Debate1 Money in Macedonia

7/30/2019 Debate1 Money in Macedonia

1/7

RESEARCH NOTE

The love of money andwork-related attitudes

Money profiles in Macedonia

Thomas Li-Ping Tang and Kenneth R. TilleryMiddle Tennessee State University, Murfreesboro, Tennessee, USA

Blagoja LazarevskiSid Paterson Advertising, New York, New York, USA, and

Roberto Luna-ArocasUniversity of Valencia, Valencia, Spain

Keywords Money, Budgetary control, Attitudes, Macedonia

AbstractThis study examines the love of money and work-related attitudes and identifies fourmoney profiles based on a sample of citizens in the Republic of Macedonia. Achieving MoneyWorshipers (the highest scores on Factors Success, Motivator, and Budget and the lowest on Evil)had the highest active involvement in work activities. Careless Money Admirers (the lowest score on

Factor Budget) had the highest external locus of control, the highest involvement, and lowestsuccess avoidance. Apathetic Money Managers (the lowest scores on Factors Success andMotivator) had the highest internallocus of control and the lowest involvement. Money RepellentIndividuals (the highest score on Factor Evil) had the lowest competitiveness and the highestsuccess avoidance. Results provide the validity of the Love of Money Scale and the four moneyprofiles.

Money is an important factor in almost everyones life. Money is a motivator to someand a hygiene factor to others (Herzberg, 1987). Pay has been ranked second inimportance in the USA and the UK and first in Germany (Harpaz, 1990). There hasbeen a significant increase regarding the importance of money in the USA and aroundthe world. Although money is used universally, the meaning of money is in the eye ofthe beholder and can be perceived as their frame of reference in which they examinetheir everyday lives (Kahneman and Tversky, 1979).

The present study

This study investigates the money profiles in a sample of students and businessowners in the Republic of Macedonia. The Republic of Macedonia (25,713 squarekilometers, 2.04 million people) is located at the southern part of the Balkan Peninsulaand the cross roads of trade routes that have connected Europe, Asia, and Africa. In1998, the gross domestic product (GDP) per capita was US$1,615. More recently, it hasgrown to US$4,400 in 2001 and $5,100 in 2002. Today, Macedonia is considered to bean intermediately-developed industrial country. The country has $1.2 billion exports(with Germany 21 percent, Serbia and Montenegro 18 percent, the US 13 percent,Greece 7 percent, and Italy 6 percent) and $1.56 billion imports (Germany 13 percent,

The Emerald Research Register for this journal is available at The current issue and full text archive of this journal is available at

www.emeraldinsight.com/researchregister www.emeraldinsight.com/0268-3946.htm

JMP19,5

542

Received September 2003Revised March 2004Accepted March 2004

Journal of Managerial PsychologyVol. 19 No. 5, 2004pp. 542-548q Emerald Group Publishing Limited0268-3946DOI 10.1108/02683940410543614


2/7

Serbia and Montenegro 13 percent, Slovenia 8 percent, Ukraine 6 percent, and Italy 6percent).

The reunification of Germany, the restructuring of the former Soviet Union, theformation of the European Union (EU), the adaptation of a common currency in 12

European countries on January 1, 2002, the expansion of EU from 15 to 25 countrieswith 415 million people and an economy of more than 9 trillion dollars, and theprovisions of the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA) have caused manysignificant changes around the world. For example, a modern and dominantcapitalistic culture (i.e. the US culture) and visible products (Coca-Cola andMcDonalds) may exert significant impacts on another countrys culture and onpeoples attitudes, behaviors, and consumption. Macedonia, where agriculture andtourism are the untapped potential, has experienced dramatic changes in recent years.We know practically nothing about peoples money attitudes in Macedonia. This studywill try to fill this void.

The love of moneyThere are many measures of money attitudes in the literature (e.g. Furnham andArgyle, 1998). Mitchell and Mickel (1999, p. 571) have considered the Money EthicScale (MES) (Tang, 1992) as one of the most well-developed and systematically usedmeasures of money attitude. Tang and his associates have developed several versionsof the MES (e.g. Tang, 1992; Tang and Chiu, 2003; Tang et al., 2000). Recently, Tangand his associates have selected factors of the MES and developed the Love of MoneyScale (LOMS), i.e. a sub-scale of the MES.

Money profilesLuna-Arocas and Tang (in press) used factors Budget, Evil, Equity, Success, andMotivator (LOMS) to identify four money profiles using cluster analysis: Achieving

Money Worshipers (high Success, Motivator, Equity, and Budget) had high income,Work Ethic, and high satisfaction with pay, pay administration, and internal equitycomparison but low satisfaction with external equity comparison. Careless MoneyAdmirers (high Success but low Budget) had low intrinsic job satisfaction, paysatisfaction, and life satisfaction. Apathetic Money Managers (low Evil and lowMotivator) had the highest intrinsic job satisfaction and life satisfaction. MoneyRepellent Individuals (high Evil and low Success) had low income, work experience,Work Ethic, and low satisfaction with pay administration. We will replicate the moneyprofiles in a Macedonia sample and examine several variables.

Internal-External locus of control (LOC) scale measures the extent to which peoplebelieve they have control over their lives. Internals tend to make better job progress,have higher occupational attainment and earnings, receive higher performance ratings,

seek personal control and exhibit less conformity, and are less likely to consider moneyas success than externals (Tang, 1993). High Love-of-Money people may become thepawns (slaves) of money rather than the origins (masters) of money (see deCharms,1976). The importance attached to money is the motive to outperform others. Thosewho value money are more actively involved in work-related activities so that they canmake money and enjoy achievements and success. They have a low level of successavoidance. There are differences in money attitudes among full-time employees,part-time employees, and non-employed students in the USA. We will test thehypotheses below:

Money profiles inMacedonia

543


3/7

H1. There will be four money profiles for the Macedonia sample.

H2. Business owners will have more positive attitude toward money thanstudents.

H3. Achieving Money Worshipers and Careless Money Handlers will have highexternal LOC, whereas Apathetic Money Managers and Money RepellentIndividuals will have high internal LOC.

H4. Achieving Money Worshipers will have higher active involvement andcompetitive attitudes and lower success avoidance than will Money RepellentIndividuals.

MethodsParticipantsWe collected data from 30 sophomores (code 1) in the College of Management, Kiriland Methodi University and 60 small business owners (code 2) in Skopje, theRepublic of Macedonia. There were 48 male and 41 female participants (Table I).

MeasuresWe collected participants demographic variables. We employed the 15-item LOMS(Luna-Arocas and Tang, in press) (Factors Budget, Cronbachs a 0:86; Evil, 0.84;Equity, 0.09; Success, 0.88; and Motivator, 0.78), a 24-item LOC scale (Levenson, 1973)(a high score External LOC, 0.68), and work and family orientation questionnaire(Helmreich and Spence, 1978) (Work Persistence, 0.71; Active Involvement, 0.66;Competitiveness, 0.69; and Success Avoidance, 0.63) (Table II).

Results

Students considered money more Evil than did business owners(F1; 86 26:09;p 0:000). Business owners had higher value regarding money astheir Success ( F1; 86 33:55, p 0:000) and money as a Motivator(F1; 86 30:67, p 0:000) than had students. H2 was supported.

The ultimate goal of cluster analysis is to arrive at clusters of people who displaysmall within-cluster variation, but large between-cluster variation (Table III). The fourclusters in the Macedonian sample (Achieving Money Worshiper (33.71 percent),Money Repellent Individual (29.21 percent), Careless Money Admirer (21.35 percent),and Apathetic Money Manager (15.73 percent)) supported H1 (Luna-Arocas and Tang,in press). Analyses of variance (ANOVAs) suggested that factor Evil was the mostpowerful money attitude in profiling the participants (F3; 85 55:28, p 0:000),followed by Factor Success ( F3; 85 48:41, p 0:000), Factor Budget

(F3;

85 28:

81, p 0:

000), Factor Motivator (F3;

85 24:

77, p 0:

000), andFactor Equity (F3; 85 1:13, p 0:341). The Apathetic Money Manager (Cluster 1)had the lowest scores for factors Success and Motivator, a relatively low score forfactor Budget, and a moderate score for factor Evil. Careless Money Admirer (Cluster 2)had the lowest score for factor Budget, low score for factor Evil, and high scores forfactors Success and Motivator. Money Repellent Individual (Cluster 3) had the highestscore for factor Evil, moderate scores for factors Success, Budget, and Motivator.Achieving Money Worshiper (Cluster 4) had the highest scores for factors Success,Budget, and Motivator and the lowest score for factor Evil.

JMP19,5

544


4/7

Variable

M

SD

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

1.

Age

28.9

2

11.38

20.0

9

0.9

4***

0.2

9**

0.5

3***

0.1

4

20.1

5

0.1

0

0.2

7*

0.13

0.0

1

0.0

1

0.2

6*

0.01

20.0

0

2.

Sex

1.4

6

0.50

20.0

6

20.1

0

20.0

5

20.1

6

20.0

1

20.0

4

20.1

9

20.16

20.0

1

0.0

0

20.0

0

20.05

0.0

4

3.

Experience

11.9

0

10.49

0.2

9*

0.0

7

0.1

8

0.1

7

0.0

1

20.29*

20.2

5

0.0

2

20.0

4

20.22

0.2

0

4.

Education

14.3

5

1.76

20.1

2

0.2

2

0.0

7

0.0

9

20.1

4

20.06

20.0

8

0.0

2

20.0

4

20.12

0.0

0

5.

Status

1.6

7

0.47

0.0

6

20.4

8***

20.0

0

0.5

3***

0.51***

0.3

4***

20.0

2

0.5

4***

0.27

**

20.2

3*

6.

Budget

13.6

3

3.85

20.1

7

20.0

3

0.1

0

0.21

0.2

4*

0.2

1*

0.1

8

0.28

**

0.0

4

7.

Evil

10.1

8

3.82

0.1

1

20.3

4***

20.39***

20.4

3***

20.0

7

20.4

4***

20.39

***

0.4

6***

8.

Equity

11.3

8

1.63

20.0

1

20.15

20.1

7

0.1

1

20.0

6

20.08

0.0

7

9.

Success

7.7

6

2.36

0.53***

0.3

6***

0.0

8

0.4

9***

0.34

***

20.2

4*

10.

Motivator

8.8

2

1.66

0.5

5***

0.1

2

0.4

8***

0.30

**

20.1

3

11.

LOC

88.3

0

15.51

0.2

3*

0.4

2***

0.35

***

20.3

0**

12.

Persist

12.2

7

1.98

0.2

5*

0.25

*

0.0

5

13.

Involve

15.0

8

3.19

0.42

***

20.1

3

14.

Compete

7.3

4

1.86

20.2

1*

15.

Avoid

4.9

6

2.03

Note:n

90;Experience:n

60;Status:Student

1,

Employee

2;LOC

:highscore

externallocusofcontrol;*p,

0:

05,

**p

,

0:

01,

***p

,

0:

001

Table I.Mean, standard

deviation, and correlationof major variables


545


5/7

We investigate external validity across four clusters using ANOVAs and Scheffes test(the lower part of Table IIII). Business owners are Achieving Money Worshipers andCareless Money Admirers than the others (F3; 84 13:88, p 0:0000. Scheffes test,p , 0:05). Careless Money Admirers and Achieving Money Worshipers had highexternal LOC, whereas Money Repellent Individuals and Apathetic Money Managers

had high internal LOC (F3;

85 7:

39, p 0:

0002). In this study, a different measureof LOC was employed and similar results were found. Careless Money Admirers andAchieving Money Worshipers had higher active involvement in activities than MoneyRepellent Individuals and Apathetic Money Managers (F3; 85 12:14, p 0:0000).Achieving Money Worshipers were more competitive than Money RepellentIndividuals (F3; 85 4:93, p 0:0033). Money Repellent Individuals showedhigher concern for success avoidance than Achieving Money Worshipers andCareless Money Admirers (F3; 85 8:41, p 0.0001). H3 and H4 were supported.

The discriminant analysis (chi-square df 12 55:98, p 0:000, WilksLambda 0:455) suggested that Function 1 separated Clusters 4 and 2 fromClusters 1 and 3. Function 2 separated Cluster 3 from Cluster 1. Function 3 separatedCluster 4 from Cluster 2. Results showed that 95.06 percent of originally grouped casescorrectly classified and 82.7 percent of cross-validated grouped cases correctlyclassified.

DiscussionWe replicate money profiles in this study. The percentage of people in these fourclusters is similar to results in the literature (Luna-Arocas and Tang, in press). Thisstudy strengthens the external validity of the LOMS and the four money profiles.Business owners (with income and full-time work experience) do differ from students(without income) on money as a Motivator and money as a sign of their Success. A large

Variable M SD M SD F

Sex Male ( n 48) Female ( n 41)Budget 14.21 3.87 12.95 3.76 2.40

Evil 10.21 3.81 10.15 3.89 0.01Equity 11.44 1.70 11.32 1.57 0.12Success 8.17 2.09 7.29 2.60 3.09Motivator 9.06 1.45 8.54 1.85 2.26

Marital status Married ( n 35) Unmarried ( n 54)Budget 14.23 3.84 13.24 3.84 1.41Evil 9.37 3.41 10.70 4.01 2.62Equity 11.60 1.50 11.24 1.70 1.04Success 8.31 2.08 7.41 2.48 3.20Motivator 9.17 1.34 8.59 1.81 2.65

Employment status Students ( n 28) Business ( n 60)Budget 13.36 3.66 13.83 3.94 0.29

Evil 12.89 3.81 8.93 3.17 26.09*Equity 11.36 2.08 11.35 1.36 0.00Success 6.00 2.34 8.65 1.82 33.55*Motivator 7.61 1.93 9.42 1.12 30.67*

Note: * p , 0:001

Table II.

Mean, standarddeviation, and F-testresult of the love ofmoney scale bydemographic variables

JMP19,5

546


6/7

percentage (45.0 percent) of small business owners and only a small percentage (10.7percent) of students are Achieving Money Worshipers. To them, money is a motivator.Money Repellent Individuals (18.3 percent of business owners and 53.6 percent ofstudents) have low active involvement in work-related activities, low competitiveness,and high success avoidance. Money is not a motivator.

For Careless Money Admirers (30.0 percent of business owners and 3.6 percent ofstudents), money represents their success. They do not budget their money carefully,have the highest external LOC, and the highest involvement in work activities. Theytry to please others in life (external LOC) and become the slaves of money. CarelessMoney Admirers admire others money, do not have money, and are not happy. Futureresearch may examine employees in this cluster regarding pay (commission vs salary)and unethical conducts.

Apathetic Money Managers believe that money does not represent their success,money is not a motivator, money is moderately evil, and they do not budget their

Variables

Cluster 1 Cluster 2 Cluster 3 Cluster 4Apathetic

MoneyManager

CarelessMoney

Admirer

MoneyRepellent

Individual

AchievingMoney

Worshiper

(n 89) ( n 14) ( n 19) ( n 26) ( n 30)

Percentage 15.73 21.35 29.21 33.71Student (28) 9 1 15 3Percentage 32.1 3.6 53.6 10.7

Business (60) 4 18 11 27Clusterpaired

Percentage 6.7 30.0 18.3 45.0 comparison*

The love of money scaleEvil 10.36 7.74 14.77 7.67 a 3.1. (2, 4)Success 3.93 a 9.16 7.19 9.17 (4, 2) .3.1

Budget 12.43 9.89 a 13.00 17.104.3.2;2 1

Motivator 6.79a

9.68 8.15 9.80 (4, 2) .3.1Equity 11.43 11.11 11.84 11.13

Demographic varablesand other work-relatedattitudesAge 24.71 29.53 26.31 33.07Years of experience 13.50 9.28 14.64 12.30Education 14.64 13.58 14.41 14.67Status (Student 1) 1.31 a 1.95 1.42 1.90 2, 4.3, 1

Locus of control 77.36a 95.00 82.62 94.10 2, 4.3, 1Persistence 11.64 11.95 12.23 12.77Involvement 12.14 a 16.63 13.88 16.57 2, 4.3, 1Competitiveness 6.57 7.58 6.58a 8.17 4.3

Avoidance 5.00 3.89 a 6.35 4.33 3.4, 2

Notes: a Lowest mean; * p , 0:05; Schefffes test; For each factor (row) of this Table, i.e. factors of thelove of money scale (the upper part of the Table) and demographic variables and other work-relatedattitudes (the lower part of the Table), the highest and lowest means are in italics

Table III.The love of money scale

and other variables forthe four money profiles


547


7/7

money carefully. They do experience the highest internal LOC and the lowestinvolvement in work activities. Internals seek personal control and exhibit lessconformity. Some students (32.1 percent) and business owners (6.7 percent) are notinterested in the rat race and are not motivated by money. Money may have less

power to attract, retain, and motivate these employees. They are the origins (masters)of money (see deCharms, 1976) and that they are in control. With low income, they turntheir attention internally and find fulfillment in life and on the job. Their low desire formoney may lead to higher intrinsic job satisfaction and life satisfaction, supporting theinsufficient justification effect. A small but growing number of Americans is living onless and liking it by scaling back, paring down, and doing without. The simplicitymovement has its roots in eighteenth-century Yankee frugality and in Henry DavidThoreaus urge to simplify, simplify. Apathetic Money Managers seem to haveadopted these values in Macedonia.

Finally, the four money profiles identified here are quite unique and interesting. Ourresults may help managers identify different motivational programs to motiveemployees and achieve organizational goals.

References

deCharms, R. (1976),Enhancing Motivation: Changes in the Classroom, Irvington, New York, NY.

Furnham, A. and Argyle, M. (1998), The Psychology of Money, London, Routledge, London.

Harpaz, I. (1990), The importance of work goals: an international perspective, Journal ofInternational Business Studies, Vol. 21 No. 1, pp. 79-93.

Helmreich, R.L. and Spence, J.T. (1978), The work and family orientation questionnaire: anobjective instrument to assess components of achievement motivation and attitudestoward family and career, JSAS Catalog of Selected Documents in Psychology, Vol. 8No. 35, p. MS 1677.

Herzberg, F. (1987), One more time: how do you motivate employees?, Harvard BusinessReview, September-October, pp. 109-20, (originally published January-February 1968).

Kahneman, D. and Tversky, A. (1979), Prospect theory: an analysis of decision under risk,Econometrica, Vol. 47, pp. 263-91.

Levenson, H. (1973), Multidimensional locus of control in psychiatric patients, Journal ofConsulting and Clinical Psychology, Vol. 41, pp. 397-404.

Luna-Arocas, R. and Tang, T.L-.P. (in press), The love of money, satisfaction, and the Protestantwork ethic: money profiles among university professors in the USA and Spain, Journal of

Business Ethics.

Mitchell, T.R. and Mickel, A.E. (1999), The meaning of money: an individual-differenceperspective, Academy of Management Review, Vol. 24 No. 3, pp. 568-78.

Tang, T.L-.P. (1992), The meaning of money revisited, Journal of Organizational Behavior,Vol. 13, pp. 197-202.

Tang, T.L-.P. (1993), The meaning of money: extension and exploration of the Money Ethic

Scale in a sample of university students in Taiwan, Journal of Organizational Behavior,Vol. 14, pp. 93-9.

Tang, T.L-.P. and Chiu, R.K. (2003), Income, money ethic, pay satisfaction, commitment, andunethical behavior: is the love of money the root of evil for Hong Kong employees?,

Journal of Business Ethics, Vol. 46 No. 1, pp. 13-30.

Tang, T.L-.P., Kim, J.K. and Tang, D.S.H. (2000), Does attitude toward money moderate therelationship between intrinsic job satisfaction and voluntary turnover?, Human Relations,Vol. 53 No. 2, pp. 213-45.

JMP19,5

548

Debate1 Money in Macedonia

Documents

Transcript of Debate1 Money in Macedonia