1. Money Ethic Scale Part 2

2. Four Money Profiles Money Repeller (The Most --) Apathetic Money Handler Careless Money Admirer Achieving Money Worshiper (The Most +)

4. Four Money Profiles Negative Indifferent Positive _____________________________________ Money Apathetic Careless Achieving Repeller Money Money Money Handler Admirer Worshiper 82 50 62 117 26.37% 16.08% 19.83% 37.62%

5. Partitioning--Money Profiles Money Apathetic Careless Achieving Repeller Money Money Money Handler AdmirerWorshiper ___________________________________ 26.37% 16.08% 19.83% 37.62% W 24.41% 9.57% 20.57% 45.45% US 30.39% 27.45% 15.69% 26.47% S USA, Spain

6. Interpretation--Money Profiles F Money Apathetic Careless Achieving Repeller Money Money Money Handler Admirer Worshiper _______________________________________________ F Success 1.77 1.96 3.53 (3.52) F Budget 3.84 3.75 (2.85) (4.29) F Motivator 3.60 (2.35) 3.72 (3.95) F Equity 3.04 3.62 3.34 (3.77) F Evil (3.01) 2.34 2.99 2.77

7. Validation--Money Profiles F Money Apathetic Careless Achieving Repeller Money Money Money Handler Admirer Worshiper _______________________________________________ F Age 39.38 42.12 40.49 46.49 F Income 31,600 37,990 34,640 50,903 F Experience 13.85 17.83 15.48 21.55 F No. Jobs.93.67* 1.15 1.33* F *p =.074

8. Validation-Money Profiles F Money Apathetic Careless Achieving Repeller Money Money Money Handler Admirer Worshiper _______________________________________________ F PWE 3.25 3.27 3.48 3.56 F Intrinsic 4.19 4.35 4.00 4.22 F Extrinsic 3.06 3.15 3.23 3.36 F Pay 3.07 2.90 2.83 3.29 F Benefits 3.23 3.22 3.13 3.45 F Raise 2.79 2.56 2.68 2.82 F Adm. 2.49 2.47 2.58 2.81

9. Validation-Money Profiles F Money Apathetic Careless Achieving Repeller Money Money Money Handler Admirer Worshiper _______________________________________________ F Equity Comparison F Dept. 3.15 3.10 3.14 3.29 F Org. 2.64 2.43 2.61 3.05 F Other Org. 2.57 2.33 2.56 2.81 F Market 2.49 2.35 2.67 2.71 F Life 4.17 4.38 3.81 4.27

10. Validation-Discriminant 1: Achieving Money Worshipers vs. Other Three Clusters. 2: Careless Money Admirers vs. Apathetic Money Handlers, Achieving Money Worshipers. 3: Money Repellers vs. Careless Money Admirers, Apathetic Money Handlers.

11. Achieving Money Worshiper High: Income, Work Ethic, Pay Administration, Equity in Organization, and in Other Organizations, Low: Intrinsic Job Satisfaction, Labor Market

12. Profiling--Money Repeller The Highest--Factor Evil The Lowest--Income, Work Experience, Age, The Lowest--PWE, Pay Administration Sour Grapes, Sour Losers

13. Apathetic Money Handler The Lowest--Factors Motivator and Evil The Highest--Intrinsic, Life Satisfaction, Insufficient Justification Effect The Lowest--Organization Simplicity Movement (McNichol, 1998; Simple abundance, Your money or your life) Simplify. Waste not, want not.

14. Careless Money Admirer The Lowest--Factor Budget The Highest--Factor Success The Lowest--Intrinsic, Pay, Life Satisfaction Admirer Money, No Money, Not Happy. Money is a Motivator. Pressure/Opportunity, Unethical Behavior?

15. Achieving Money Worshiper The Highest-- Factors Success, Budget, Motivator, and Equity The Highest--Income, Age, Experience, Work Ethic, Pay, Organization Equity More Money in Industry, Happy Financially

16. Implications-1 Four Money Profiles Individual Differences Demographic Variables B = f (P x E) Attitudes May Change Due to Age, Income, and the Socialization Process

17. Implications-2 Money is NOT a Motivator for everyone. Different approaches to Attract, Retain, and Motivate people P-E Fit

18. Money Profiles--Macedonia Republic of Macedonia is situated in the southern part of the Balkan Peninsula covers an area of 25,713 square kilometers with a population of more than 2 million people. Skopje is the capital with a population of 650,000. Tang, Tillery, Lazarevski, & Luna-Arocas (2004)

19. Macedonian Sample 1. Full-time sophomores at College of Management, Kiril and Methodi University (n = 30, return rate = 96.6%) Live with their parents, not working 2. Small business owners and employees in large organizations (n = 60, return rate = 100%). 48 Males, 41 Females

20. Measures 15-Item Money Ethic Scale 24-Item Locus of Control (Levenson, 1973) The work and family orientation questionnaire (Helmreich & Spence, 1978): Work Persistence, Active Involvement, Competitiveness, Success Avoidance

21. Partitioning: Macedonia Order of Money Factors ANOVAs EvilF = 55.28*** SuccessF = 48.41*** BudgetF = 28.81*** Motivator F = 24.77*** EquityF = 1.13 The F tests should be used only for descriptive purposes.

22. Four Money Profiles Money Apathetic Careless Achieving Repeller Money Money Money Handler Admirer Worshiper 26 14 19 30 29.21% 15.73% 21.35% 33.71% USA + Spain: 26.37% 16.08% 19.83% 37.62%

23. Partitioning--Money Profiles Money Apathetic Careless Achieving Repeller Money Money Money Handler Admirer Worshiper 29.21% 15.73% 21.35% 33.71% W 53.57% 32.14% 3.57% 10.71% S 18.33% 6.67% 30.00% 45.00% E S = Students, E = Employees

24. Interpretation--Money Profiles Money Apathetic Careless Achieving Repeller Money Money Money Handler Admirer Worshiper _______________________________________________ Evil (14.77) 10.36 7.74 7.67 Success 7.19 (3.93 ) 9.16 (9.17) Budget 13.00 12.43 (9.89) (17.10) Motivator 8.15 (6.79) 9.68 (9.80) Equity 11.84 11.43 11.11 11.13

25. Validation--Money Profiles Money Apathetic Careless Achieving Repeller Money Money Money Handler Admirer Worshiper _______________________________________________ Age 26.31 24.71 29.53 33.07 Experience 14.64 13.50 9.28 12.30 Education 14.41 14.64 13.58 14.67 Status* 1.42 1.31 1.95 1.90 *Students =1, Employees =2

26. Validation-Money Profiles Money Apathetic Careless Achieving Repeller Money Money Money Handler Admirer Worshiper _______________________________________________ LOC-E 82.62 77.36 95.00 94.10 Persist 12.23 11.64 11.95 12.77 Involve 13.88 12.14 16.63 16.57 Compete 6.58 6.57 7.58 8.17 Avoid 6.35 5.00 3.89 4.33 Life 4.17 4.38 3.81 4.27

27. Validation-Discriminant 1: Achieving Money Worshipers, Careless Money Admirers vs. Apathetic Money Handlers, Money Repellers. 2: Apathetic Money Handlers vs. Money Repellers. 3: Careless Money Admirers vs. Achieving Money Worshipers.

28. Discriminant Achieving Money Worshipers + Careless Money Admirers consider money as their Success and a Motivator and do not consider it as Evil than Apathetic Money Handlers + Money Repellers. Achieving Money Worshipers Budget their money more carefully than Careless Money Admirers.

29. Classification Results 95.1% of Original grouped cases correctly classified. 82.7 of cross-validated grouped cases correctly classified. In cross validation, each case is classified by the functions derived from all cases other than that case.

30. Money Profiles--Students, the USA Two Regional State Universities, Military Base N = 564, return rate = 72.9% 184 Males, 360 Females 441 Caucasian, 52 African-American, 6 Hispanic, 14 Asian, 3 American Indian Job tenure = 26.14 months Income = US$9,260 (64.4%) Tang, Tang, & Luna-Arocas (2005)

31. Measures 30-Item Money Ethic Scale (Tang, 1992) 10-Item Organization-Based Self-Esteem (OBSE) (Pierce, Gardner, Cummings, & Dunham, 1989) 20-Item Minnesota Satisfaction Questionnaire (Weiss, Dawis, England, & Lofquist, 1967). 13-Item, Modified Need Satisfaction Questionnaire (NSQ) (Porter, 1961, 1961). (Tang & West, 1997; Tang & Ibrahim, 1998) Importance and Satisfaction of Maslow’s Needs

32. Partitioning: Order of Money Factors ANOVAs GoodF = 377.97*** RespectF = 168.10*** AchievementF = 162.08*** Power F = 161.14*** BudgetF = 37.45*** EvilF = 6.02*** The F tests should be used only for descriptive purposes.

33. Partitioning--Four Money Profiles Money Apathetic Careless Achieving Repeller Money Money Money Handler Admirer Worshiper 85 170 165 127 15.54% 31.08% 30.16% 23.22%

34. Interpretation--Money Profiles Money Apathetic Careless Achieving Repeller Money Money Money Handler Admirer Worshiper _______________________________________________ Good 25.93 37.75 35.05 (41.57) Respect 9.34 (8.26) 11.84 (14.80) Achievement 8.89 (8.22) 10.75 (14.74) Power 10.61 12.46 14.48 (17.51) Budget 8.86 11.37 (8.81) 11.09 Evil (16.08) 14.46 14.42 16.06

35. Validation--Money Profiles Money Apathetic Careless Achieving Repeller Money Money Money Handler Admirer Worshiper _______________________________________________ Age 23.33 23.91 23.19 23.24 Experience 28.29 19.11 31.75 29.92 Education 14.43 14.77 14.44 14.98 Income 6,432.38 9,192.48 9,433.13 11,071.17

36. Validation-Money Profiles Money Apathetic Careless Achieving Repeller Money Money Money Handler Admirer Worshiper _______________________________________________ OBSE 33.71 40.43 38.39 40.81 PWE 13.08 15.00 14.48 16.11 MSQ-Int 39.39 44.05 43.01 46.23 MSQ-Ext 18.00 19.27 19.09 21.53

37. Validation-Importance of Needs Money Apathetic Careless Achieving Repeller Money Money Money Handler Admirer Worshiper _______________________________________________ Physiological 3.31 3.60 3.64 3.88 Safety 3.45 3.79 3.83 4.01 Social 3.69 4.01 3.93 3.96 Self-Esteem 3.39 3.88 3.77 4.07 Actual 3.51 4.12 3.88 4.12

38. Validation-Satisfaction of Needs Money Apathetic Careless Achieving Repeller Money Money Money Handler Admirer Worshiper _______________________________________________ Physiological 3.76 (4.19)* 4.01 4.14 Safety 3.38 (4.07)* 3.87 4.02 Social 3.24 3.70 3.74 (3.86)* Self-Esteem 3.09 3.30 3.42 3.43 Actual 3.12 3.33 3.42 (3.57)* Money attitudes are related to the satisfaction of lower- or higher-order needs.

39. Validation-Discriminant 1: Achieving Money Worshipers vs. Money Repellers. 2: Money Repellers vs. Apathetic Money Handlers. 3: Careless Money Admirers vs. Achieving Money Worshipers, Money Repellers.

40. Classification Results 91.57of Original grouped cases correctly classified.

41. Conclusion We can consistently classify people into 4 clusters (Achieving Money Worshipers, Careless Money Admirers, Apathetic Money Handlers, and Money Repellers) based on the Money Ethic Scale (30-item MES, or 15-item MES), across several cultures (Macedonia, Spain, and USA). Future research should test this Model in different occupations and cultures.

42. Tang, Kim, & Tang (2000) Tang, T. L. P., Kim, J. K., & Tang, D. S. H. (2000). Does attitude toward money moderate the relationship between intrinsic job satisfaction and voluntary turnover? Human Relations, 53 (2), 213-245.

43. Money Ethic and Voluntary Turnover Voluntary turnover: Higher wages/career opportunity (Campion, 1991). Leavers receive 20% increase in pay. Unemployment rate and financial requirements moderate the relationship between job satisfaction and voluntary turnover (Gerhart, 1990)

44. Push and Pull Dissatisfaction may push the employee to look for alternative employment, whereas the perception of attractive alternative job opportunities may pull them to consider alternative employment (March & Simon, 1958) The more specific the intention measure and the closer the person is to actually quitting, the more trivial the prediction (Mobley, Griffeth, Hand, & Meglino, 1979, p. 508).

45. Moderator Dependent variable y (withdraw cognitions, turnover) is a function of x (intrinsic job satisfaction) and z (Money Ethic). Moderator The Interaction Effect is significant. (James & Brett, 1984)

46. Money Ethic, Satisfaction, and Turnover Time 1: 40 Agencies (275 Employees, Mental Health & Mental Retardation) Data: 155 Employees (32 Agencies) Return Rate: 56.36% Time 2: 112 Employees (18 months later) Data: 84 Employees, Return Rate: 75% 62 Stayers, 20 Leavers, 2 Fired (excluded)

47. Withdrawal Cognitions (y) Hierarchical Multiple Regression Status (Manager, Adm., Direct Care) Perceived Alternative Employment Opportunity (PAEO) Commitment* MSQ-Ext* MSQ-Int (A) (x) Money Ethic (MES) (B) (z) MES x MSQ-Int* (A x B) (x. z)

48. High MES Low MES LowHigh Intrinsic Job Satisfaction Withdrawal Cognitions

49. Logistic Regression Status PAEO Commitment* Withdrawal Cognitions (ns) MSQ-Ext MSQ-Int* (A) MES* (B) MES x MSQ-Int* (A x B) Concordant = 80.8%

50. High MES Low MES Low High Intrinsic Job Satisfaction Turnover

51. Mediator x -----> m -----> y Antecedent Mediator Consequence Satisfaction Money Ethic Turnover 1. x ----> m 2. x ----> y 3. m ----> y All are true, then, x on y must be less in 3 than in 2. (Baron & Kenny, 1986)

52. Money Ethic as a Mediator 1. Intrinsic Job Satisfaction ----> Money Ethic, t = 2.919, p =.005 2. Intrinsic Job Satisfaction --x--> Turnover 3. Intrinsic Job Satisfaction + Money Ethic --x--> Turnover Money Ethic is not a mediator between intrinsic job satisfaction and turnover. Money Ethic is not a mediator between withdrawal cognitions and turnover.