descriptors of modern organisation
values
Krista Tuulik1, Tauno Õunapuu2, Karin Kuimet3, Eneken Titov*4
1PhD, Technology Transfer Manager, Tallinn University of Technology
2MSc, Associate Professor of Research Methodology, Estonian Entrepreneurship University of Applied
Sciences
3PhD student, Lecturer, Estonian Entrepreneurship University of Applied Sciences
4PhD, Management Professor, Estonian Entrepreneurship University of Applied Sciences
ABSTRACT
Keywords:
Rokeach’s Values,
Organizational Culture,
Organization Values
Many authors have created different tools to measure or estimate organisational culture.
Among the possibilities, they emphasize the use of organisational values. One of the most
well-known values classifications is Rokeach’s (1973) terminal and instrumental values.
Although this classification has been developed more than 40 years ago, the theory is still a
basis for many modern studies. The aim of our study is to find out whether Rokeach’s
values are still valid and relevant in modern organisational cultures or not. Almost 150
representatives of Estonian organisations were questioned in order to find out which
Rokeach’s values they perceive to be in use in their organisations. According to the results,
general ethical values as instrumental values were named least frequently and just one of
the terminal values was not named at all – salvation. Rokeach’s values lists are not
sufficiently relevant enough today to measure and describe the wide and colorful variety of
values.
Received
27 November2015
Received in revised form
14February 2016
Accepted
12 May 2016
Correspondence:
eneken@eek.ee
©AIMI Journals
Introduction
Personal and organisational values have been the object of different studies almost for four
decades. Today, values are central to public discourse. Long-term researches of theorists have
concentrated on the values central to understanding social behaviour (e.g., Allport, Vernon &

K. Tuulik et al 152

Lindzey, 1960; Kluckhohn, 1951; Rokeach, 1973; Williams, 1968). They see values as deeply
rooted abstract motivations that guide, justify, and explain attitudes, norms, opinions, and
actions (Feather, 1985; Rokeach, 1973; Schwartz, 1992). Every individual and organisation has
its own unique value system or hierarchy (Woodward & Shaffakat, 2014). Everyone has
different value priorities and the prevailing value emphases in organisations and societies
differ. Values have predictive and explanatory potential at the individual, organisational, and
societal levels. Moreover, values can reflect major social changes in societies and across
nations.
Many researches have connected the values with different individual and organisational
characteristics or factors like commitment, satisfaction, and culture. In 1973, Milton Rokeach
created the Value Survey, which has received widespread positive response and is still quite
widely used as a research tool. Rokeach’s list of values is so essential when we talk or think
about the values that only few studies (e.g. Braithwaite & Law, 1985) have dared to doubt
whether the tool is still valid today.
Our question in this study is whether the Rokeach’s 36 values are all still important and
describe the individual and organisational variety of values. The first step was to identify the
most common terminal and instrumental values in Estonian companies based on Rokeach's
value distribution and according to those results, estimate the importance of every value from
the list. The research was conducted in autumn 2014 among the students of Estonian
Entrepreneurship University of Applied Sciences. Only the working students were surveyed.
The Literature Review
Organisation’s values are closely linked to leadership, development of organisational culture,
and motivation of the employees. We may conclude that by ignoring values, it is impossible to
lead people today. Before the 1990s, the organisational culture and values were treated as
resources that help stay in competition (Barney, 1991); today, we declare that basing on values
is the issue of survival (Raich & Dolan, 2008). Employees, their merits, motivation, and
commitment are increasingly important.
There are many different approaches and definitions for the term “values”, but no consensus
has been reached about the nature of values (Mailk & Yusof, 2013; Nonis & Swift, 2001;
Schwartz, 2012; Woodward & Shaffakat, 2014). Usually the researchers’ approaches are based
on their own interests and needs in defining the concept of values (Rohan, 2000), although
several authors have already tried to clear the content (Jaakson, 2010; Ofori & Sokro, 2010;
Woodward & Shaffakat, 2014). Beyond different conceptions, there has been considerable
interest in defining and measuring values (Dylág,Jaworek, Karwowski, Kozusznik, & Marek,
2013).
Another confusing issue is connected with the level of values interpretation and expression.
The concept of values is multifaceted (Abreu & Camarinha-Matos, 2008), meaning that values
may be expressed in different levels – instrumental and terminal (Rokeach, 1973), individual
and organisational level (Posner & Schmidt, 1992), occupational, organisational, and national
level (Hofstede, 1989), and real and propagated level (Titov,Virovere, Meel & Kuimet, 2013).
These different value levels show which individual values coincide with values held by others
at either the organisational or the national level. It is important to distinguish between the

153 International Journal of Organizational Leadership 5(2016)
group and the organisational level in the studies of organisational culture and success – if there
are several groups inside the organisation, the group values and organisational values should be
in line with the organisational values (Titov, 2015). Every employee brings his/her own values
into the organisation. Those values form the organisation’s face, when individual value systems
are in sufficient coincidence, have a common understanding to smooth differences. Usually, in
this way a small number of interrelated shared values develop instead of one particular value.
These values form the organisation’s value system. A value system is frequently understood as
the ordering and prioritisation of a set of values (principles, standards or qualities considered
worthwhile or desirable) that an actor or a society of actors holds. However, the values that a
group or an actor holds may fall into several different categories since the concept of values is
multifaceted (Abreu & Camarinha-Matos, 2008).
Researchers have constructed value models trying to name and categorise the types of
values which would help to understand and describe the value systems. Rokeach’s model
provides 36 terminal and instrumental values; Schwartz (1994) provides 56 values which are
classified into 10 motivation value types and into four classifications; Jaffe and Scott (2004)
provide 40 values with 6 categories; McDonald and Gandz (1992) have a 21 values’ list; and
Hofstede (2003) describes 36 values. All those models try to fix up and limit the infinite
number of words which are used to express values.
Having the values system, organisations and individuals also need to have order and
priorities in their system. Values are expressed in hierarchy (Feather, 1995) and the basis of the
hierarchy is their importance for their owners. In an individual level, several researchers have
argued about the shape of perception, attitude, and behaviour of a person who owns
hierarchically ordered values (Rockeach, 1973; Schwartz, 1992). Every person may have many
values and just having the right value is not the most important, but how high this value is in a
person’s value hierarchy – the one which is in a higher level will be more influential in
determining behaviour (McDonald, 2004). Both in individual and organisational level, the
values are prioritised and form hierarchies according to their importance to a person or an
organisation (Bardi, Lee, Hofmann-Towfigh & Soutar, 2009; Feather, 1995). Core values are
those that have impact on people’s behaviour and their action prevails over that of other values
in the value hierarchy (Pant & Lachman, 1998). Several authors have described the values
hierarchies in individual level (Melé, 2012; Schwartz, 2012). According to similar principles,
also value hierarchies on the organisational level have been created (Beck & Cowan, 2005;
Lencioni, 2002), but according to their theories, the hierarchy is not the hierarchy of sole
values but that of value groups.
Schwartz (2012) points out five common characteristics in value definitions – values are
beliefs; they concern behaviour or desirable ends, transcend specific situations, guide the
choice or assessment of the situation, and follow an order of importance. According to
Woodward and Shaffakat (2014), there are some general elements in different approaches of
values, for example they are understood as standards and guiding principles, they are abstract
and connected to many other concepts, they are learned and remain relatively stable over time,
and they exist in hierarchy and influence people’s choices. In general, the values are interpreted
as beliefs, standards, principles, and preferences, but different authors mostly agree that values
play an important role in behaviour and are influenced by the external environment.

K. Tuulik et al 154

In this article, the Rokeach’s terminal and instrumental model of values is used (see Table
1). Rokeach (1973) defines values as “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”. He proposed a list including two sets of values, namely the
terminal values (referring to desirable and end-state existence; the goals that a person would
like to achieve during their lifetime and may vary among different groups of people in different
cultures) and instrumental values (referring to preferable modes of behaviour; means of
achieving the terminal values).
Table 1
List of Terminal and Instrumental Values (Rokeach, 1973)
Terminal Values (End-States)
Social (Focus on Others) Personal (Self-Focused)
A World at Peace
A World of Beauty
Equality
Family Security
Freedom
Mature Love
National Security
Social Recognition
True Friendship
A Comfortable Life
An Exciting Life
A Sense of Accomplishment
Happiness
Inner Harmony
Pleasure
Salvation
Self-respect
Wisdom
Instrumental Values (Behavioural)
Moral (Focus on Morality and Relations) Competence (focus on competence)
Broadminded
Forgiving
Helpful
Honest
Loving
Cheerful
Obedient
Polite
Responsible
Ambitious
Capable
Clean
Courageous
Imaginative
Independent
Intellectual
Logical
Self-Controlled
In original lists, the values are ranked according to the terms of their importance as guiding
principles of the respondent’s life. According to Rokeach, a value once acquired becomes part
of an organised system of values; this value system works as a general plan for resolving
conflicts and making decisions. Two types of values represent two separate yet functionally
interconnected systems wherein all the values concerning modes of behaviour are instrumental
to the attainment of all the values concerning end-states. One mode of behaviour may be
instrumental to the attainment of several terminal values; several modes may be instrumental to
the attainment of one terminal value (Rokeach, 1973). In their later articles, Rokeach and Ball-
Rokeach (1989) also declared that societies and individuals could accurately be compared to
other not only in terms of specific values, but also in terms of values priorities (hierarchies).
Models and surveys of different researchers are based on Rokeach’s values (Braithwaite &
Law, 1985; Lauristin & Vihalemm, 1997; Mills, Austin, Thomson, & Devine-Wright, 2009;
Vadi & Jaakson, 2011) and the use and meaning of an original list is modified. Braithwaite and
Law (1985) altered the Rokeach’s original value list from a rank order task into a rating

155 International Journal of Organizational Leadership 5(2016)
procedure. These and other researchers (e.g. Schwartz and Bilsky, 1987) found the
psychometric properties of a rating scale to be as satisfactory as the original ranking version. In
addition, the original meaning of the values list has changed. In his paper, Tepeci (2001) points
out the effect of personal values on the organisational culture and that Rokeach’s list
corresponds to organisational-level values in a way that allows it to assess person-organisation
fit. Meglino and Ravlin (1998) stated that measuring values that are specific to a particular
organization constrains values research to studies in single organizations that are of limited
generalization. Several studies have tried to use the Rokeach value survey for cross-cultural
comparisons of value systems. However, this is an area where problems could arise. The
translations transporting value construct across cultures and obtaining equivalent measure are
generally possible, but a comparable interpretation is not always guaranteed (Braithwaite &
Scott, 1991). Hofstede (1994) argues that only an individual’s instrumental values can be
changed in the organisational level and therefore, terminal values do not allow description or
comparison of organisational values. Korvajärvi (2002) adds that in organisational values
studies, gender must be an important issue because it is rooted in the activity of people and
patterns of relationships between individual values and organisational culture vary among men
and women.
Method
To find out whether Rokeach’s values are still valid and relevant in modern organisational
cultures, the authors constructed a questionnaire made up of three different parts.
Focus in the first part was on descriptive statistics of social-demographic background
information of a respondent (his/her position in the organisation, gender, and working
experience). Our background investigation was followed by a block of questions based on the
most well-known values classification of Rokeach’s terminal values. We asked to state three
most important terminal values from a list of 18. We also added an open question where the
respondent could add his/her idea of a missing answer if they felt that something important was
missing from the given list. The same kind of block was created to measure the instrumental
values and finally, the respondent was asked to add the missing values using an open answer.
The research was conducted among the students of Estonian Entrepreneurship University of
Applied Sciences during six weeks in the autumn 2014. We sent the questionnaire through a
special questioning module of the Learning Management System to the first year Estonian-
speaking student groups (general sample 310 students); however, students not having a job
were excluded. The final number of respondents was 149 of whom 80 respondents were female
and 69 male.
To estimate the importance of the values differences for different groups (according to a
respondent’s gender, position, and working experience), the Fisher exact test was used. Usually
the Chi2-test is used to assess the importance, but due to the data amount and peculiarities (not
binary data), the answers to that test proved unreliable.
Results and Discussion
The Fisher test was used to estimate the importance of difference between the groups,
according to a respondent’s gender, work position, and length of work experience. Among 36

K. Tuulik et al 156

values, only a few showed the difference (see Table 2). Apparently, females tend to value
happiness more than males and males value exciting life significantly higher than females.
Among instrumental values, obedience, responsibility, and love were more frequently
mentioned by females than by males. It must be pointed out that males did not mention the
value of love at all. Males tend to value self-control more than females. From this
generalisation, we derived the overall difference of what males and females see and value in an
organisation. Among the values offered, helpfulness and obedience as the instrumental values
and family security as a terminal value were the most important factors for females. Male
respondents, however, preferred an exciting life as their most important terminal value – almost
every second male chose this value and they seem to see that instrumental values like
ambitiousness and helpfulness lead to that goal.
Table 2
Values Priorities and Significant Differences according to Respondents’ Gender, Work Position, and Length of
Work Experience
Difference by Gender Differences by Working Position Differences by Working Experience
Values Overall Women Men Managers Specialist Administrative
staff
Less than
1 year 1 to 5
years Over 5
years
Terminal values
Self-focused
An Exciting Life 52 35% -9% 10% ** 3% 4% -8% 6% 2% -9%
A Sense of
Accomplishment 39 26%
Wisdom 30 20% 7% 0% -6%
Inner harmony 29 19% -4% 6% -3%
Happiness 28 19% 5% -6% * 0% 3% -6%
Self-Respect 28 19% 0% 3% -6%
A Comfortable Life 22 15% 10% -4% -4%
Pleasure 8 5%
Salvation 0 0%
Focus on others
Family Security 50 34%
True Friendship 32 21%
Freedom 31 21% 6% 0% -5%
Social Recognition 29 19% 16% -3% -11% **
Equality 13 9%
A World at Peace 10 7% -7% 2% 4% *
Mature Love 9 6%
National Security 6 4%
A World of Beauty 3 2%
Instrumental values
Focus on competence
Ambitious 36 24% 9% -6% -1% 0% 3% -6%
Capable 34 23% 8% -3% -4%
Independent 34 23% -7% 8% -2% 10% -1% -7%
Logical 22 15%
Intellectual 20 13% 5% -1% -3%
Imaginative 18 12%
Self-Controlled 18 12% -5% 5% * -5% -3% 9% * 7% -1% -4%
Courageous 10 7% 7% -7% 2% **
Clean 5 3%
Focus on morality and relations
Helpful 52 35% 8% -1% -7%
Broad-Minded 43 29% 9% 0% -8%
Obedient 40 27% 6% -7% * -5% 5% -4%
Responsible 30 20% 5% -6% * -7% 0% 6%
Honest 24 16%
Polite 17 11%
Cheerful 14 9%
Forgiving 9 6%
Loving 6 4% 3% -4% * 7% -1% -4% *
Overall 149
Source: compiled by the authors
Those results support Hofstede’s (1994) opinion that there are no significant gender
differences in terminal values – in this research, also the terminal value of family security was
equally important among males and females. The importance of the terminal value of exiting

157 International Journal of Organizational Leadership 5(2016)
life among males might be reasoned with the samples peculiarities (first-year students are
mostly young and tend to prefer more Open System Type of an organisation) (Quinn &
Rohrbaugh, 1981). However, this conclusion should be confirmed in further studies.
Significant differences tend to appear when comparing work goal importance scores of men
and women (Hofstede, 1994). Considering the instrumental values, Korvajärvi’s (2002) claim
that there are differences in the modes of behaviour (instrumental values) according to the
gender is proved.
Our analysis covered also the results according to the respondents’ work position (see Table
2). According to the Fisher exact test, only four values from 36 distinguished the groups. The
value of social recognition was clearly prioritised by the managers but was not so important in
the specialists and administrative staff level. This trend might be explained by the changing
management paradigm, since in higher education, the necessity of recognition at the work place
is highly propagated. As the respondents were all also university students, they represented
mostly the postmodern management school. In contrast, the value of self-control seems to be
important for the administrative staff and this may reflect the general organisational culture
where mostly modernist values dominate in Estonia (Titov, 2015). A slight management shift
has taken place at the propagated and management level, but at the real values level, the old
modernist values dominate.
Among self-focused and relations-focused values, the results did not reveal any clear
differences according to a respondent’s position and we can conclude that position is not
relevant to those value groups. According to an Estonian management study (Vadi & Jaakson,
2011), managers believe that stability and caring are important values to implement in an
organisation; as compared to this study, the frequency of values like helpfulness and social
recognition support those findings.
According to the respondents work experience, only one value from Rokeach’ list showed
that the importance of this value may change because of the length of work experience (see
Table 2). The value of love was negatively correlated to the length of work experience – longer
work experience means lower significance of the value of love. Previous research mostly
concluded that working experience and values are correlated (Burke, 2001; Johnson, 2002), but
the field of experience rather than the length of experience is important (Kohn & Schooler,
1983; Mortimer & Lorence, 1979). Those studies highlight that work experience and values are
linked together across time and that earlier work experience appears to have a greater impact
on work values than vice versa. In this study, the connection between the length of work
experience and values was estimated, but in general, it seems that those two indicators are not
correlated. We conclude that the length of work experience will not change or designate which
values the respondents perceive as organisational values. This conclusion is in compliance with
the results of previous researches (Burke, 2001; Porfeli, 2008).
The results show that the general ethical values as instrumental values were mentioned least
frequently and just one terminal value was not named at all – salvation. It may be explained
through Estonian national culture. According to Crabtree and Pelham (2009), Estonia is the
least religious country and classical “bible-values” are not important there. It leads to a very
general conclusion that Rokeach’s values list might not be valid or descriptive enough today to
measure and describe the wide and colourful variety of values.


Concl
u
Based
o
researc
h
approx
i
of Ap
p
enduri
n
sociall
y
(Rokea
c
organis
work p
o
list, th
e
was ap
p
the var
i
organis
The
positio
n
Acc
o
respon
d
as uni
m
salvati
o
(see T
a
instru
m
groups,
subgro
u
unimp
o
the org
a
In
e
Rokea
c
limitati
o
u
sion
o
n Rokeac
h
h
was co
n
i
mately 15
0
p
lied Scien
c
n
g belief t
h
y
preferabl
e
c
h, 1973),
w
ational val
u
o
sition, an
d
e
values ar
e
p
lied in th
e
i
ation of th
e
atio
n
, and
w
Figure 1. T
h
results sh
o
n
in the org
a
o
rding to
t
d
ents (it m
e
m
portant i
n
o
n, national
a
ble 1) co
n
m
ental value
one of th
e
u
ps (salvat
i
o
rtant value
s
a
nisational
l
e
very study
c
h’s model
o
n for an i
n
h
’s (1973)
n
ducted in
0
responde
n
c
es. The a
i
h
at a speci
f
e
to an op
p
w
as still ap
p
u
es were c
o
d
working e
e
divided i
n
e
current re
s
e
perceptio
n
w
orking ex
p
h
e perception
o
wed that
a
nisation o
r
t
he results
e
ans less th
a
n
contempo
r
security, a
n
sists of t
e
s including
e
values w
a
i
on, a wor
l
s
in conte
m
l
evel unles
s
, several l
i
does not
c
n
-depth va
l
K
.
list of ter
m
2014 in
n
ts who all
w
i
m was to
f
ic mode o
p
osite or c
o
p
licable in
m
o
nnected to
xperience t
n
to termina
l
s
earch that
n
of values
a
p
erience) is
of organisati
o
the gende
r
r
working e
x
of our stu
d
a
n 5% of r
e
r
ary societ
y
world of
b
e
rminal v
a
focus on
m
a
s not reco
g
l
d of beau
t
m
porary life
s
the politic
i
mitations
s
c
onsider w
e
l
ue study. I
Tuulik et al
m
inal and
i
Estonian
w
ere stude
n
investigat
e
f conduct
o
o
nverse m
o
m
odern soc
i
responden
t
hrough cer
t
l
and instr
u
is reflecte
d
a
mong diff
e
reflected.
o
nal values ac
c
r
affects a
n
x
perience.
d
y, the va
l
e
spondents
y
. These
v
b
eauty, clea
n
a
lues inclu
d
m
orality an
d
g
nised imp
t
y, cleanne
and the ite
m
al situation
s
hould be
e
ll the cul
t
n this artic
l
i
nstrument
a
organisati
o
n
ts of Esto
n
e
whether
t
o
r en
d
-stat
e
o
de of con
d
i
ety. Accor
d
t
s’ (employ
t
ain values.
u
mental va
l
d
in the res
u
e
rent chara
c
c
ording to th
e
n
overall
v
l
ues that
w
chose it as
v
alues that
n
ness, and
d
ing focus
d
focus on
c
ortant any
ss and lov
m
of natio
n
in Europe
i
outlined t
o
t
ural issue
l
e, one cul
t
a
l values, a
o
ns. The
s
n
ian Entrep
r
t
he definiti
o
e
of existe
d
uct or en
d
d
ing to our
ers’) chara
c
Accordin
g
l
ues. The s
a
u
lts model
(
c
teristics (g
e
respondents
’
v
alue perce
p
w
ere recog
n
important)
have lost
t
loving. Ro
k
on others
c
ompetenc
e
more. In a
d
ing), whic
h
n
al security
i
s unstable.
o
understa
n
- this cou
l
t
ural group
new wav
e
s
ample co
n
r
eneurship
U
o
n of valu
e
nce is per
s
d
-state of
e
results, the
c
teristics li
k
g
to Rokeac
h
a
me kind
o
(see Figur
e
ender, posi
t
’
characteristi
c
p
tion more
n
ised less
t
could be
c
t
heir impo
r
k
each’s list
and self-
f
e
s. Among
a
d
dition to
t
h
could be
appears n
o
n
d the res
u
l
d be a co
n
was invol
v
158

e
of value
n
sisted of
U
niversity
e
s of “an
s
onally or
e
xistence”
perceived
k
e gender,
h
’s values
o
f division
e
1) where
t
ion in the
c
s
than the
t
han by 7
c
onsidered
r
tance are
of values
f
ocus and
a
ll the sub
t
hese four
taken as
o
t to affect
u
lts better.
n
siderable
v
e
d
which

159 International Journal of Organizational Leadership 5(2016)
allows focusing on the cross-cultural level still remaining substantial due to one language use
in the survey. Respondents’ sample should be wider to estimate organisational values in one
organisation. If we generalise the result over the organisations, without estimating the values of
one single organisation, then the question of representational sample in one organisation level
is not decisive. Several studies have connected the values to the respondents’ educational level.
In our research, the majority of respondents were at the start of their higher education level
studies. Using another form of sample construction, the correlation between the values and the
educational level would be an important characteristic to study. A larger amount of respondents
will allow making wide-scale conclusions for the Estonian organisations level.
In this article, only the respondents’ characteristics were used to find out and compare the
organisational values. Further research should also focus on the organisational characteristics
(size, age, field etc.) that predict the organisational values.
References
Abreu, A., & Camarinha-Matos, L. M. (2008). On the role of value systems to promote the sustainability of collaborative
environments. International Journal of Production Research, 46(5), 1207–1229.
Allport, G. W., Vernon, P. E., & Lindzey, G. A. (1960). Study of values: A scale for measuring the dominant interests in
personality. Boston: Houghton Mifflin.
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.
Barney, J. (1991). Firm resources and sustained competitive advantage. Journal of Management, 17(1), 99–120.
Beck, D. E., & Cowan, C. (2005). Spiral dynamics: Mastering values, leadership and change. New Jersey, US: Wiley-
Blackwell.
Braithwaite, V., & Law, H. G. (1985). Structure of human values: Testing the adequacy of the Rokeach Value Survey. Journal
of Personality & Social Psychology, 49(1), 250–263.
Braithwaite, V. A., & Scott, W. A. (1991). Values. In. J. P. Robinson, P. R. Shaver & L. S. Wrightsman. (Eds.), Measures of
personality and social psychological attitudes (pp. 661–750). Houston, USA: Gulf Professional Publishing.
Burke, R. J. (2001). Organizational values, work experiences and satisfactions among managerial and professional women.
Journal of Management Development, 20(4), 346–354.
Crabtree, S., & Pelham, B. (2009). What Alabamians and Iranians have in common: A global perspective on Americans’
religiosity offers a few surprises. World. Retrieved from http://www.gallup.com/poll/114211/Alabamians-iranians-
common.aspx
Dylág, A., Jaworek, M., Karwowski, W., Kozusznik, M., & Marek, T. (2013). Discrepancy between individual and
organizational values: Occupational burnout and work engagement among white-collar workers. International Journal of
Industrial Ergonomics, 43(3), 225–231.
Feather, N. T. (1985). Values in education and society. New York: Free Press.
Feather, N. T. (1995). Values, valences and choices: The influence of values on the perceived attractiveness and choice of
alternatives. Journal of Personality & Social Psychology, 68(6), 1135–1151.
Hofstede, G. (1989). Cultural predictors of national negotiation styles. In F. Mautner-Markhof (Ed.), Processes of international
negotiations (pp. 193–201). Boulder: Westview Press.
Hofstede, G. (1994). Business cultures. UNESCO Courier, 47(4), 12–17.
Hofstede, G. (2003). Culture’s consequences: Comparing values, behaviours, institutions and organisations across nations
(2nd ed.). Thousand Oaks, California: Sage Publications.
Jaakson, K. (2010). Management by values: Are some values better than others? Journal of Management Development, 29(9),
795–806.
Jaffe, D. T., & Scott, C. D. (2004). Real learning values cards. This Tool Forms Part of the Toolset of Change Works Global.
Retrieved January, 2004.
Johnson, M. K. (2002). Social origins, adolescent experiences, and work value trajectories during the transition to adulthood.
Social Forces, 80(4), 1307–1340.

K. Tuulik et al 160

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.
Kohn, M. L., & Schooler, C. (1983). Work and personality: An inquiry into the impact of social stratification. Norwood, NJ:
Ablex Publishing Corporation.
Korvajärvi, P. (2002). Gender-neutral gender and denial of difference. In B. Czarniawska & H. Höpfl (Eds.), Casting the
Other: The production and maintenance of inequalities in work organizations. London: Routledge.
Lauristin, M., & Vihalemm, T. (1997). Changing value system: civilizational shift and local differences. In M. Lauristin, P.
Vihalemm, K-E. Rosengren & L. Weibull (Eds.), Return to the Western world: Cultural and political perspectives on the
Estonian post-communist transitions (pp. 243–263). Tartu: Tartu Ülikooli Kirjastus.
Lencioni, P. M. (2002). Make your values mean something. Harvard Business Review, 80(7), 113–117.
Mailk, M., N., & Yusof, S. M. (2013). Inquiry of unique human values: A systematic literature review. Journal of Literature,
Languages & Linguistics, 1, 40–70.
McDonald, H. P. (2004). Radical axiology: A first philosophy of values. New York: Rodopi.
McDonald, P., & Gandz, J. (1992). Getting value from shared values. Organizational Dynamics, 20(3), 64–77.
Meglino, B. M., & Ravlin, E. C. (1998). Individual values in organizations: Concepts, controversies, and research. Journal of
Management, 24(3), 351–389.
Melé, D. (2012). The firm as a “community of persons”: A pillar of humanistic business ethos. Journal of Business Ethics,
106(1), 89–101.
Mills, G. R., Austin, S. A., Thomson, D. S., & Devine-Wright, H. (2009). Applying a universal content and structure of values
in construction management. Journal of Business Ethics, 90(4), 473–501.
Mortimer, J. T., & Lorence, J. (1979). Work experience and occupational value socialization: A longitudinal study. American
Journal of Sociology, 84(6), 1361–1385.
Nonis, S., & Swift, C. O. (2001). Personal value profiles and ethical business decisions. Journal of Education for Business,
76(5), 251–256.
Ofori, D. F., & Sokro, E. (2010). Examining the impact of organisational values on corporate performance in selected
Ghanaian companies. Global Management Journal, 1(2), 50–63.
Pant, P. N., & Lachman, R. (1998). Value incongruity and strategic choice. Journal of Management Studies, 35(2), 195–212.
Porfeli, E. J. (2008). The dynamic between work values and part-time work experiences across the high school years. Journal
of Vocational Behaviour, 73(1), 143–158.
Posner, B. Z., & Schmidt, W. H. (1992). Values and the American manager: An update updated. California Management
Review, 34(3), 80–94.
Quinn, R. E., & Rohrbaugh, J. (1981). A competing values approach to organizational effectiveness. Public Productivity
Review, 5(2), 122–140.
Raich, M., & Dolan, S. (2008). Beyond: Business and society in transformation. New York: Palgrave Macmillan.
Rohan, M. J. (2000). A rose by any name? The values construct. Personality & Social Psychology Review, 4(3), 255–277.
Rokeach, M. (1973). The nature of human values. New York, NY: Free Press.
Rokeach, M., & Ball-Rokeach, S. J. (1989). Stability and change in American value priorities, 1968–1981. American
Psychologist. 44(5), 775–784.
Schwartz, S. H. (1992). Universals in the content and structure of values: Theoretical advances and empirical tests in 20
countries. Advances in Experimental Social Psychology, 25, 1–65.
Schwartz, S. H. (1994). Are there universal aspects in the structure and contents of human values? Journal of Social Issues,
50(4), 19–45.
Schwartz, S. H. (2012). An overview of the Schwartz theory of basic values. Online Readings in Psychology and Culture, 2(1),
1–20.
Schwartz, S. H., & Bilsky, W. (1987). Toward a universal psychological structure of human values. Journal of Personality &
Social Psychology, 53(3), 550–562
Tepeci, M. (2001). The effect of personal values, organizational culture, and person-organization fit in individual outcomes in
the restaurant industry (Unpublished doctoral dissertation). The Pennsylvania State University, USA.
Titov, E., Virovere, A., Meel, M., & Kuimet, K. (2013). Estonian managerial values in value systems in ensuring sustainability
of organisations. Journal of Management & Change, 30/31(1/2), 66–81.

161 International Journal of Organizational Leadership 5(2016)
Titov, E. (2015). Management paradigm values in real and propagated level as prerequisites of organisational success
(Unpublished doctoral dissertation). Tallinn University of Technology, Estonia.
Vadi, M., & Jaakson, K. (2011). The dual value of honesty among Russians in selected former Soviet countries. Cross Cultural
Management: An International Journal, 18(1), 55–70.
Williams, R. M. (1968). The concept of values. In D. L. Sills (Ed.), International encyclopaedia of the social sciences. New
York: Macmillan.
Woodward, I. C., & Shaffakat, S. (2014). Understanding values for insightfully aware leadership. INSEAD Working Paper.