It has often been suggested that the different satisfactions offered by a job may be categorized as either intrinsic or extrinsic. Thus, Herzberg et al. (1959) made a distinction between work factors relating to the content of the job, and those relating to the situation in which a job is performed. They stated that job satisfaction consists of two continua: satisfaction/no satisfaction and dissatisfaction/no dissatisfaction. Following Maslow (1943), they consequently developed a model which indicated that the first set of factors, called satisfiers or intrinsic job aspects, contribute to a positive job attitude and to better performance, whereas the second cluster of factors, called dissatisfiers or extrinsic job aspects, are of a lower rank order and, when being fulfilled, only decrease the negative valence of job attitudes. Both Maslow (1943) and Herzberg et al. (1959) claimed that these theories have universal validity. Job satisfaction models like this one have been sharply criticized for their methodological and theoretical weaknesses (Vroom, 1964; Whitsett and Winslow, 1967). If such a model were valid then every individual would have the same work-value system and Friedlander (1965) especially challenged the generality of such an absolute individual psychological motivation model. He attempted to relate work values to social parameters. He showed that work-value systems of employees were largely a function of their occupation and education. Similarly, Seeman (1967) and Turner and Lawrence (1965) indicated that differences in membership groups led to different work-value systems. In fact, Friedlander (1965) found that even the distinction between blue-collar and white-collar workers was not sharp enough because, within the collectivity of whitecollar workers, several subcollectivities were to be discerned. He did not, however, completely explain the differences found in value systems; for example, he did not deal with the extent to which differences in value systems may be contingent upon expectation patterns arising from simultaneous socialization processes. Value systems are an important element in the individual's frame of reference. Workvalue systems can be defined as constellations of attitudes and opinions with which an individual evaluates his job and work environment, and they may be either intrinsic or extrinsic. Usually value systems of white-collar workers are intrinsically oriented, whereas blue-collar workers attribute a greater importance to extrinsic values (Seeman, 1967; Turner and Lawrence, 1965; Friedlander, 1965). This study attempts to ascertain to what degree structural factors might explain variance in the work-value systems of white-collar workers.1 The influence of macrosocial factors such as stratification in the formation of several subcollectivities of white-collar workers is not considered here, although they too may explain some of the variance in workvalue systems. The study tends toward an oversocialized concept of man, and it is assumed that the so-called human needs or