ORI GIN AL PA PER

Graduate teacher motivation for choosing a jobin education

Rein De Cooman Æ Sara De Gieter Æ Roland Pepermans ÆCindy Du Bois Æ Ralf Caers Æ Marc Jegers

Received: 23 May 2006 / Accepted: 23 January 2007 / Published online: 23 May 2007

� Springer Science+Business Media B.V. 2007

Abstract This article compares individuals already in teaching and non-teaching

teacher graduates, and explores the motivation to pursue a teaching job based on job

motives and work values. From the response of 241 recently graduated teachers it

may be concluded that teachers consider intrinsic, altruistic and interpersonal fea-

tures as strong job-specific motivators. Furthermore, teachers prefer altruistic and

interpersonal work values, while non-teachers are more attracted by individualistic

work values such as career opportunities and executive power.

Resume. Motivation des professeurs diplomes pour le choix d’un metierd’enseignant. Cet article compare les professeurs diplomes qui exercent une

activite professionnelle dans l’enseignement a ceux qui l’exercent ailleurs. Il

explore la motivation a poursuivre un metier d’enseignement sur la base des

motivations pour le metier et des valeurs au travail. Des reponses de 241 personnes

recemment diplomees professeurs, on peut conclure que les enseignants considerent

les traits de motivation intrinseque, altruiste et interpersonnelle comme les plus

specifiques pour leur travail. De plus, les enseignants marquent leur preference pour

les valeurs de travail altruistes et interpersonnelles, tandis que les non-enseignants

sont plus attires par des valeurs de travail individualistes telles que les opportunites

de carriere et le pouvoir de decision.

Zusammenfassung. Die Motivation von Lehramtsstudenten zur Wahl einerTatigkeit im Erziehungsbereich. Dieser Artikel stellt unter Absolventen eines

Lehramts-Studiengangs einen Vergleich zwischen einer Gruppe an, die in eine

Lehrertatigkeit einmundete, mit einer anderen Gruppe, die in eine andere als eine

lehrende Tatigkeit mundeten. Aus den Antworten von 241 Lehrern, die kurzlich ihr

R. De Cooman (&) � S. De Gieter � R. Pepermans � C. Du Bois � R. Caers � M. Jegers

Vakgroep Arbeids- en Organisatiepsychologie, Vrije Universiteit Brussel,

Pleinlaan 2, 1050 Brussel, Belgium

e-mail: rein.de.cooman@vub.ac.be

123

Int J Educ Vocat Guid (2007) 7:123–136

DOI 10.1007/s10775-007-9117-5

Studium abgeschlossen hatten, kann die Schlussfolgerung gezogen werden, dass

Lehrer sich vor allem an intrinsischen, altruistischen und interpersonellen

Motivatoren orientieren. Weiterhin bevorzugen Lehrer auch altruistische und

interpersonelle Werthaltungen, wahrend sich Nicht-Lehrer starker angesprochen

fuhlen von individualistischen Werthaltungen wie Aufstiegsmoglichkeiten und

Durchsetzungsmacht/Einfluss.

Resumen. Motivacion del profesorado recien titulado para elegir un empleo eneducacion. En este artıculo se hace una comparacion entre profesores que tienen

un empleo relacionado con la educacion y los que no. Explora la motivacion para

elegir un trabajo en la ensenanza en funcion de motivos laborales y del puesto de

trabajo en sı. De 241 profesores encuestados recien titulados se puede concluir que

el profesorado considera los aspectos intrınsecos, altruistas e interpersonales como

motivos importantes especıficos relacionados con el trabajo. Ademas, los profesores

prefieren los valores laborales altruistas e interpersonales, mientras que los que no

ejercen como profesores se sienten mas atraıdos por valores individualistas como las

oportunidades de promocion en su carrera y por cargos de poder.

Keywords Teachers � Job motives � Work values

In many Western countries, the shortage of teachers is currently being debated. The

average teacher is ageing at a time when new graduates who could enter or are

actually entering the teaching profession do not necessarily view teaching as a

career priority; this results in more individuals leaving the profession each year than

there are individuals being recruited (Bastick, 2000; De Grip, 2004). The shortage

of well-educated and motivated teachers, will probably worsen unless teaching can

be made more attractive to graduates (Serow & Forrest, 1994). Therefore, the issue

of how to replace the teachers of the baby boom generation (individuals born

between 1943 and 1960) has become a major concern. Within this context, a fair

amount of research has focused on pre-service teachers and their motivation for

entering the profession.

Work motivation is one of the oldest and most frequently discussed topics in

psychology (Rousseau, 1997). Trying to answer the question of why people are

doing things and, if they do something, why they are doing that and not something

else, is the main focus. Within this research area, work values and job motives have

gradually drawn more interest since the early 1980s (Judge & Bretz, 1992).

It is generally accepted that each individual has a unique set of personal values

relevant to multiple life areas, some of which are related to the work context. It has

been demonstrated that work values play a significant role both in an individual’s

vocational choice and in particular key attitudes and psychological states including

job satisfaction, commitment and work motivation (e.g. Judge & Bretz, 1992; Roe

& Ester, 1999). Some influential researchers developed have a well-supported

definition of the construct: values are considered to be cognitive representations of

needs which are more general than interests (Rokeach, 1973; Schwartz, 1992;

Super, 1973). Values are considered as trans-situational criteria or goals ordered by

124 Int J Educ Vocat Guid (2007) 7:123–136

123

importance that serve as guiding principles in people’s lives (Schwartz, 1999).

Because of their broad and rudimentary character, they are considered enduring

standards that determine behaviour (Rokeach, 1973). In accordance with other

authors such as Nord, Brief, Atieh and Doherty (1988) or the Meaning of Working

International Research Team [MOW] (1987), work values are defined in this

contribution as the general and relatively stable goals people desire and feel they

ought to realise through working. This implies that work values reflect fundamental

and wide-ranging preferences, which are not so much concerned with aspects of a

particular vocation or organization, but with the nature of the work in general (Ros,

Schwartz, & Surkiss, 1999). Although there seem to be as many work values as

identifiable work features (Zytowski, 1970), considerable disagreement remains

about their dimensional structure. The approaches most frequently referred to

comprise between 10 and 20 value dimensions (e.g. Pryor, 1979; Schwartz, 1992;

Super, 1970). Furthermore, several authors endeavour to create a higher-order

classification of work values (e.g. Roe & Ester, 1999; Ros, Schwartz & Surkiss,

1999). In this regard, a commonly used differentiation distinguishes between

intrinsic or self-actualization, extrinsic or material, and social or interpersonal work

values (MOW, 1987; Nord et al. 1988).

Job motives, contrary to work values, received less research attention.

According to Buchanan and Huczynski (1997), motives are ‘‘learned needs,

which influence our behaviour by leading us to pursue particular goals because

they are socially valued’’ (p. 71). Evans (1998) defines the construct as ‘‘the

impetus that creates inclination towards an activity’’ (p. 34). A motive is an

outcome that has become desirable for a given individual, and different

individuals may be motivated by different outcomes (Buchanan & Huczynski,

1997). Thus, job motives are, unlike the more general work values, described as

oriented towards a particular activity (i.e. a specific job or occupation). They make

an individual strive for a specific goal or incentive (McKenna, 1998) and take

shape in actual behaviour (Moorhead & Griffin, 1995). As such, job motives are

more closely related to a particular profession or job than work values which refer

to work in general. The qualifiers ‘‘intrinsic’’ and ‘‘extrinsic’’ are used

extensively to describe and classify job motives related to internally and

externally initiated behaviour (Miskel, 1982). Following the seminal work by

Herzberg, Mausner and Snyderman (1959), and notwithstanding some methodo-

logical criticisms (e.g. Kanungo & Hartwick, 1987), the so-called two-factor

model distinguishes between intrinsic job motives associated with characteristics

of the job itself (e.g. achievement, recognition, challenging work, responsibility

and growth) and extrinsic job motives, which cover pay, working conditions,

supervision, interpersonal relations, status and security.

In view of these general findings and taking into the account the research

population of the present project, it can be argued (see Barnabe & Burns, 1994) that

a teaching environment must be considered as a very specific context, which differs

quite considerably from a business (for-profit) environment. The following

definition (Barnabe & Burns, 1994) is used within the framework of this

contribution:

Int J Educ Vocat Guid (2007) 7:123–136 125

123

Teachers work in a flat, craft-style organizational structure, their work is

primarily with students, they are physically isolated from the continuous

interactions with other adults that characterize most business work and are

faced with qualitative based, subjective judgements of effectiveness. (p. 172)

Although the related literature is not overwhelming, some studies have highlighted

motivational constructs within a teachers’ population. A substantial part of this

research concentrates on the views expressed by teachers in training (e.g Bastick,

2000; Hayes, 1990; Moran, Kilpatrick, Abbott, Dallat, & McClune, 2001), but none

of the studies compare graduates who choose for a teaching job with those who

choose non-educational jobs. Hayes (1990) suggests that graduate teachers who

choose jobs other than teaching may be responding to their perception that teaching

provides low wages and does not offer sufficient opportunities for leadership-related

features like advancement, power, influence and autonomy. She concludes that

individuals who want to grow in status and power would not decide to engage in a

teaching job. Moreover, in a Belgian study of work values, teachers (and non-profit

workers in general) score exceptionally high on holistic values, meaning that they

prefer to see beyond themselves and consider what happens in their surrounding.

This is unlike individuals who work in a business or for-profit sector and who exhibit

more individualistic values relating to a me-focused and opportunistic attitude and

try to maximize their benefits (Van den Broeck & Vanderheyden, 2000).

As far as job motives are concerned, the three-factor model indicates that the

reasons given for joining the teaching profession fall under three headings: extrinsic

(E), intrinsic (I) and altruistic (A) (Andrews & Hatch, 2002; Bastick, 2000;

Kyriacou & Coulthard, 2000). The extrinsic theme refers to job elements not

inherent to the work itself, such as the actual teaching and interest in the use of

knowledge within the own discipline. Furthermore, the most popular motives

included in the intrinsic theme refer to the passion and vocation of the activity in

general (e.g. always wanted to teach) and the interest in working with children and

transferring information and culture (Fave & Massimini, 2003; Johnson, 1986;

Scott, Cox, & Dinham, 1999). For quite some time there has been evidence that

intrinsic motives are more important to teachers than extrinsic motives (Johnson,

1986; Lortie, 1975; Marshall, 1986). More recently, the existence of certain

common intrinsic motives transcending cultures has been demonstrated (Fave &

Massimini, 2003; Richardson & Watt, 2005). Finally, the altruistic theme in the EIA

model covers job elements which present teaching as a socially valuable activity,

related to the desire to promote the individual’s as well as society’s development,

without immediate personal benefit (e.g., helping others and serving society). A

number of studies into teacher motivation have concluded that altruism is the major

reason for choosing teaching as a career (e.g. Brown, 1992; Hayes, 1990; Moran,

Kilpatrick, Abbott, Dallat, & McClune, 2001).

In view of the emphasis in this study on the motives for everyday teaching, the

findings of Mitchell and Peters (1988) are relevant. They report that although

extrinsic benefits play an important role in stimulating good teachers to enter and

stay in the profession, everyday teaching efforts are more effectively encouraged by

altruistic and interpersonal features, in particular by a sense of pride in student

126 Int J Educ Vocat Guid (2007) 7:123–136

123

achievement and by the pleasure derived from working with students who

appreciate the opportunity to learn. A qualitative study of Belgian teachers

(Schepers et al., 2005) also supports the EIA three-factor model and suggests

extending the model by introducing the interpersonal factor, which refers to the

social interactions commonly present in a teaching job.

The major objective of this study is to explore the motivation of recently

graduated teachers to pursue a teaching job, based on job motives and work values.

In addition the relation between the two concepts is investigated. An ensuing aim

relates to study differences between graduate teachers practising the teaching

profession, and graduates in non-teaching professions. Based on the previously

discussed literature, the following research hypotheses are proposed:

– Teachers are predominantly motivated by intrinsic compared to extrinsic

motives;

– Teachers attach great importance to altruistic and interpersonal motives;

– Interpersonal and altruistic work values are more important as motivators for

graduates in a teaching job than for graduates in a non-teaching job;

– Extrinsic work values are more motivating for graduates in non-teaching

positions than for graduates in teaching positions.

Method

Participants

A random sample of 714 young graduates was drawn from the 2,500 graduates of

the 2004 class from nine different teacher training institutes in Flanders (the Dutch

speaking part of Belgium). A total of 241 graduates completed the questionnaire,

leading to a response rate of 33.7%, which is acceptable for a postal survey with no

follow-up. Approximately three-quarters (n = 179) of the respondents held a

teaching job at the moment they completed the questionnaire (this group is called

the ‘‘teachers’’), 18.0% (n = 43) held another job (this group is called the ‘‘non-

teachers’’) and 7.1% (n = 17) was still unemployed. About half of the non-teachers

had a job in the for-profit sector, whereas the other half specified working in the

non-educational non-profit sector. Because of the small sample size of unemployed

respondents, this paper will only focus on the group of teachers and non-teachers.

The majority of the sample, 72.1% (n = 160) was female and the mean age of the

respondents was 23.3 years with a standard deviation of 2.5.

Procedure

The data collection took place in November 2004. A questionnaire was sent by mail

to the graduates together with a university-addressed prepaid reply envelope. There

was no follow-up procedure of non-respondents because the questionnaires were

completed anonymously. All respondents (N = 222) completed the work values

Int J Educ Vocat Guid (2007) 7:123–136 127

123

questionnaire, whereas only the teachers (n = 179) additionally completed the job

motives questionnaire.

Measures

The questionnaire included three parts: some general questions on employment

background, educational background, gender and age; a job motives and a work

values questionnaire.

Job motives

Teachers’ job motives are measured through a job motive questionnaire based on

previous work by Schepers et al. (2005). Respondents indicate to what extent they

agree that 35 motives convinced them to start working as a teacher on a scale ranging

from 1 (totally disagree) to 5 (totally agree). Examples of items are: ‘‘I choose a

teaching job because of the pleasant working environment’’ and ‘‘I choose a teaching

job because of the support I get from the management’’. In this questionnaire, in line

with what was specified earlier for job motives, the emphasis is clearly on the specific

goals that individuals pursue in their actual job. In order to test the reliability of this

newly developed part of the questionnaire, an additional group of 34 teachers

completed it on two separate occasions with a two week time interval in between. On

basis of the test-retest correlations, three items with a non significant correlation

(p > .05) were removed from the analysis, resulting in a total of 32 items.

The factor structure of the questionnaire was analysed by a principal component

analysis with oblique rotation (direct oblimin, delta = 0), which allows components

to correlate (Hair, Anderson, Tatham, & Black, 1998). In case of low inter-

component correlations (r < .4) a principal component analysis with varimax rotation

is then applied. In order to achieve a robust structure, different component solutions

are assessed, based on the eigenvalues being larger than 1 and the scree plots. Item

loadings above .40 are used to interpret the components, while items which are

conceptually misplaced or have non-unique loadings are deleted. After applying

these guidelines, six items were deleted because of inadequate factor loadings.

The best solution for a factor structure model, based on the remaining items,

defines seven components explaining 65.69% of the variance (Table 1). The

following components are found: professional contact (four items, a = .83), social

role (four items, a = .76), transfer of knowledge (four items, a = .76), working

conditions (five items, a = .72), student contact (four items, a = .77), variety and

challenge (three items, a = .74) and work itself (two items, a = .79).

Work values

The Dutch version of the Value Scale (Belang van waarden) developed by Coetsier

and Claes (1990) was used as a starting point for the value questionnaire in this

project. The original questionnaire was initially developed within the framework of

the Work Importance Study (Super & Sverko, 1995) and has much in common with

other instruments (i.e. the Work Values Scale by Super & Nevill, 1985). This

128 Int J Educ Vocat Guid (2007) 7:123–136

123

large-scale, cross-cultural project conducted by researchers from 14 different

countries concentrated on the study of values (the rewards that people seek from

life) and the role salience. The original Flemish version contains 105 items, loading

on 21 scales. In this study a reduced version with 37 items is used. This version was

developed and validated by Buyens (1993) and others (De Cooman, De Gieter,

Pepermans, Du Bois, Caers, & Jegers (in press); De Vos, 2002). For each item (e.g.

‘‘I find it important to have a job in which I can use my capabilities’’, ‘‘I find it

important to be involved in work aimed at helping other people’’), the respondent

Table 1 Varimax-rotated principal component analysis for job motives

Job motives c1 c2 c3 c4 c5 c6 c7

Support from colleagues .84

Support from manangement .83

Contacts with colleagues .72

Pleasant working environment .67

Social role of education .77

Participate in the future of young people .67

Provide good education .63

Make oneself useful .49

Transfer knowledge .79

Impart something to the students .76

Contacts with students .60

Achieve something with some students .60

Holiday regulations .84

More free time .77

Good wage .69

Easy combing work and family .58

Job security .43 �.41

Appreciation from the students .82

Feedback from the students .79

Responsibility as a teacher .45 .50

Substantive interest in the job .48

Challenges .82

Variety .78

Possibilites for personal development .58

Love teaching .81

Always wanted a job in education sector .76

% explained variance 11.41 10.36 10.1 9.12 9.12 7.79 7.87

M 3.31 4.14 4.36 3.19 4.04 4.17 4.15

SD 0.78 0.59 0.55 0.80 0.64 0.65 0.89

Note: Absolute values less than .40 were omitted. (c1) professional contact; (c2) social role; (c3) transfer

of knowledge; (c4) working conditions; (c5) student contact; (c6) variety and challenge; (c7) work itself

Int J Educ Vocat Guid (2007) 7:123–136 129

123

rated its importance on a five-point scale ranging from 1 (totally unimportant) to 5

(totally important).According to the analysis by De Vos (2002), four higher-order dimensions

(advancement, autonomy, economic rewards and group orientation) ought to be

found. Results from a confirmatory factor analysis, on the data of the present study,

which tested these four components, indicate a bad fit (v2(623, n = 222) = 1666.68,

p < .01, GF1 = 0.660, AGFI = 0.616, RMSEA = 0.104). Therefore, an exploratory

principal component analysis is conducted for this questionnaire.

After an initial principal component analysis of the 37 items for the work values,

16 items had to be removed because of low loading, cross-loadings and conceptual

mismatch. The remaining 21 items result in a six component solution explaining

63.91% of the variance (Table 2). The components include: financial security (four

items, a = .77), social service (three items, a = .82), interpersonal contact (four

items, a = .73), autonomy (three items, a = .71), recognition (four items, a = .65)

Table 2 Varimax-rotated principal component analysis for work values

Work values c1 c2 c3 c4 c5 c6

To know you will always make a living .74

To have a job that provides steady employment .72

To have regular earnings .72

To have your income secured .70

To be involved in work aimed at helping other people .85

To help people with problems .80

To have a job that serves other people .80

To have a job in which you can easily make friends .84

To have people who make time for a chat .76

To be toghether with the same sort of people .57

To work in group rather than alone .42 .57

To do things your own way .82

To live according to your own ideas .82

To take your own decisions at work .69

To be strongly appreciated for your work .68

To have influence on others .64

To reach your personal goals .63

To be recognized for your achievements .56

To make progress in your career .82

To get promotion .82

To be a leader at work .64

% explained variance 11.86 23.17 34.31 44.40 53.89 63.38

M 4.24 4.32 3.89 3.83 3.69 2.85

SD 0.54 0.58 0.63 0.62 0.56 0.77

Note: Absolute values less than .40 were omitted. (c1) financial security; (c2) social service; (c3)

interpersonal contact; (c4) autonomy; (c5) recognition; (c6) career and leadership

130 Int J Educ Vocat Guid (2007) 7:123–136

123

and career & leadership (three items, a = .71). The component recognition has a

modest, though minimally acceptable internal consistency (De Vellis, 1991;

Nunnally, 1978) and was retained in the model because of its specific and fairly

important content.

Table 3 Correlation matrix components job motives and work values questionnaires: Pearson

correlations (r)

Work values Job motives

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13

Work values

1 r 1 .22** .37** .15* .40** .32** .11 .09 .20** .17* .09 .05 .08

n 217 217 214 215 214 216 175 175 175 173 174 176 176

2 r 1 .43** .26** .21** .01 .21** .49** .53** �.02 .43** .38** .30**

n 221 217 219 217 219 217 177 177 175 176 178 178

3 r 1 .19** .30** .10 .35** .31** .38** .10 .28** .26** .25**

n 218 217 214 215 174 174 174 172 173 175 175

4 r 1 .33** .19** .03 .17* .17* .17* .20** .16* .10

n 220 216 217 176 176 176 174 175 177 177

5 r 1 .38** .17* .20** .26** .11 .27** .23** .15*

n 218 215 175 175 175 173 174 176 176

6 r 1 .11 .01 .01 .24** .01 �.02 -.04

n 219 175 175 175 173 174 176 176

Job motives

7 r 1 .30** .29** .11 .39** .40** .34**

n 178 177 177 175 176 178 178

8 r 1 .47** .04 .55** .45** .29**

n 178 177 175 176 178 178

9 r 1 .01 .53** .40** .30**

n 178 175 176 178 178

10 r 1 .07 -.07 -.16*

n 176 174 176 176

11 r 1 .47** .26**

n 177 177 177

12 r 1 .30**

n 179 179

13 r 1

n 179

Note: (1) Financial security; (2) social service; (3) interpersonal contact; (4) autonomy; (5) recognition;

(6) career & leadership; (7) professional contact; (8) social role; (9) transfer of knowledge; (10) working

conditions; (11) student contact; (12) variety and challenge; (13) work itself

*p < .05, **p < .01

Int J Educ Vocat Guid (2007) 7:123–136 131

123

Results

Correlation analyses between job motives and work values measures (Table 3)

reveal some significant relations between subscales that are content related. These

indicate that both instruments are somewhat related (strongest relationship, r = .55),

but measure motivational preferences at different levels.

Regarding the relative importance attached to the final seven job motive

components, mean scores (Table 1) indicate transfer of knowledge, referring to the

teaching itself, to play a key role for starting teachers. The components variety and

challenge and work itself (including the vocation to become a teacher) emphasize

even further the intrinsic job motives. Furthermore, the teacher’s social role (the

social function of education and the teacher’s role within this process), which refers

to an altruistic motive, is also important in this sample. Subsequently, interpersonal

features of the job are found in two motives, i.e. student contact (the relationship

with the students and the responsibility linked to it) and professional contact (the

working environment and the support from and contact with colleagues and

management). Finally, the component working conditions, which refers to extrinsic

features, is considered to be the least crucial motive.

The differences in the means for the importance attached to the six work values

for teachers and non-teachers are tested using independent samples t-tests (see

Table 4). The importance attached to the values is different in both sub samples.

Teachers attach most importance to social service, while financial security comes

second. For non-teachers, it is the other way round. For the work value social

service, a statistically significant difference is found between teachers and non-

teachers (t(219) = 3.68, p < .01). Teachers are more motivated by providing a social

service when at work (i.e. the possibility to help people through their work)

compared to non-teachers. In order of importance, within the sample of teachers, the

component interpersonal contact is found in third position, while within the sample

Table 4 Differences in work values between teachers and non-teachers: means, standards deviations,

t-tests and significance

Component Group M SD t df p

Financial security Teachers 4.25 0.53 0.314 215 .75

Non-teachers 4.21 0.57

Social service Teachers 4.39 0.54 3.68 219 <.01

Non-teachers 4.04 0.67

Interpersonal contact Teachers 3.95 0.61 2.67 216 <.01

Non-teachers 3.67 0.66

Autonomy Teachers 3.86 0.60 1.48 218 .15

Non-teachers 3.71 0.70

Recognition Teachers 3.69 0.56 0.11 216 .91

Non-teachers 3.68 0.58

Career and leadership Teachers 2.79 0.76 �2.48 217 .01

Non-teachers 3.11 0.74

132 Int J Educ Vocat Guid (2007) 7:123–136

123

of non-teachers this component only appears in fifth position. Compared to non-

teachers, teachers seem to be significantly more motivated by the relationship and

friendship inherent to the job (t(216) = 2.67, p < .01). The importance of autonomy

and recognition does not differ between the two groups. Finally, career and

leadership ranks last in both samples. Nevertheless, non-teachers estimate this value

significantly higher than teachers (t(217) = 2.48, p < .05).

Discussion

The hypotheses that young teacher graduates are predominately motivated by

intrinsic compared to extrinsic job motives, and comparatively speaking consider

altruistic and interpersonal motives higher are supported by the results of this study.

These results clearly support the EIA three-factor model (Andrews & Hatch, 2002;

Bastick, 2000; Kyraciacou & Coulthard, 2000) and its further extension with a

fourth interpersonal factor (Schepers et al., 2005). Regarding job motives, the young

teachers in this survey assess intrinsic features as most motivating, which is in line

with previous findings by Fave and Massimini (2003) and Richardson and Watt

(2005). The relatively low importance they attach to the working conditions as a job

motive (an extrinsic job feature) supports the conclusions of Johnson (1986), Lortie

(1975) and Marshall (1986) that intrinsic job features have a much stronger

motivational potential for day-to-day teaching than extrinsic job features. Another

conclusion can be drawn relating to the high importance of the altruistic factor,

which is repeatedly stressed in earlier research (Brown, 1992; Hayes, 1990; Moran

et al., 2001), and which gets further support in this study. Concerning the additional

interpersonal factor, it can be concluded that good relationships and contacts with

students are important for the work motivation of teachers. The findings include a

plea for extending the job motives framework beyond the classic two-factor model

towards a much broader four-factor model. This is at least valid for the teaching

profession.

The hypothesis concerning how work values differ between teacher graduates

holding a teacher or non-teacher job is also supported. The results demonstrate that

three work values differentiate significantly between the two groups. The strongest

differences are found for the values social service and interpersonal contact. As

expected (Van den Broeck & Vanderheyden, 2000), teachers included in this survey

prefer altruistic and interpersonal values, while non-teachers are more attracted by

individualistic values such as career opportunities and executive powers. The

question that arises now, and that requires further investigation, relates to whether

teachers become more altruistic and interpersonally oriented when in the profession,

or whether they display these features before entering the profession. The former

could be seen as the result of effective socialisation, while the latter could be

considered the result of an attrition phenomenon (Wright, 2001). Alternatively of

course, a similar argument could be produced for the non-teachers in this study

being more individualistic. The present study results only indicate that teachers who

do not practise the profession have a different work value profile compared to their

fellow graduates who work as teachers. The data, however, do not offer the

Int J Educ Vocat Guid (2007) 7:123–136 133

123

possibility to discover the reasons for not entering the teaching profession.

Conceivable reasons are being interested in and attracted by other professions and

dropping out during selection procedures, therefore putting this issue on the research

agenda for the future.

Within the framework of the general goals of this study some attention should

also be given to the relationship between the measures of job motives and work

values. The results indicate the existence of a positive, albeit rather weak

correlation between allied subscales of the two instruments. This suggests that

each component focuses on a different level of work motivation, one more

specific and the other more general. The results do, however, not allow for this

relationship to be clarified. Therefore, future studies could focus on these

relationships and attempt to explain whether certain work values may predispose

an individual for certain job motives.

The group of non-teachers includes respondents working in both the for-profit

and non-profit sector. This biases the results towards smaller differences between

the groups of teachers versus non-teachers. Moreover, because of the small sample

size of the non-teachers, it is not possible to analyse differences between those who

work in the for-profit (n = 17) and those who work in the non-profit sector (n = 19).

Given this limitation, it is not possible to draw conclusions about the general

differences between individuals working in the for-profit and non-profit sector. It

can be expected that a differentiation among non-teachers may even show a large

gap between teachers and profit employees, with the group of non-teachers (but as-

such-educated teachers) as an in-between group with respect to job motives and

work values. Therefore, the present results may be seen as an indication and an

onset to further research.

Yet, there is some evidence that the present results may be valid beyond the

teaching profession. Within the broader framework of non-profit organizations,

Basini and Buckly (1999) conclude that in general, non-profit sector employees are

much more interested in intrinsic and altruistic components (such as seeing their

work as a useful way of serving society), unlike profit workers who display a more

instrumental motivation. This does not clarify whether this motivation developed

during employment in the non-profit job or whether it was already present upon

entering the job.

The Basini and Buckly (1999) results also indicate that the motivational profile as

found in the present study is probably not limited to teachers only, which makes it

interesting to test the hypotheses for other non-profit professions as well.

Furthermore, exploring within group differences among non-teachers and to what

extent and why individuals intentionally choose for their career moves, remains

interesting and clarifying.

This study support the forwarded hypotheses, but at the same time it mirrors

some limitations. The results support the notion that young teacher graduates have a

particular motivation for working in the educational sector and that as a group they

are different from other employees. The study also offers an invitation for further

research to compare with results achieved for other parts of the non-profit or

for-profit sector.

134 Int J Educ Vocat Guid (2007) 7:123–136

123

Acknowledgements The authors would like to express their gratitude to the Research Council of theVrije Universiteit Brussel for its financial support through the interdisciplinary project GOA24.

References

Andrews, P., & Hatch, G. (2002). Initial motivations of serving teachers of secondary mathematics.

Evaluation and Research in Education, 16(4), 185–201.

Barnabe, C., & Burns, M. (1994). Teachers’ job characteristics and motivation. Educational Research,36(2), 171–185.

Basini, S., & Buckley, F. (1999). The meaning of work in the Irish voluntary sector. Association for

Voluntary Action Research in Ireland, University of Ulster.

Bastick, T. (2000, February). The measurement of teacher motivation: Cross-cultural and gendercomparison. Paper presented at the 29th Annual Meeting of the Society for Cross-Cultural Research,

New Orleans.

Brown, M. (1992). Caribbean first-year teachers’ reasons for choosing teaching as a career. Journal ofEducation for Teaching, 18(2), 185–195.

Buchanan, D., & Huczynski, A. (1997). Organizational behavior: an introductory text (3rd ed.). London:

Prentice Hall.

Buyens, D. (1993). Career development and adult life cycle transitions: Antecedents and consequences of(mid) career transitions. Gent: Universiteit Gent.

Coetsier, P., & Claes, R. (1990). Belang van levensrollen en waarden [Importance of life roles and

values]. Oostende: Infoservice.

De Cooman, R., De Gieter, S., Pepemans, R., Du Bois, C., Caers, R., & Jegers, M. (in press). Freshmen in

nursing: Job motives and work values of a new generation. Journal of Nursing Management.De Grip, A. (2004). Levensloop in personeelsbeleid in zorg en onderwijs [Personnel policy in care and

education during lifetime]. Economisch Statistische Berichten, 89, 26–27.

De Vellis, R. F. (1991). Scale development: Theory and applications. Newbury Park, CA: Sage.

De Vos, A. (2002). The Individual Antecedents and the development of newcomers’ psychologicalcontracts during the socialization process: A longitudinal study. Gent: Universiteit Gent.

Evans, L. (1998). Teacher morale, job satisfaction and motivation. London: Paul Chapman Publishing.

Fave, A. D., & Massimini, F. (2003). Optimal experience in work and leisure among teachers and

physicians: Individual and bio-cultural implications. Leisure Studies, 22, 323–342.

Hair, J., Anderson, R., Tatham, R., & Black, W. (1998). Multivariate data analysis (5th ed.). Englewood

Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall.

Hayes, S. (1990). Students’ reasons for entering the educational profession. (Report No. HE027075).

Oklahoma, Northwestern Oklahoma State University (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No.

ED366234).

Herzberg, F., Mausner, B., & Snyderman, B. (1959). The motivation to work (2nd ed.). New York: John

Wiley & Sons, Inc.

Johnson, S. (1986). Incentives for teachers: What motivates, what matters. Educational AdministrationQuarterly, 22(3), 54–79.

Judge, T., & Bretz, R. J. (1992). Effects of work values on job choice decisions. Journal of AppliedPsychology, 77(3), 261–271.

Kanungo, R., & Hartwick, J. (1987). An alternative to the intrinsic & extrinsic dichotomy of work

rewards. Journal of Management, 13(4), 751–767.

Kyriacou, C., & Coulthard, M. (2000). Undergraduates’ views of teaching as a career choice. Journal ofEducation for Teaching, 26(2), 117–126.

Lortie, D. (1975). Schoolteachers: A sociological study. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press.

Marshall, D. (1986). Student teachers motivations for choosing teaching as a career. Teacher Education,29, 75–83.

McKenna, E. (1998). Business psychology & organisational behaviour (2nd ed.). Hove: Psychology

Press.

Meaning of Working International Research Team. (1987). The meaning of working. New York:

Academic Press.

Miskel, C. (1982). Motivation in educational organizations. Educational Administration Quarterly, 18(3),

65–88.

Int J Educ Vocat Guid (2007) 7:123–136 135

123

Mitchell, D., & Peters, M. (1988). A stronger profession trough appropriate teacher incentives.

Educational Leadership, 46(3), 74–78.

Moorhead, G., & Griffin, R. (1995). Organizational behaviour: Managing people and organizations.

Boston: Houghton Mifflin.

Moran, A., Kilpatrick, R., Abbott, L., Dallat, J., & McClune, B. (2001). Training to teach: Motivating

factors and implications for recruitment. Evaluation and Research in Education, 15(1), 17–32.

Nord, W., Brief, A., Atieh, J., & Doherty, E. (1988). Work values and the conduct of organizational

behaviour. In L. Cummings & B. Staw (Eds.), Research in organizational behavior (Vol. 10, pp. 1–

42). England: Jai Press Inc.

Nunnally, J. C. (1978). Psychometric theory (2nd ed.). New York: McGraw-Hill.

Pryor, R. (1979). In search of a concept: Work values. The Vocational Guidance Quarterly, 27, 250–258.

Richardson, P., & Watt, H. (2005). I’ve decided to become a teacher: Influences on career change.

Teaching and Teacher Education, 21, 475–489.

Rokeach, M. (1973). The nature of human values. New York: Free Press.

Roe, R., & Ester, P. (1999). Values and work: Empirical findings and theoretical perspectives. AppliedPsychology: An International Review, 48(1), 1–21.

Ros, M., Schwartz, S., & Surkiss, S. (1999). Basic individual values, work values, and the meaning of

work. Applied Psychology: An International Review, 48(1), 49–71.

Rousseau, D. (1997). Organizational behavior in the new organizational era. Annual Review ofPsychology, 48, 515–546.

Schepers, C., De Cooman, R., De Gieter, S., Pepermans, R., Du Bois, C., Caers R., & Jegers, M. (2005,

May). Teachers’ motives to work: A qualitative analysis. Paper presented at the XII European

Congress of Work and Organizational Psychology, Istanbul.

Schwartz, S. (1992). Universals in the content and structure of values: Theoretical advances and

experimental tests in 20 countries. In M. Zanna (Ed.), Advances in experimental social psychology(Vol. 25, pp. 1–65). New York: Academic Press.

Schwartz, S. (1999). A theory of cultural values and some implications for work. Applied Psychology: AnInternational Review, 48(1), 23–47.

Scott, C., Cox, S., & Dinham, S. (1999). The occupational motivation, satisfaction and health of English

school teachers. Educational Psychology, 19(3), 287–308.

Serow, R., & Forrest, K. (1994). Motives and circumstances: Occupational change experiences of

prospective late-entry teachers. Teaching & Teacher Education, 10(5), 555–563.

Super, D. (1970). Manual: Work values inventory. New York: Houghton-Mifflin.

Super, D. (1973). The career development inventory. British Journal of Guidance and Counselling, 1,

37–50.

Super, D., & Nevill, D. (1985). The values scale. Palo Alto: Consulting Psychologist Press.

Super, D., & Sverko, B. (Eds.) (1995). Life roles, values, and careers. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass

Publishers.

Van den Broeck, H., & Vanderheyden, K. (2000). Mensen maken waarden, waarden maken mensen[People make values, values make people]. Leuven: Acco.

Wright, B. E. (2001). Public-sector work motivation: A review of the current literature and a revised

conceptual model. Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory, 4, 559–586.

Zytowski, D. (1970). The concept of work values. Vocational Guidance Quarterly, 18(3), 176–186.

136 Int J Educ Vocat Guid (2007) 7:123–136

123