1. Abstract
The Work Value Survey (WVS), rooted directly in Shalom H. Schwartz’s foundational Theory of Basic Human Values (Schwartz, 1992, 1994), is a comprehensive psychometric instrument engineered to evaluate individual differences in human motivational structures and their behavioral manifestations within occupational, organizational, and cross-cultural contexts. Composed of 56 standardized items, the instrument measures the subjective importance that respondents assign to ten motivationally distinct, universally recognized value orientations: Power, Achievement, Hedonism, Stimulation, Self-Direction, Universalism, Benevolence, Tradition, Conformity, and Security. Items are rated along an asymmetric 9-point Likert-type scale spanning from -1 (opposed to my values) to 7 (of supreme importance), a metric explicitly structured to reflect the cognitive anchoring individuals use when prioritizing existential and occupational values.
Psychometrically, the instrument has undergone rigorous cross-cultural validation across 97 independent samples spanning 44 nations, confirming the near-universal spatial organization of values arranged in a circumplex structure along two orthogonal higher-order polarities: Self-Enhancement versus Self-Transcendence and Openness to Change versus Conservation. The internal consistency of the ten subscales exhibits variability typical of broad motivational constructs, with Cronbach’s alpha coefficients reported from .56 to .80 across diverse cultural populations (Feather, Norman, & Worsley, 1998; Schwartz, 1994). Subsets of the inventory have also been successfully operationalized to assess broader sociocultural constructs, such as Individualism/Collectivism (α = .80) and Hierarchy/Egalitarianism (α = .77) in cross-cultural organizational negotiation studies (Brett & Okumura, 1998). This article provides a comprehensive overview of the instrument’s theoretical architecture, psychometric parameters, structural validation, scoring protocols, and operational utility in organizational psychology.
2. Keywords
Work Value Survey, Shalom H. Schwartz, Schwartz Value Survey, basic human values, motivational structure, occupational values, circumplex model, cross-cultural psychometrics, person-organization fit, organizational behavior
3. Authors
The theoretical framework, dimensional taxonomy, and foundational item inventory of the instrument were developed by Shalom H. Schwartz, Professor Emeritus of Psychology at the Hebrew University of Jerusalem, Israel. Schwartz is an internationally distinguished social psychologist whose empirical work revolutionized the scientific study of human values through the conceptualization of the universal structural theory of values.
Key psychometric adaptations, contextual validations, and organizational applications of the 56-item value inventory include prominent empirical contributions by Jeanne M. Brett (DeWitt W. Buchanan, Jr. Professor of Dispute Resolution and Organizations at the Kellogg School of Management, Northwestern University, USA), Tetsushi Okumura (Graduate School of Economics and Faculty of Economics, Kyoto University, Japan), and Norman T. Feather (Flinders University, Australia). Inquiries regarding the original theoretical instruments and cross-cultural normative databases are traditionally directed to the Department of Psychology at the Hebrew University of Jerusalem.
4. Purpose
The primary purpose of the Work Value Survey is to identify, quantify, and map the hierarchical system of guiding principles that individuals prioritize in life and work. In occupational, industrial, and organizational psychology, personal values function as deeply internalized, stable cognitive standards that guide the selection or evaluation of actions, policies, people, and events. While general personality traits (such as the Five-Factor Model) describe characteristic behavioral tendencies or dispositions, values represent motivational goals—what individuals consider desirable, justified, and worthy of pursuit.
From an applied perspective, the instrument serves several pivotal functions:
- Person-Organization Fit (P-O Fit): Human resource professionals and organizational psychologists utilize the scale to evaluate value congruence between prospective or current employees and the prevailing culture or ethical climate of the enterprise. Discrepancies between personal value hierarchies and corporate environments predict voluntary turnover, psychological strain, organizational cynicism, and diminished engagement.
- Leadership and Management Development: Understanding whether an executive is predominantly anchored by Self-Transcendence (Benevolence, Universalism) versus Self-Enhancement (Power, Achievement) provides empirical insight into their decision-making frameworks, corporate social responsibility attitudes, negotiation tactics, and employee empowerment practices.
- Negotiation and Conflict Resolution: As demonstrated by Brett and Okumura (1998), individuals prioritizing Power and Hierarchy systematically lean toward distributive, competitive negotiation styles, whereas those characterized by egalitarian and collectivist value structures are significantly more inclined toward integrative, value-creating negotiations.
- Vocational Counseling and Career Trajectories: The scale enables vocational counselors to guide clients toward professional environments aligned with their core motivational needs. An individual prioritizing Stimulation and Self-Direction will experience motivational burnout in rigid, procedural administrative positions, whereas an individual high in Security and Conformity will thrive in stable, institutionalized settings.
- Cross-Cultural Management: Multinational enterprises deploy the instrument to diagnose cultural variations across global branch offices, navigating the delicate balance between universal corporate norms and regional motivational variations.
5. Psychological Construct
The Work Value Survey measures human values defined by Schwartz as trans-situational, desirable goals, varying in importance, that serve as guiding principles in people’s lives. The construct comprises ten motivationally distinct value orientations, each derived from the universal biological, social, and functional requisites of human survival:
1. Power
The motivational goal of Power centers on the attainment of social status, prestige, control, or dominance over people and material resources. In the workplace, high-power individuals seek managerial control, organizational rank, formal authority, and executive decision-making privileges. Representative manifestations include striving for substantial personal wealth, controlling corporate budgets, and commanding social deference.
2. Achievement
Achievement involves personal success through the demonstration of competence according to internalized social and professional standards. Unlike Power, which targets social dominance, Achievement prioritizes performance mastery, efficiency, technical expertise, and career advancement through measurable excellence. Work behaviors include seeking challenging performance metrics, intellectual competence, and public recognition for exemplary task execution.
3. Hedonism
The core goal of Hedonism is pleasure or sensuous self-gratification for oneself. Within the organizational domain, hedonistic values manifest as a desire for workplace comfort, physical ergonomics, enjoyable work relationships, favorable work-life balance, and freedom from distressing or painful environmental conditions.
4. Stimulation
Stimulation derives from the organismic need for variety, novelty, and physiological or cognitive arousal. In an occupational context, employees scoring high on stimulation value dynamic environments, job rotation, disruptive innovation, rapid change, and unconventional task challenges, while displaying an intolerance for repetitive, static, or bureaucratic assignments.
5. Self-Direction
Self-Direction entails independent thought and action—choosing, creating, and exploring. The underlying motivation is autonomy and personal agency. In work organizations, individuals high in self-direction demand job autonomy, flexible work schedules, creative discretion, and latitude in strategic goal setting, actively rejecting micro-management.
6. Universalism
The motivational goal of Universalism is understanding, appreciation, tolerance, and protection for the welfare of all people and for nature. In professional life, universalism is expressed through an emphasis on social justice, workplace diversity, broad-mindedness, corporate sustainability, environmental ethics, and fair trade practices.
7. Benevolence
Benevolence focuses on the preservation and enhancement of the welfare of people with whom one is in frequent personal contact (the “in-group”). Distinct from universalism’s global scope, benevolence values center on direct interpersonal relationships. In workplace teams, this manifests as loyalty to colleagues, psychological safety, mutual support, mentorship, helpfulness, and honesty in collegial interactions.
8. Tradition
The motivational core of Tradition is respect, commitment, and acceptance of the customs and ideas that traditional culture, religion, or long-standing institutional practices impose on the self. In companies, it reflects deference to corporate heritage, loyalty to institutional history, and adherence to time-tested protocols.
9. Conformity
Conformity involves the restraint of actions, inclinations, and impulses likely to upset or harm others and violate social expectations or institutional norms. In the workplace, conformity prioritizes obedience, interpersonal politeness, rule compliance, adherence to standard operating procedures, and the maintenance of harmony with supervisors and team members.
10. Security
The defining goal of Security is safety, harmony, and stability of society, of relationships, and of self. In employment settings, security manifests as an acute focus on job security, predictable tenure, organizational stability, pension and health benefits, occupational safety protocols, and clear, risk-averse institutional trajectories.
6. Theoretical Framework
The Work Value Survey is anchored in the seminal Schwartz Theory of Basic Human Values (1992, 1994). Schwartz synthesized and substantially expanded earlier work by Milton Rokeach (Rokeach Value Survey, 1973), resolving significant psychometric and conceptual limitations of prior value inventories by positing a comprehensive universal taxonomy based on structural relations.
The Circumplex Structure of Motivational Conflict and Congruence
The cornerstone of Schwartz’s theoretical framework is that values do not exist in cognitive isolation; instead, they form an integrated, circular continuum (circumplex) reflecting relations of compatibility and conflict among different motivational goals. The closer any two values are on the perimeter of the circle, the more similar their underlying motivations and the more compatible they are in practice. Conversely, values positioned opposite one another reflect conflicting motivational imperatives that cannot easily be pursued simultaneously in a single action.
The ten basic values are organized along two orthogonal, bipolar dimensions:
- Openness to Change versus Conservation: Opposes values that emphasize independent thought, innovation, and readiness for dynamic change (Self-Direction, Stimulation) against values that emphasize self-restriction, preservation of past practices, stability, and protection against disruption (Security, Conformity, Tradition).
- Self-Enhancement versus Self-Transcendence: Opposes values emphasizing the pursuit of personal interests, competitive success, and dominance over others (Power, Achievement) against values that transcend selfish concerns to promote the well-being of close others and humanity as a whole (Benevolence, Universalism). Hedonism shares motivational elements of both Openness to Change and Self-Enhancement.
When adapted to the work context, this theoretical model explains how organizational policies produce psychological tensions. For instance, an institutional environment that incentivizes aggressive personal competition (Self-Enhancement) directly suppresses and penalizes behaviors driven by egalitarian mutual support and corporate social responsibility (Self-Transcendence). Similarly, highly standardized bureaucratic routines (Conservation) inevitably conflict with demands for radical organizational innovation and employee autonomy (Openness to Change).
7. Validity
The empirical validity of the 56-item value framework has been established across hundreds of international investigations, making it one of the most rigorously validated psychometric structures in contemporary social sciences.
Construct and Structural Validity
In his landmark cross-cultural validation study, Schwartz (1994) analyzed responses from 97 independent samples across 44 countries spanning every populated continent, including both teachers and university students. Using non-metric multidimensional scaling (Smallest Space Analysis), Schwartz examined the structural integrity of the value categories. The findings revealed that all 10 value categories emerged as distinct regions or overlapped only with theoretically adjacent categories in 84% of the samples. Furthermore, eight value types were distinctly segregated in 98% of the surveyed cultures.
At the item level, Schwartz (1994) confirmed that 47 of the 56 items demonstrated stable, consistent motivational meaning across at least 83% of the samples. Items exhibiting marginal inconsistency across cultural borders were “healthy” (which oscillated between Security and Hedonism), “self-respect” (which spanned Achievement and Self-Direction), and “detachment” (which showed divergent cultural connotations within Tradition).
Predictive and Criterion Validity
Empirical investigations across diverse work environments confirm the strong criterion validity of the survey. In a study examining intercultural negotiations among Japanese and American managers, Brett and Okumura (1998) derived measures of Individualism/Collectivism (using seven WVS items) and Hierarchy/Egalitarianism (using six WVS items). Their findings demonstrated that:
- Individualism correlated positively and significantly with the perceived importance of hierarchical power and the maximization of self-interest in executive negotiations.
- Individualism correlated negatively with the use of distributive negotiation tactics and with focusing primarily on role-based power.
- Importance attached to institutional hierarchy correlated positively with the explicit tactical deployment of power and the pre-negotiation planning of leverage over counterparts.
Moreover, extensive organizational studies have shown that Schwartz value priorities predict distinct patterns of organizational citizenship behavior (OCB), with Benevolence and Conformity positively predicting helping behaviors, and Achievement and Power predicting counterproductive work behaviors (CWB) when competitive pressures are elevated.
8. Reliability
Because values are broad, multi-faceted cognitive structures rather than narrow behavioral symptoms, internal consistency estimates (Cronbach’s alpha) for the ten subscales exhibit moderate to high magnitude, consistent with standard psychometric expectations for abstract constructs.
In an extensive empirical investigation by Feather, Norman, and Worsley (1998), the internal consistency reliability coefficients (α) for the ten subscales were established as follows:
- Universalism (α = .80, 9 items)
- Stimulation (α = .77, 3 items)
- Achievement (α = .76, 6 items)
- Benevolence (α = .76, 9 items)
- Conformity (α = .72, 4 items)
- Power (α = .71, 5 items)
- Self-Direction (α = .69, 5 items)
- Hedonism (α = .67, 2 items)
- Tradition (α = .61, 6 items)
- Security (α = .56, 7 items)
The relatively modest alpha observed for Security (.56) and Tradition (.61) reflects the deliberate conceptual breadth of these domains, which incorporate both individual-level physical safety/humility and societal-level geopolitical order. When items are aggregated into composite higher-order dimensions or customized organizational constructs, reliability increases markedly. For instance, Brett and Okumura (1998) reported robust internal reliabilities of α = .80 for their 7-item Individualism/Collectivism composite and α = .77 for their 6-item Hierarchy/Egalitarianism composite. Test-retest reliability across intervals of two to six weeks regularly demonstrates stability coefficients ranging between .75 and .88, confirming the temporal stability of value priorities over time.
9. Factor Analysis
The underlying psychometric architecture of the 56-item inventory was originally mapped using Smallest Space Analysis (SSA), a form of non-metric multidimensional scaling (MDS), rather than traditional unconstrained exploratory factor analysis (EFA). Because Schwartz’s theoretical model posits a continuous circular boundary (circumplex) rather than discrete, mutually uncorrelated factors, linear factor analysis often produces cross-loadings that reflect the adjacent nature of contiguous value domains.
Multidimensional Scaling and Configural Verification
In the two-dimensional SSA projections conducted by Schwartz (1992, 1994), each item is represented as a point in geometric space such that the distances between items correspond inversely to their empirical intercorrelations. Across diverse international samples, the points partitioned into distinct topological wedges or sectors corresponding to the ten hypothesized values, distributed radially around a central origin. The angular order of the sectors around the perimeter closely matched the hypothesized motivational continuum:
Power → Achievement → Hedonism → Stimulation → Self-Direction → Universalism → Benevolence → Tradition → Conformity → Security → [Power]
Confirmatory Factor Analysis (CFA)
Subsequent psychometric evaluations utilizing Confirmatory Factor Analysis (CFA) have tested the circumplex structure by specifying correlated latent factors corresponding to the ten values or the four higher-order quadrants. When applying maximum likelihood estimation with robust standard errors (MLR) and accounting for the quasi-simplex structure of adjacent value correlations, CFA models generally yield acceptable fit indices:
- Comparative Fit Index (CFI) ≥ .90
- Root Mean Square Error of Approximation (RMSEA) ≤ .055
- Standardized Root Mean Square Residual (SRMR) ≤ .060
These empirical findings confirm that the 56 items systematically reflect their intended latent constructs, while demonstrating that the ten value sectors form a coherent motivational continuum.
10. Instrument / Measurement Tool
- Instrument Name: Work Value Survey (WVS) / Schwartz Value Survey (SVS) 56-Item Adaptation.
- Author: Shalom H. Schwartz (1992, 1994).
- Construct Assessed: Basic human and occupational value priorities across ten motivationally distinct domains.
- Structure / Number of Items: 56 items grouped into 10 subscales: Power (5 items), Achievement (6 items), Hedonism (2 items), Stimulation (3 items), Self-Direction (5 items), Universalism (9 items), Benevolence (9 items), Tradition (6 items), Conformity (4 items), Security (7 items).
- Response Format: Asymmetrical 9-point Likert-type scale:
- -1: Opposed to my values
- 0: Not important
- 1: Unlabeled
- 2: Unlabeled
- 3: Important
- 4: Unlabeled
- 5: Unlabeled
- 6: Very important
- 7: Of supreme importance
- Scoring and Ipsatization Protocol:
- Raw Scale Scores: Calculated by computing the mean response score of all items belonging to a given subscale.
- Mean Centering / Ipsatization (Mandatory): Because individuals exhibit distinct response sets (scale use tendencies, such as acquiescence bias or an inclination toward extreme ratings), Schwartz (1992, 2003) mandates centering each individual’s value scores around their personal mean rating across all 56 items (the Mean Individual Response / MR).
- Centered Score Calculation:
Centered Score = Raw Value Subscale Mean − Individual Overall Mean (MR). - Interpretation: Scores above zero indicate values that are prioritized above the individual’s baseline standard; scores below zero reflect values that hold lower relative priority.
- Administration Time: Approximately 15 to 25 minutes for self-administration.
11. Permissions & Fee and Test Year
The foundational 56-item instrument was published by Shalom H. Schwartz in 1992 and validated cross-culturally in his landmark 1994 publication in the Journal of Social Issues. The instrument is considered an open, non-commercial psychological assessment tool for scholarly, academic, and non-profit educational research. Schwartz has historically permitted the utilization of the instrument for scientific and educational investigations without licensing fees, provided that appropriate bibliographic credit is extended to the original validation publications.
Commercial applications, such as corporate diagnostic consulting, proprietary employee selection platforms, and commercial leadership development assessments, require explicit permission or formal licensing from the author or copyright holders (Blackwell Science / John Wiley & Sons, Inc.). Researchers and practitioners should review institutional access requirements and adhere to ethical assessment guidelines established by the American Psychological Association (APA).
12. References
- Brett, J. M., & Okumura, T. (1998). Inter- and intracultural negotiation: U.S. and Japanese negotiators. Academy of Management Journal, 41(5), 495–510. https://doi.org/10.5465/256938
- Feather, N. T., Norman, P. M., & Worsley, A. (1998). Values and actions: A cross-cultural study of responses to situations of conflict. Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology, 29(6), 722–744. https://doi.org/10.1177/0022022198296004
- Rokeach, M. (1973). The nature of human values. Free Press.
- Schwartz, S. H. (1992). Universals in the content and structure of values: Theoretical advances and empirical tests in 20 countries. In M. P. Zanna (Ed.), Advances in Experimental Social Psychology (Vol. 25, pp. 1–65). Academic Press. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0065-2601(08)60281-6
- Schwartz, S. H. (1994). Are there universal aspects in the structure and contents of human values? Journal of Social Issues, 50(4), 19–45. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1540-4560.1994.tb01196.x
- Schwartz, S. H. (2003). A proposal for measuring value orientations across nations. In Questionnaire Package of the European Social Survey (pp. 259–319). City University London.