Barbara Mróz, Magdalena Dąbrowska Hierarchy of values, self-esteem and life satisfaction in the group of managers

Artykuł jest dostępny na warunkach międzynarodowej licencji 4.0 (CC BY-NC-ND 4.0).

Introduction 

Both the chosen values as well as self-esteem and life satisfaction are of great importance in a person’s functioning in the workplace in a managerial position. There is extensive literature on these issues, but there is a lack of clear references and knowledge about the precise connections between them among Polish managers. This research aims to fill this gap. 

The role of values in the functioning of managers 

An individual, hierarchical system of values gives meaning not only to life but also to functioning in a professional situation – this is the main idea of M. Rokeach, drawing attention to the axiological conditions of man in various areas (Rokeach, 1979). The hierarchy of values in this sense is a permanent composition of preferred patterns of action and a method of achieving life goals, including professional ones. Rokeach believes that values are not a separate part of the human psyche, but understands them as a multidimensional and complex system. Values lead in the hierarchy from the most important to the least important.  

Value, according to Rokeach’s definition, is a persistent belief that a certain way of behaving is individually and socially more attractive than other ways of behaving and life goals. A value system is a permanent organization of beliefs regarding preferred ways of acting or ultimate existential goals (Rokeach, 1973). 

Rokeach was aware that the system of value preferences may be different depending on gender, age, environment and profession. Depending on the work performed, people’s axiological systems show certain specificity, and so police officers emphasize the value of freedom, clergy emphasize salvation, and people involved in work for the community of world peace, national security or equality of people (Rokeach, 1968, 1973).  

The research by P. Connor and B. Becker (1979) conducted using the M. Rokeach Values Scale also presents the role of values for individual professional groups, with an emphasis on their differences due to functioning in specific realities. The convergence of an employee’s individual value system with common values in the workplace is associated with an increase in motivation and effectiveness at work as well as employee satisfaction (Cieciuch, 2013). 

Appreciating certain professional values determines the general orientation of the hierarchy of human values in the sphere of work (Connor, Becker, 1994; Terelak, Hys-Martyńska, 2004). This results in a specific development of professional preferences, ambitions, desires and goals that determine the individual’s actions, referring to all dimensions of functioning. 

In this context, it is worth mentioning the research of B. Mróz (2002) on the system of values and preferences of the motivational system of young managers. It was found that the place of the “Responsibility” value depends on the motivation system preferred by managers. In the case of people using the human resources model, “Responsibility” occupied the leading place in the hierarchy of values, while for those advocating the traditional motivation system (remuneration), it was a distant tenth.  

The strength of Rokeach’s concept is that it can differentiate the value systems that are identical in specific professional groups. The usefulness of the concept is additionally verified by many studies, which means that it does not go out of use and is still valid (Kasprzak, 2012; Cieciuch, Schwartz, 2018; Mróz, 2018). 

Global self-esteem according to M. Rosenberg 

The assumption of M. Rosenberg’s concept is self-esteem is understood as a subjective attitude toward one’s own “I” and a relatively constant belief about oneself in positive or negative categories (Rosenberg, 1965). These types of elements focus on the affective assessment of functioning and the assessment of the level of self-satisfaction. 

The key to Rosenberg’s concept is the understanding of self-esteem as a feature, i.e. a relatively unchangeable construct, therefore it is important to distinguish the concept of overall, global self-esteem from specific self-esteem. Rosenberg distinguishes the dimensions of self-esteem, dividing it into high, which means a positive attitude towards oneself, and low, which means a negative attitude towards oneself. People with a high level of self-esteem willingly undertake various activities, are not afraid of challenges, risk or failure, are confident in themselves and their value, consider themselves capable and effective, they have an internal sense of locus of control. High self-esteem promotes life satisfaction, a high sense of happiness and predicts mental health and long life. Low self-esteem is likely to cause low mood and anxiety because negative emotions are felt with greater intensity than positive emotions (Dzwonkowska, Lachowicz-Tabaczek, Łaguna, 2008; DiStefano, Motl, 2009). 

The level of self-esteem is related to the ability to set goals and determine the possibilities of achieving them in the future. In a professional context, people with high self-esteem are perceived by others as having leadership qualities (Butler, Gasson, 2006).  

These beliefs about oneself influence people to undertake activities that can lead to success. People with lower self-esteem are not sure about their competencies, characteristics and emotions. The frequent fear and uncertainty of failure may result in people withdrawing from professional activities, and their failures are perceived as their incompetence, which increases their sense of discomfort (Baumeister et al., 2003; DiStefano, Motl, 2009). 

The justification for choosing this concept for research was determined by the literature on the subject, which emphasizes that a manager’s self-esteem translates into a positive attitude towards oneself and his or her subordinates, as well as a sense of agency and effectiveness (Ryan, Bernstein, Brown, 2010; Kong, Zhao, You, 2013; Mróz, Chudzicka-Czupała, Kuśpit, 2017).

The issue of life satisfaction according to E. Diner 

Most often, life satisfaction is perceived as a cognitive, subjective dimension of an individual’s well-being (Wąsowicz-Kiryło, Baran, 2013; Pastwa-Wojciechowska, Piechowicz, Bidzan, 2015). According to researchers of this phenomenon in the United States, the definition of the concept in question combines a subjective and objective element, because it defines life satisfaction as a general assessment of satisfaction with one’s achievements and living conditions (Diener, Biswas-Diener, 2008).  

Life satisfaction is understood as an attitude towards one’s own life, which is related to the cognitive and affective aspects. Cognitive satisfaction is a measure of the assessment of the fulfillment of personal aspirations and the level of goals set for oneself. The affective level, also called emotional well-being, is the degree to which a person has pleasant affective experiences (Butler, Gasson, 2006).  

The elements of subjective well-being are: positive feelings, lack of negative feelings and a high level of life satisfaction. However, many psychologists point out that the mere elimination of negative emotional states in favor of only positive states will not indicate better mental well-being. These states are not opposites, but to some extent, they can be independent of each other (Diener, Lucas, Oishi, 2012). 

The factors that most often determine mental well-being are an individual’s life goals, personality traits, values and the culture in which he or she lives (Mróz, 2011, 2018; Diener, Lucas, Oishi, 2012).  

Some researchers also claim that, among others, self-esteem, sense of agency, commitment to work, positive interpersonal contacts, and personality traits influence life satisfaction (Pastwa-Wojciechowska, Piechowicz, Bidzan, 2015).  

Due to its multidimensional nature, work can be a source of many positive and negative experiences. The benefits of work for people include effectiveness and satisfaction with undertaken activities. It is worth emphasizing, however, that recently a reliable indicator of professional achievements has been the entrusting by managers with tasks of great importance for the company and the position held (Mróz, 2011).  

It is believed that the main tasks assigned to managers are planning (the aspect of predictability and directing actions towards achieving the goal is important), organizing (serving to bring order to the activities and tasks entrusted in the workplace), motivating (increasing and maintaining work effectiveness) and controlling (provides an assessment of the degree of compliance with assigned tasks) (Mróz, 2011, 2018; Kasprzak, 2012). The surveyed group of managers is therefore crucial for determining value preferences and the resulting implications for self-esteem and life satisfaction. 

Method 

Purpose of research, methods, subjects 

The primary goal of the reported research was to measure and analyze preferences for selected values in the context of self-esteem and life satisfaction in a group of managers. The subject, purpose and issues of the research determined the main criteria for selecting the study group. The following hypotheses were formulated: H1 assumes different value preferences among women and men managers in favor of social values in the group of women; H2 assumes the existence of differences in the studied group of managers in terms of the system of values due to the level of self-esteem and the level of life satisfaction (low versus high); H3 assumes positive relationships between social values, self-esteem and life satisfaction. 

Research methods used and methods of measuring variables 

The following research methods were used in the research: M. Rokeach’s SW Value Scale, M. Rosenberg’s SES Self-Esteem Scale, E. Diener’s SWLS Life Satisfaction Scale and a record containing data relating to managerial work experience. 

Rokeach’s Value Scale 

Value Survey constructed by M. Rokeach (1973) is an operationalization of the concept of value; consists of two parts, where values are divided into final and instrumental. Ultimate values are understood as the most important goals that guide a person in life, and instrumental values are ways of acting to achieve the ultimate goals. In the structure of ultimate values, Rokeach distinguishes between personal values and social values. However, instrumental values are divided into moral and competence values (Brzozowski, 1989, 2007; Mróz, 2011). The examined person hierarchically numbers each value from a list of 18 items. The test author enriches a single value with additional explanatory terms.  

According to Rokeach, the terminal Values Scale covers almost all values of this type, as opposed to the less comprehensive instrumental Values Scale, to which about 70 new values can be added. With the consent of the test author, the method was successfully adopted in Poland and this version was used in this research (Brzozowski, 1989). The rank correlation coefficients between the Polish version of the Terminal and Instrumental Values Scale and the English version were .99 and .98, respectively. The Pearson r coefficient for individual items is on average .79 for terminal values, and on average .68 for instrumental values. The reliability of the instrument is moderately high for the highest and least valued items and low for the middle items in terms of order. According to Rokeach’s hypothesis, at the top of the hierarchy of values should be those that represent dominant needs, while lower positions are occupied by values corresponding to needs that have already been met or those that have not had the conditions to emerge. Value systems are a useful indicator of the differentiation of social and professional groups.

Rosenberg’s Self-Esteem Scale 

The Self-Esteem Scale by M. Rosenberg (1965) in the Polish adaptation by I. Dzwonkowska, K. Lachowicz-Tabaczek and M. Łaguna (2008) was used to examine general self-esteem. This method is a one-dimensional tool consisting of 10 statements, useful for individual and group research. The scale determines the indicator of the general level of self-esteem and classifies the respondents in terms of its level. The use of the method in many studies proves its reliability, validity and simplicity.  

Research for Polish adaptation allowed us to distinguish several properties, e.g. that self-esteem differs depending on the gender or age of the respondents. As B. Wojciszke (2005) writes, gender differences in general self-esteem are small, but when it comes to detailed self-esteem, women demonstrate higher moral self-esteem and men demonstrate higher sports self-esteem, which is synonymous with their greater body satisfaction.  

The psychometric properties of the scale relating to the original version regarding its reliability measured by Cronbach’s alpha coefficient range from .77 to .88, while in comparative studies carried out in 53 countries around the world, the average was .81. In terms of validity, the results are consistent with other tests measuring explicit self-esteem. A positive correlation occurs, for example, between SES and the Lerner Self-Esteem Scale (.72) and the Coopersmith Self-Esteem Inventory (.55) (Dzwonkowska, Lachowicz-Tabaczek, Łaguna, 2008). The reliability of the scale in the Polish version is high and ranges from .81 to .83. 

Diner’s Satisfaction With Life Scale (SWLS) 

The scale was constructed by E. Diener and colleagues in 1985, but thanks to modifications and reducing the number of items from 48 to 5, it functions as a short tool for determining the general index of life satisfaction. The respondent’s task is to refer to each of them in the context of his or her current life situation by marking the answer on a 7-point Likert scale. The tool is suitable for examining adults.  

The sense of satisfaction with life consists of the assessment of satisfaction with personal actions and achievements, as well as living conditions. The variable in question is also determined by comparing the life situation with the standards set by the person (Juczyński, 2001).  

The Cronbach’s alpha reliability index of the tool in the Polish version is .81, and in the original version – .87. Construct validity was verified by a comparison of variables that influence or indirectly reflect the sense of life satisfaction. Life satisfaction shows positive relationships, among others: with general self-esteem (.56), self-efficacy (.38) and dispositional optimism (.45). Normalization of the tool showed no existing gender and environmental differences (Juczyński, 2001).

Characteristics of the respondents 

The study group included people holding managerial positions representing the trade, service and production industries. The research included women and men aged 18 to 60. The research was carried out in Opole and Lower Silesian Voivodeships and 360 people took part in it. Due to incorrect completion of the forms or incomplete answers, 23 test sets were rejected. Table 1 will present detailed data about the group.  

Table 1. Characteristics of the study group in terms of sociodemographic variables 

The average age of the surveyed women was M = 33.2, SD = 10.14, for men M = 31.24, SD = 10.11. Most respondents worked in the service industry, then in the commercial industry, and the fewest were production managers. Statistical analyses were performed using the PS IMAGO PRO 8.0 program; the version includes the IBM SPSS Statistics 28 component.  

Findings 

Table 2 and Table 3 present descriptive statistics of preferences for terminal and instrumental values in the group of managers by gender.  

When discussing the ranking, the focus was on the most preferred final and instrumental values (the first three) and the most devalued (the last three), by the principles of analysis of the method used. Due to the significant discrepancy in the system of values based on gender, some values in the table have a rank different from the most frequently selected (from 1 to 3) and the least frequently selected (from 16 to 18), e.g. 4, 5, 6 or 7. 

Table 2. Terminal values in groups of women and men. Mean (M), standard deviation (SD), median (Me), ranking 

Women in managerial positions most often preferred “Health” (M = 6.11, SD = 6.67), “Family Security” (M = 7.31, SD = 4.84) and “Wisdom” (M = 7.78, SD = 4.28); in the case of male managers, these were: “Health” (M = 4.76, SD = 5.89), “Freedom” (M = 5.49, SD = 3.83) and “Self-Respect” (M = 6.19, SD = 4.11). The least valued values among women (sixteenth place) are: “Social Recognition” (M = 15.34, SD = 6.13), “An Exciting Life” (M = 18.01, SD = 4.44) and “Salvation” (M = 19.61, SD = 5.04). The least valued values among men (sixteenth place) are: “An Exciting Life” (M = 18.20, SD = 4.01), “Salvation” (M = 19.05, SD = 6.14) and “Social Recognition” (M = 19.49, SD = 4.10). The axiological sphere of the surveyed women and men in managerial positions differs more in the area of values chosen as the most important than those rejected. 

The preferences for instrumental values are presented in the table below. 

Table 3. Instrumental values in groups of women and men. Mean (M), standard deviation (SD), median (Me), ranking 

In the group of women, the most valued values were: “Independence” (M = 5.80, SD = 4.20), “Honesty” (M = 7.74, SD = 5.82) and “Courage” (M = 8 .85, SD = 5.73). However, in the group of men, these are: “Responsibility” (M = 7.07, SD = 4.77), “Independence” (M = 7.17, SD = 5.49) and “Honesty” (M = 7.51, SD = 5.19).  

The least preferred among women were: “Loyalty” (M = 15.59, SD = 5.22), “Cleanliness” (M = 16.30, SD = 6.06) and “Obedience” (M = 16.49, SD = 5.39). In the group of men: “Politeness” (M = 15.50, SD = 6.32), “Loyalty” (M = 15.91, SD = 4.95) and “Obedience” (M = 17.53, SD = 5.93).  

Before the results of differences in the axiological sphere are presented, it should be recalled that in the Value Scale used in statistical analyses, results are obtained inverted, i.e. with the opposite sign.  

Analyses related to the differences between individual values and the level of self-esteem will be presented below. 

Table 4. Differences in preferred values in groups with a lower level of self-esteem (N = 114) and a higher level of self-esteem (N = 246). Rank Totals; U-value; Z, a significant level of differences p 

The analyses provide the basis for the conclusion that managers with a higher level of self-esteem (and the majority of them in the study group) showed higher results in the following values: “Inner Harmony” (Z = –2.420, p = .041) and “Health” (Z = –2.632, p = .009), unlike people with a lower level of self-esteem. It turned out that the remaining values did not significantly differentiate self-esteem.  

Table 5 presents the results in terms of differences between individual values and the level of life satisfaction. 

Table 5. Differences in preferred values in groups with lower levels of life satisfaction (N = 142) and higher levels of life satisfaction (N = 218). Rank Totals; U-value; Z, a significant level of differences p&nbsp

Based on the calculations, it can be concluded that people with a lower level of life satisfaction (and such were a minority in the study group) were characterized by a higher sum of ranks within values such as “A World of Beauty” (Z = 2.207, p = .025) or “Equality” (Z = 2.634, p = .009), unlike people with a higher level of life satisfaction.  

Managers with a higher level of life satisfaction were characterized by a significantly higher level of the sum of ranks within such values as: “Social Recognition” (Z = –2.479, p = .014) and “A Comfortable Life” (Z = –2.294, p = .025 ) as opposed to people with a lower level of life satisfaction. For managers with high life satisfaction, these values do not matter much.  

The stepwise regression results for self-esteem and life satisfaction are provided below. The tables also include Pearson’s r correlations for a more precise analysis of the obtained results.  

Table 6. The share of axiological variables in explaining self-esteem in a group of managers (N = 360)

The linear combination of scores on the seven variables explains 45.9% of the variance in self-esteem. The strength of the relationship between the variables is R = .685. In the regression equation, the following variables turned out to be significant for predicting self-esteem: “Wisdom”, “Ambition”, “Health”, “A Comfortable Life”, “Capability”, “Inner Harmony” and “Courage” (it is worth recalling that in systems ranking, negative values obtained are interpreted positively). 

With the high importance of choosing values such as “Wisdom”, “Ambition” and “Health”, the level of self-esteem in managers increases. People who have self-confidence, believe in their abilities and are motivated to undertake tasks will adopt an attitude of positive self-assessment. It should also be emphasized that ambition is understood in the Rokeach method as a synonym of diligence and the desire to strive for achievements. Therefore, these features harmonize very well with the next choices of “Inner Harmony”, “Capability” and “Courage”. These values confirm the personality maturity of managers, their common sense, competencies and emotional stability. This also refers to the negative perception of “A Comfortable Life” as a hedonistic value, closing one off to emerging professional opportunities. Managers have a hierarchy of values that is quite realistic and factual. All this may indicate their adequate self-esteem. 

Table 7. The share of axiological variables in explaining life satisfaction in a group of managers (N = 360) 

The linear combination of the three variable scores explains 39% of the variance in life satisfaction. The strength of the relationship between the variables is R = .647. In the regression equation, the following variables turned out to be significant for predicting life satisfaction: “Self-Respect”, “Loyalty” and “Tolerance”. Based on the results obtained, it can be concluded that life satisfaction depends to the greatest extent on the choice of the “Self- Respect” value. As it can be seen, perceiving oneself as valuable, important and worthy of recognition makes an individual happy. This can be interpreted to mean that the more they value themselves and the sense of acceptance they have about themselves, the higher their life satisfaction. The remaining values (“Loyalty” and “Tolerance”) refer to the interpersonal dimension and the way they treat themselves and their subordinates.  

Discussion of the results 

In this research, a preference for social values was assumed in the group of women managers, and this was confirmed. Interestingly, the value of “Family Security” was more important for women than for men (places 2 and 4, respectively). It is worth emphasizing that the results showed differences between the genders in the selection of values focused on agency, dominance and ability to act and fulfill tasks, which was also emphasized by Mróz in her previous analyses (Mróz, 2011, 2018). This preference for values is associated with the need to prove something and self-esteem in male managers, with their ambition, sometimes stubbornness or actions based on the belief in the correctness of their reasons (Cieciuch, 2013; Cieciuch, Schwartz, 2018). These values can be described as related to achievements and their predominance in men is also confirmed by the assumptions of Rokeach (1979) or Brzozowski (1989, 2007).  

The assumption of differences in value systems depending on the level of self-esteem and life satisfaction (low versus high) was confirmed (Hypothesis 2) because managers with a higher level of self-esteem showed a higher result in values such as: “Inner Harmony” and “Health”. These values indicate psychophysical stability, appreciation of one’s condition and functioning in harmony with the body and innate predispositions. Managers with low self-esteem may not attach importance to physical health or emerging states of tension, and what’s more, they may not even notice them. Such a hierarchy of values may also result from the effects of functioning under high stress or from the inability to rest.  

Low mood and anxiety are good predictors of the level of self-esteem because these variables correlate with self-esteem negatively and at a high level. Managers with lower levels of life satisfaction attach importance to “Social Recognition” and “A Comfortable Life”; on the contrary, managers with a high level of life satisfaction. For the latter group, these values mean stagnation and lack of professional development. The results are quite clear and important, as they may hold the key to indirectly understanding motivational factors. People with a high level of satisfaction generally set ambitious goals, are persistent, and are focused on development and further achievements (Mróz, 2011; Szpitalak, Polczyk, 2015). Similar results were obtained by A. Duckworth in her work on motivation. According to this researcher, perseverance turns out to be a predictor of success in private and professional life (Duckworth, 2018). Persistent people believe in the development of their potential, skills and competencies. They are focused on the possibility of continuous learning and multiplying their talents. Thanks to this, encountered difficulties are perceived as challenges and possible failures as valuable life experiences.  

In terms of the cognitive level, life satisfaction is a measure of the extent to which life plans have been implemented. Additionally, and according to the literature on the subject, a higher self-esteem index also positively affects health, life achievements and economic well-being (Baumeister et al., 2003; Wąsowicz-Kiryło, Baran, 2013).  

The above conclusions are also justified by the positive relationships shown by stepwise regression analysis, where self-esteem was determined by choosing such values as: “Wisdom”, “Ambition”, “Health”, “A Comfortable Life”, “Capability”, “Inner Harmony” and “Courage”. It is worth emphasizing that the level of self-esteem among managers increases with the high rank of the choice of the first three values (Terelak, Hys-Martyńska, 2004). 

The topic of the relationship between self-esteem and value preferences is a poorly researched relationship in Poland, hence it was worth conducting such a verification on a group of managers. The obtained results certainly encourage further exploration of this topic.  

The relationships demonstrated by stepwise regression analysis in the area of life satisfaction are particularly strongly demonstrated by: “Self-Respect”, “Loyalty” and “Tolerance”. If managers see their role as an added value in the organization, the recognition they can enjoy from subordinates strengthens their self-esteem as bosses. This type of interpretation is justified because the remaining values (“Loyalty” and “Tolerance”) are related to interpersonal relationships and the form of behavior towards subordinates. Many studies in the field of management and organizational psychology indicate that self-acceptance and good relationships with other people explain the high level of life satisfaction (Mróz, 2011; Juchnowicz, 2012). 

In light of the above, hypothesis 3 assuming positive relationships between social values, self-esteem and life satisfaction was confirmed. The obtained effect of the analyses is extremely interesting because it is one of the first results in the axiological sphere carried out on a group of managers. 

Conclusions 

By researching two dimensions: self-esteem and life satisfaction in the axiological context of a group of managers, it can be concluded that both of these elements have their strong justification in the sphere of values.  

The realistic value hierarchy patterns found can probably be described as meaningful for managers. Gaining authority and recognition through competencies and management skills are associated with the feeling of being needed, effective and helpful. In this way, people in managerial positions can become promoters of positive values in work environments, which also becomes pro-development for the organization itself. Undoubtedly, research in the area of the axiological sphere among managers has brought new and interesting findings, it is worth continuing them and expanding the scope of professional groups. 

Translated by Katarzyna Jenek 

References 

Baumeister, R.F., Campbell, J.D., Krueger, J.I., & Vohs, K.D. (2003). Does high self-esteem cause better performance, interpersonal success, happiness, or healthier lifestyles? Psychological Science in the Public Interest, 4, 1–44.  

Brzozowski, P. (1989). Skala wartości (SW). Polska adaptacja Value Survey M. Rokeacha. Podręcznik. Warszawa: Pracownia Testów Psychologicznych Polskiego Towarzystwa Psychologicznego. 

Brzozowski, P. (2007). Wzorcowa hierarchia wartości: polska, europejska czy uniwersalna? Psychologiczne badania empiryczne. Lublin: Wydawnictwo UMCS. 

Butler, R.J., & Gasson, S.L. (2006). Development of the self-image profile for adults (SIP-AD). European Journal of Psychological Assessment, 22, 52–58. 

Cieciuch, J. (2013). Kształtowanie się systemu wartości od dzieciństwa do wczesnej dorosłości. Warszawa: Liberi Libri. 

Cieciuch, J., & Schwartz, S.H. (2018). Pomiar wartości w kołowym modelu Schwartza. In H. Gasiul (Ed.), Metody badania emocji i motywacji (pp. 307–334). Warszawa: Difin. 

Connor, P.E, & Becker, B.W. (1979). Values and the Organization: Suggestions for Research. In M. Rokeach (Ed.), Understanding Human Values (pp. 71–81). New York: The Free Press.  

Connor, P.E., & Becker, B.W. (1994). Personal values and management: What do we know and why don’t we know more? Journal of Management Inquiry, 3, 67–73. 

Diener, E., & Biswas-Diener, R. (2008). Rethinking happiness: The science of psychological wealth. Malden, MA: Blackwell Publishing. 

Diener, E., Lucas, R.E., & Oishi, S. (2012). Dobrostan psychiczny. Nauka o szczęściu i zadowoleniu z życia. In J. Czapiński (Ed.), Psychologia pozytywna. Nauka o szczęściu, zdrowiu, sile i cnotach człowieka (pp. 35–50). Warszawa: Wydawnictwo Naukowe PWN. 

DiStefano, C., & Motl, R. (2009). Personality correlates of method effects due to negatively worded items on the Rosenberg Self-Esteem scale. Personality and Individual Differences, 46, 309–313, doi: 10.1016/j.paid.2008.10.020 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.paid.2008.10.020 

Duckworth, A. (2018). Grit: The Power of Passion and Perseverance. New York, NY: Scribner Book Company. 

Dzwonkowska, I., Lachowicz-Tabaczek, K., & Łaguna, M. (2008). Samoocena i jej pomiar. Skala samooceny SES M. Rosenberga. Warszawa: Pracownia Testów Psychologicznych Polskiego Towarzystwa Psychologicznego. 

Juchnowicz, M. (2012). Satysfakcja z pracy w sektorze usług w realiach polskiej gospodarki. Edukacja Ekonomistów i Menedżerów. Problemy. Innowacje. Projekty, 24, 2, 61–78.  

Juczyński, Z. (2001). Narzędzia pomiaru w promocji i psychologii zdrowia. Warszawa: Pracownia Testów Psychologicznych Polskiego Towarzystwa Psychologicznego.  

Kasprzak, E. (2012). Style orientacji zawodowej – postawy teoretyczne i narzędzie pomiaru. Czasopismo Psychologiczne, 18, 1, 95–105.  

Kong, F., Zhao, J., & You, X. (2013). Self-Esteem as Mediator and Moderator of the Relationship Between Social Support and Subjective Well-Being Among Chinese University Students. Social Indicators Research, 112, 151–161, doi: 10.1007/s11205-012-0044-6 

Mróz, B. (2002). Hierarchia wartości a jakość zarządzania. In J. Kowal, & K. Węgłowska-Rzepa (Eds.), Etyczne i psychospołeczne aspekty badań rynkowych (pp. 185–195). Wrocław: WSZ „Edukacja”. 

Mróz, B. (2011). Poczucie jakości życia u pracowników wyższego szczebla: uwarunkowania osobowościowe i aksjologiczne. Warszawa: Wydawnictwo Naukowe Scholar. 

Mróz, B. (2012). Poczucie jakości życia u kierowników i pracowników w świetle uwarunkowań aksjologicznych. Czasopismo Psychologiczne, 18, 2, 175–183. 

Mróz, B. (2018). Art of Acting and Management Style. Results of psychological research on personality and hierarchy of values of outstanding Polish actors and managers in the area of services. Edukacja Ekonomistów i Menedżerów, 4, 50, 145–158, doi: 10.5604/01.3001.0013.0638  

Mróz, B., Chudzicka-Czupała, A., & Kuśpit, M. (2017). Kompetencje osobowościowe i twórcze. Psychologiczne uwarunkowania kreatywności pracowników. Warszawa: Wydawnictwo Naukowe Scholar. 

Pastwa-Wojciechowska, B., Piechowicz, M., & Bidzan, M. (2015). Satysfakcja z życia a empatia i poczucie umiejscowienia kontroli bezdomnych kobiet. Doniesienie wstępne. Polskie Forum Psychologiczne, 20, 1, 16–30.  

Rokeach, M. (1968). Beliefs, Attitudes and Values. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass, Inc. 

Rokeach, M. (1973). The Nature of Human Values. London: Sage. 

Rokeach, M. (Ed.), (1979). Understanding Human Values. New York: Free Press. 

Rosenberg, M. (1965). Society and the Adolescent Self-image. Princeton: Princeton University Press. 

Ryan, R.M., Bernstein, J.H., & Brown, K.W. (2010). Weekends, work, and well-being: Psychological need satisfactions and day of the week effects on mood, vitality, and physical symptoms. Journal of Social and Clinical Psychology, 29, 95–122. 

Szpitalak, M., & Polczyk, R. (2015). Samoocena. Geneza, struktura, funkcje i metody pomiaru. Kraków: Wydawnictwo Uniwersytetu Jagiellońskiego.  

Terelak, J.F., & Hys-Martyńska, A. (2004). Samosterowność w pracy a dominujące wartości zawodowe. Studia Psychologica, 5, 141–162. 

Wąsowicz-Kiryło, G., & Baran, T. (2013). Wpływ samooceny i dobrostanu ekonomicznego na satysfakcję z życia kobiet i mężczyzn w różnym wieku. Chowanna, 1, 85–101.  

Wojciszke, B. (2005). Morality and competence in person and self-perception. European Review of Social Psychology, 16, 155–188, doi: 10.1080/10463280500229619