PROYECCIONES FINANCIERAS

The different work orientation typologies developed over the years emphasise that ‘the meaning attached by people to their work ... predisposes them to think and act in particular ways with regard to that work’ (Watson 2012 p.241). In other words, the concept highlights the importance of paying attention to motives, interests, expectations, and what people look for in a job, in order to understand workers. It also underscores the need to examine employees’ non-work background (e.g. family, external community, cultural life) which may shape these work orientations. It assumes that the social setting of employees beyond the workplace predisposes them to gravitate towards certain job rewards. For example, workers from a poor background may be generally drawn to work to support their economic needs whilst workers with a higher economic standing are likely to value intrinsic rewards more than financial

rewards. Nevertheless, later theoretical developments recognise that work orientations are not fixed and are bound to change as workers continually engage with their work, their priorities in life change and as what they want from their jobs and what the work setting can provide also changes (Watson 2012; Grint and Nixon 2015). This is a development from the earlier formulation (Goldthorpe et al. 1968) that suggested that the priorities and expectations of workers which have developed from outside the work setting seem to be impervious to and independent from the different aspects of the work situation. Later studies argue that the employment experience is influenced by both work (job tasks, technology, pay, supervision, etc.) and non-work factors (e.g. priorities and expectations) (Beynon and Blackburn 1972).

In the UK, the sociological focus on work orientations began through the research of Goldthorpe (1968) and his colleagues who interviewed workers from three factories in Luton. Their study concluded that workers’ attitudes (e.g. job satisfaction) and behaviour (e.g. choice of job, involvement to organisation) at work are largely influenced by how workers define their current situation in relation to the wants and expectations they have of their jobs. For example, despite the difficult working conditions and the lack of social activities in the workplace, employees in a car manufacturing plant did not feel dissatisfied with their overall experience. For these workers, the assembly line was wilfully chosen because it met their expectations for a good and steady income whilst supporting a satisfying family life. In their seminal work, Goldthorpe et al. identified three basic orientations to work. The ‘affluent workers’ they interviewed illustrated an ‘instrumental’ orientation to work in which they saw the job as a means to an end and prioritise extrinsic rewards (e.g. income) over intrinsic rewards (e.g. independence from supervision). Those with ‘bureaucratic’ orientation were morally involved in their work organisation and were more concerned with career advancement. Finally, workers with ‘solidaristic’ orientation saw work as a shared activity that accomplished an expressive and bonding needs.

Over the years researchers have either adapted (e.g. Wrzesniewski et al. 1997) or extended (e.g. Reed 1997; Matheson 2012) the Goldthorpe typology. Reed (1997) retained the original ideal types and added a fourth one called the ‘vocational’

orientation. For Reed, work orientations may be described according to two factors: (a) the person’s locus of commitment to a source of gratification (i.e. whether it can be found within or outside the work context); and (b) the extent of the person’s involvement in work (whether work is primarily seen as a contractual relationship or an important aspect of one’s social identity). As pointed out in the Goldthorpe typology, workers with instrumental orientation find most gratification outside the work situation such as in the family, and thus view work as a purely contractual relationship between employee and employer. Similarly, the locus of gratification for workers with a vocational orientation is also outside the work setting but they view work as a salient aspect of their social identity, not just a form of economic relationship. For those with a vocational orientation, work is a ‘calling’ (e.g. service to science, society or God) in a symbolic system that transcends the limits of the work establishment.

Another recent expansion of the theory is introduced by Matheson (2012) who proposed six types of work orientations. Firstly, an orientation to work is ‘defensive’ if people are mainly motivated by safety and survival needs and work to minimise economic, physical and emotional insecurity. Secondly, when workers have already addressed their safety and security needs and are now more focused on the monetary and utilitarian rewards of a job, the orientation can be described as ‘instrumental’. Thirdly, when people continue to work to affirm their social standing despite achieving a certain level of financial comfort, they are described to have a ‘thymotic’ orientation. This echoes the bureaucratic orientation described earlier in the Reed and Goldthorpe typologies. The distinction is relevant because unlike the ‘bureaucratic’ worker who values and seeks recognition from the workplace, the ‘thymotic’ worker emphasises the importance of significant others as a source of recognition. Fourthly, when people undertake work to generate social acceptance and respect, they indicate a ‘solidaristic’ orientation. Fifthly, if work is pursued because it provides a sense of meaning or calling, workers are said to be morally idealistic in their involvement with the job and assume a ‘vocational’ orientation. Finally, workers who are intrinsically involved with work because it provides a sense of accomplishment through mentally stimulating tasks and the use of skills illustrate an ‘expressive’ orientation. These ideal types can be useful

categories in unpacking the range of motivations among cruise sector seafarers. However it is important to recognise that not only are many workers likely to hold multiple orientations, their priorities, expectations and attitudes are likely to be shaped by their ongoing experience of work (Beynon and Blackburn 1972; Blackburn and Mann 1979).