Intergenerational and Intercultural Differences in Work Values in Quebec and the United Arab Emirates
Bibliographic record
Abstract
We examined the impact of generations on individual work values in Quebec and the United Arab Emirates. We used two convenience samples, encompassing 186 French-speaking Canadians in Quebec and 252 Arabs in the United Arab Emirates. We used an abridged version of Wils, Luncasu and Waxin (2007) work value inventory, including 28 work values arranged on four poles: self-enhancement, self-transcendence, openness-to-change and conservation. Using multidimensional analyses, we validated the structuring of our work value inventory in both samples. We used MANCOVA analyses to examine intergenerational and cultural work value differences. In the Quebec sample, there were no significant differences between generations in their scores on the four work value poles, supporting Inglehart’s theory (1971, 2008). In the Arab sample, the younger generation attached less importance to self-enhancement, but more importance to self-transcendence than the older generation with a small effect size. Inglehart’s theory (1971, 2008) also predicts a shift to post-materialistic values associated with the transition from a poorer to a richer society. We found that cultural origin had no significant, direct effect on the average score on each work value pole. Gerhart and Fang (2005) also found that the impact of culture is often exaggerated in HR management research. We found a significant interaction between cultural origin and gender for the self-transcendence pole. Since we found a high diversity in work values among generations, our results do not support the idea that human resource management practices should be adjusted for different generations. Our study confirms the importance of selective hiring within high performance work systems (HPWS), because within each country and each generation, there were respondents with a wide variety of work value preferences, making it possible to recruit selectively in order to achieve the best fit between the work values of employees and the philosophical principles underlying HPWS.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".