Just one point of clarification about "choice". I think you have made good
points about the "choice assumption" Eugene, which deserve further
exploration in fact. But the point I was making about choice was a
different one. I was making a methodological point.
Research presents challenges. We all know that sometimes one must resort to
less than ideal experimental methods in order to get some answer to a
certain question. However, if it is possible to get objective information,
rather than just reflexive opinion, then we should prioritise that
objective information and view reflexive opinion in the light of what we
learn from observation of behaviour and experimental intervention, where
that is possible.
So I was just saying that an important part of shedding light on work
motivation must be collecting information about actual choices people make
when they have the choice. In the light of the fact that (hypothetically,
for example) 90% of people who don't have to work, still work, then we can
interpret the fact that (hypothetically, for example) 60% of people who do
work don't enjoy their work. etc., etc., etc. It may be that the reported
proposition from the Soviet journal
"95% working people in US do not like their jobs, i.e., do their job ONLY
out of necessity to earn money."
was a non sequitor. I.e., doing a job because you like it and doing a job
because of necessity to earn money are not the only choices.
Andy
At 03:38 PM 18/12/2003 -0500, you wrote:
>Dear everybody-
>2) "No choices" assumption. According to this assumption as I see it, jobs
>can't be authentically meaningful and enjoyable without have choices that
>people have about these jobs (freedom means choice and choice means
>freedom).
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Thu Jan 01 2004 - 01:00:09 PST