The relationship between Covey's principle-centered empowerment theory and Herzberg's motivator/hygiene theory of job sa...

MISSING IMAGE

Material Information

Title:
The relationship between Covey's principle-centered empowerment theory and Herzberg's motivator/hygiene theory of job satisfaction/dissatisfaction
Physical Description:
vi, 86 leaves : ; 29 cm.
Language:
English
Creator:
Woods, Jonathan O
Publication Date:

Subjects

Subjects / Keywords:
Educational Leadership thesis, Ph.D   ( lcsh )
Dissertations, Academic -- Educational Leadership -- UF   ( lcsh )
Genre:
bibliography   ( marcgt )
non-fiction   ( marcgt )

Notes

Thesis:
Thesis (Ph.D.)--University of Florida, 1998.
Bibliography:
Includes bibliographical references (leaves 80-85).
Statement of Responsibility:
by Jonathan O. Woods.
General Note:
Typescript.
General Note:
Vita.

Record Information

Source Institution:
University of Florida
Rights Management:
All applicable rights reserved by the source institution and holding location.
Resource Identifier:
aleph - 029248448
oclc - 39669753
System ID:
AA00014252:00001


This item is only available as the following downloads:


Full Text













THE RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN COVEY'S PRINCIPLE-CENTERED
EMPOWERMENT THEORY AND HERZBERG'S MOTIVATOR/HYGIENE
THEORY OF JOB SATISFACTION/DISSATISFACTION

















By

JONATHAN 0. WOODS



















A DISSERTATION PRESENTED TO THE GRADUATE SCHOOL
OF THE UNIVERSITY OF FLORIDA IN PARTIAL FULFILLMENT
OF THE REQUIREMENTS FOR THE DEGREE OF
DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY

UNIVERSITY OF FLORIDA

1998















ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

I would like to thank my brothers, Dan, Jeff, Richard,

and Peter, for their buoying presence whenever I really

needed it. I would also like to thank my parents, all four

of them, for a continual flow of love and encouragement from

just about as far away as they could be. Special thanks go

to Inga, "minu vaike ingel," whose love and devotion make it

all worthwhile.

An incredible support network both locally and

telephonically has kept me sane and productive. Emotional

support from close friends, Matthew Stec, Byron and Paula

Chaon, Greg Young, and Rusty Mendes, has proven incalculable,

as has a seemingly everlasting well of spiritual support from

Fr. Jim MacDonald, Lisa Leigh Elwell, and the entire

communion of saints, including Bronislaw Klim and Lynn

Kenney.

Finally, I would like to thank Dr. John Nickens, the first

person I bumped into at the University of Florida. After

having patiently guided me through each step of my program

(not to mention every country road between Jacksonville and

Gainesville), he will be the final person shoo-ing me out of

Norman Hall. I thank John for it all.
















TABLE OF CONTENTS

Page

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS ........................................ ii

ABSTRACT ....... ............................................... v

CHAPTERS

I INTRODUCTION ............. ..... .................... 1

Background and Rationale .......................... 2
Statement of the Research Problem ................. 4
Delimitations and Limitations ......... .............. 5
Justification for the Study ....................... 6
Definition of Terms ............................... 8
General Terms ...................... ........... 8
Minnesota Satisfaction Questionnaire Terms ..... 9
Employee Empowerment Questionnaire Term ........ 10
Organization of the Study ......................... 10

II REVIEW OF RELATED LITERATURE ..................... 12

Organization of the Chapter ..... ................. 12
Organizational Climate ............................ 12
Differentiating Between Climate and Culture .... 12
Historical Review ......... ..................... 14
The Covey Model of Organizational Climate ...... 16
The Personal Level--Trustworthiness ............ 17
The Interpersonal Level--Trust ................. 19
The Managerial Level--Empowerment .............. 20
Measuring Empowerment .......................... 22
Job Satisfaction ........... ..... ................. 23
Definition ..................................... .. 23
Historical Overview ............................. 25
Herzberg's Motivation/Hygiene Theory of
Job Satisfaction ............................. 29
Measuring Job Satisfaction ................... 34
Summary ................... ................... ... 35

III DESIGN AND METHODOLOGY ........................... 37

Organization of the Chapter ....................... 37
Statement of the Research Problem ................. 37









Population ......................................... 38
Procedures ......................................... 40
Data Collection .................................. 40
Instrumentation ................................ 42
Employee Empowerment Questionnaire ............. 42
Minnesota Satisfaction Questionnaire ........... 44
Statistical Procedures .......................... 49
Summary ........................................... 50

IV RESULTS AND ANALYSIS OF DATA ..................... 51

Description of the Sample .......................... 54
Motivators and Hygienes of Instructor Pilots ...... 55
Correlations ....................................... 60
Multiple Regression ............................... 62
Analysis of Variance .............................. 62
Summary ............. ...... ........................ 65

V SUMMARY, CONCLUSIONS, AND IMPLICATIONS ............ 67

Research Problem and Procedures .............. .... 67
Empowerment ........................................ 69
Satisfaction and Dissatisfaction .................. 69
The Relationship Between Empowerment and Job
Satisfaction/Dissatisfaction .................. 70
Correlations ..................................... 71
Implications ........................................ 72
Recommendations for Further Research .............. 73

APPENDICES

A INITIAL MAILING TO SQUADRON COMMANDERS............. 76

B COVER LETTER ............ ......... ....... ........ 79

REFERENCES .................. .......................... 80

BIOGRAPHICAL SKETCH .................................... 86















Abstract of Dissertation Presented to the Graduate
School of the University of Florida in Partial
Fulfillment of the Requirements for the Degree of
Doctor of Philosophy

THE RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN COVEY'S PRINCIPLE-CENTERED
EMPOWERMENT THEORY AND HERZBERG'S MOTIVATOR/HYGIENE
THEORY OF JOB SATISFACTION/DISSATISFACTION

By

Jonathan O. Woods

May, 1998

Chair: John M. Nickens
Major Department: Educational Leadership

The problem investigated in this study was to determine

the relationship between empowerment and job satisfaction/

dissatisfaction in organizational climates. It was theorized

that the variables of empowerment and job satisfaction/

dissatisfaction interact in ways that could be meaningful to

educational institutions.

Participants of the study were 116 instructor pilots

from U.S. Navy and Marine Corps Fleet Replacement Squadrons.

The Employee Empowerment Questionnaire (EEQ) was administered

to determine empowerment levels. The Minnesota Satisfaction

Questionnaire (MSQ) was administered to determine levels of

job satisfaction and job dissatisfaction.

Evidence of motivators and hygienes was found, as was

evidence of moderate levels of empowerment. Linear









correlations and multiple regression showed clear

relationships between the constructs. Specifically, the

findings showed that for U.S. Navy and Marine Corps

instructor pilots job satisfaction is strongly related to

empowerment. The findings also showed that intrinsic job

satisfaction is more closely related to empowerment than is

extrinsic job satisfaction.















CHAPTER I
INTRODUCTION

The word "climate" is often thought of in terms of a

one-word descriptor of the aggregate condition of a region.

The climate of the city of Miami may be thought of as

"tropical" although an occasional cold front blows in.

Phoenix may be thought of as "arid" even though thunderstorms

cause occasional flash flooding. Organizational climate is

perceived similarly. Highs and lows and variabilities are

averaged out to present a singular perception. When

perceived by employees, this climate forms a "composite

social contract" (Covey, 1990/1991, p. 209) which affects

both satisfaction and performance on the job.

Stephen R. Covey is rapidly becoming an icon in American

business through his paradigm-shattering views on engineering

new growth trends at the personal, interpersonal, and

organizational level. Optimum organizational climate is

exemplified in Covey's book, Principle-Centered Leadership

(1990/1991), in which he presented the theories tested in

this study. He has identified empowerment as the key

ingredient to a PCL climate. Johannesson (1973) has

suggested that studies of organizational climate are simply

another way to measure job satisfaction. This study is based










on an alternative to that viewpoint, that is, job

satisfaction and empowerment are both determined by

organizational climate. They affect each other, are

dimensions of one another, and, as such, should show levels

of congruence with each other even when tested separately.

Background and Rationale

In the early part of the 20th century industrial

psychologists such as Frederick Taylor (1911) began

investigating human factors in the workplace. With the oft-

cited "Hawthorne Studies" Mayo (1933) discovered that human

emotions were related to productivity. Ten years later

Maslow (1943) presented a theory of human motivation based

upon a hierarchy of needs beginning with basic physiological

needs and ascending through higher order needs such as esteem

and self-actualization.

Building upon Maslow's work, Herzberg (1966) developed a

two-factor theory of job satisfaction whereby variables in

the work environment contributed to feelings of

dissatisfaction if they failed to meet lower order needs or

satisfaction if they could meet higher order needs. The

dissatisfiers he called "hygienes." He borrowed the term

from the medical field, reasoning that good hygiene cannot

produce good health but it can prevent disease. He called

the satisfiers "motivators" because they provide incentive

for achievement (Herzberg, 1966; Herzberg, Mausner, &

Snyderman, 1959).










Concurrent to the evolution of studies of job

satisfaction, organizational behaviorists were hard at work

studying issues of organizational climate. Lewin, Lippit,

and White (1939) found that climate can overcome previously

acquired behavioral tendencies. McGregor (1960) theorized

that organizational climate is created by the actions and

attitudes of managers and supervisors. Characteristics of

organizational climate were discovered, measured, and

explained by Litwin and Stringer (1968) and Tagiuri and

Litwin (1968). Based upon the body of past research, Covey

(1990/1991) speculated that a climate of empowerment led to

ultimate productivity for organizations when aligned with

sound principles. He also noted that organizational climate

could be engineered and that the resultant climate of

empowerment affects employees' ability to aspire toward

higher levels of Maslow's hierarchy of needs.

The term "empowerment" began to emerge in the literature

in the mid-1980s. Bennis and Nanus (1985), Block (1987), and

Kanter (1983) used terms such as transformative leadership,

vision, and accessibility to describe the construct.

Ultimately, Hayes (1994) defined empowerment as "the extent

to which employees believe that they have the authority to

act on their own to increase quality" (p. 44).










Statement of the Research Problem

The problem of this study grew out of review of the

literature on organizational productivity. Specifically,

modern writers have theorized that to remain competitive in

world-class markets organizations must continually strive

toward enhancements in productivity. Herzberg (1957, 1959,

1966) suggested enhancing productivity through increased job

satisfaction and decreased job dissatisfaction. More

recently Covey has suggested that productivity can be

enhanced by creating a principle-centered climate. Covey

(1990/1991) identified empowerment as one of the most crucial

elements of a principle-centered climate.

The problem this study investigated was to determine the

relationship between empowerment and job satisfaction/

dissatisfaction in organizational climates. Two well-

established theories related to organizational climates

guided the study. The first theory (Covey, 1990/1991)

suggested that productivity could be enhanced by creating a

principle-centered climate. Covey identified empowerment as

one of the most crucial elements of a principle-centered

climate. The second theory (Herzberg, 1966; Herzberg et al.,

1959) asserted that job satisfaction relates to a set of work

environment conditions called "motivators" and job

dissatisfaction relates to a different set of work

environment conditions called "hygienes" and that the balance

between these conditions also contributes to productivity.










These relationships between variables contained in

Herzberg's theory and those found in Covey's theory were

tested through analysis of the feelings, attitudes, and

perceptions of U.S. Navy and Marine Corps combat pilots

currently engaged in training the next generation of naval

aviators.

Delimitations and Limitations

In answering the preceding questions, the following

delimitations were observed:

1. The sample used for studying this problem consisted

of navy instructor pilots currently teaching in the Atlantic

Fleet. Therefore measurements related in the study should

not be generalized beyond the scope of this study.

2. Information about instructor's perceptions of

empowerment was limited to those measured by the Employee

Empowerment Questionnaire.

In addition, the following limitations were inherent in

this study:

1. By returning study forms, instructor pilots

volunteered to participate in this study. There is no

assurance that these volunteers are representative of the

total population of instructor pilots in the Atlantic Fleet

or instructor pilots in general. Therefore, results may not

be generalizable to other populations of instructor pilots.










2. Since this study was limited to instructor pilots,

it is not possible to generalize these findings to other

pilots or to other occupational types.

Justification for the Study

The literature is rich with support for the notion that

a relationship exists between organizational climate and

productivity. This support is found in McGregor (1960),

Litwin and Stringer (1968), Tagiuri and Litwin (1968) and

culminates with Reichers and Schneider's (1990) assertion

that "climate is indicative of the organization's goals

and appropriate means to goal attainment" (p. 22). Covey

(1990/1991) constructed his entire PCL model of

organizational climate around this construct. Meanwhile,

Herzberg (Herzberg, 1966, 1976; Herzberg, Mausner, Peterson,

and Campbell, 1957; Herzberg et al., 1959) has suggested that

job satisfaction/dissatisfaction is useful in improving

organizational climate through enhancing employee relations.

Herzberg's theory may provide insight into an important

dimension of Covey's organizational climate model. While

numerous researchers have substantiated Herzberg's

motivator/hygiene theory, only one article has suggested that

job satisfaction and empowerment are related to one another

(Hayes, 1994). A study of the relationship between these two

elements of climate could add to the current understanding of

organizational climates.










Another benefit of a study of this nature is that

instruments designed to support these theories depend upon

perceptions of employees in the organizations being

described. Thus, the benefit of administering such an

instrument to employees is twofold. The researcher can not

only obtain data that are useful in describing theory but can

also obtain descriptive data on the organization being

studied.

The context of this study was U.S. Navy flight training

squadrons. Following the collapse of the former Soviet Union

and the defeat of Iraq in the Persian Gulf War, the armed

forces of the United States began a sustained "draw-down" of

personnel levels. Since then, however, Department of Defense

tasking for the Naval arm has not decreased appreciably

despite fewer men and women available to support that

tasking. The fleet replacement squadrons (FRS) that provide

newly trained naval aviators to the active duty Navy

squadrons have been required to continue producing qualified

pilots at "cold-war" rates despite significant staff

reductions.

A study of the effects of these changes on the working

environments and moral of the staffs of these fleet

replacement squadrons has not been conducted by the

Department of Defense nor by the Commander of Naval Aviation.

Research in this area could be of use in determining the










effectiveness of current policies and the formation of future

educational policies for the armed forces.

Definition of Terms

General Terms

Fleet Replacement Squadron is a naval aviation training

unit that teaches newly qualified aviators and aircrews to

fly and utilize the aircraft type to be flown at their combat

squadrons.

A factor refers to any of the six motivators or eight

hygienes descriptive of those job facets which may contribute

to job satisfaction or job dissatisfaction (Herzberg et al.,

1959).

Hyvienes are those factors which contribute to an

employee's dissatisfaction and are related to the job context

portion of work. They include, for example, company

policies, working conditions, supervision and administration,

and coworker relationships.

Instructor pilot refers to a naval officer serving in a

staff instructor billet at an Atlantic Fleet Replacement

Squadron.

Job content refers to factors such as achievement,

advancement, recognition, responsibility, and the work

itself. When present in a job, they are related to job

satisfaction.










Job context refers to factors such as pay, security,

supervision, and physical working conditions which, when

absent from a job, are linked to job dissatisfaction.

Job dissatisfaction refers to feelings associated with

"the built-in drive to avoid pain from the environment, plus

all the learned drives which become conditioned to the basic

biological needs" (Herzberg, 1966, p. 28).

Job satisfaction is the positive effect derived from

those factors which most often contribute to higher needs

(Herzberg et al., 1959).

Motivators are those factors which contribute to

employee satisfaction and are related to the job content

portion of work. They include, for example, achievement,

responsibility, and recognition.

Minnesota Satisfaction Ouestionnaire Terms

Job satisfaction score refers to a participant's score

on the Minnesota Satisfaction Questionnaire. The short-form

MSQ yields the following three scores: extrinsic, intrinsic,

and general.

Extrinsic Scale is the job context score on the

short-form MSQ determined by summing the individual scores of

6 of the 20 items on the measure.

Intrinsic Scale is the job content score on the

short-form MSQ determined by summing the individual scores on

12 of the 20 items on the measure.










General Satisfaction Scale is a score determined by

summing the individual scores on all 20 of the items on the

short-form MSQ.

Minnesota Satisfaction Questionnaire (MSO) or the

short-form MSQ, is a 20-item measure consisting of statements

about various aspects of a person's job which an individual

is asked to rate on a 5-point scale with responses ranging

from "not satisfied" through "extremely satisfied." The

scales utilize descriptors derived from the work of Herzberg.

Employee Emoowerment Questionnaire Term

Empowerment is the extent to which employees believe

that they have the authority to act on their own to increase

quality and the extent to which employees desire to have more

authority in their present jobs.

Organization of the Study

The remainder of the study is organized into four

chapters. A review of the literature is presented in Chapter

II. Included are major areas of research and related

literature relevant to organizational climate, Covey's theory

of empowerment as presented in his Principle-Centered

Leadership model, and job satisfaction/dissatisfaction. The

chapter concludes with a summary of how these topics relate

to each other.

The design and methodology of the study are presented in

Chapter III. Research design, population, data collection,

instrumentation, and procedures are addressed.










Chapter IV contains the results and analysis of the data

collected from the Employee Empowerment Questionnaire, the

Minnesota Satisfaction Questionnaire, and the demographic and

career information questions. The data specific to each

topic presented in the study are addressed and discussed.

Chapter V includes a summary of the study, conclusions

about the findings, and recommendations for additional

research.















CHAPTER II
REVIEW OF RELATED LITERATURE

Organization of the Chapter

This review is divided into three sections. The first

section traces the history of research related to

organizational climate and outlines Covey's theories

regarding organizational climate and empowerment as presented

in his PCL model. The second section presents a history of

management research and theory related to job satisfaction.

The final section presents a synthesis of the research on

organizational climate, job satisfaction, and empowerment as

related to Navy instructor pilots.

Organizational Climate

Differentiating Between Climate and Culture

The terms "organizational climate" and "organizational

culture" have worked their way into the vernacular of a

variety of academic disciplines; among these are Industrial

Psychology, Business Administration, and Educational

Leadership. The two concepts of climate and culture are

often confused (Trice & Beyer, 1993). Reichers and Schnieder

(1990) distinguished between the two concepts in this way:

"Emphasis in climate [is] on research activities and

application compared to a focus on conceptual issues in










culture" (p. 22). Further clarification of the differences

between the two is found in Trice and Beyer (1993) with the

following:

the climate construct seemed to give
researchers a way to combine a broad array of
variables already studied into a single omnibus
concept that would simplify the process of
characterizing and comparing the psychological
environments of individuals. Thus it focused on
measuring the perceptions of individuals about
their organizations, rather than beliefs, values,
or norms shared by groups of people. (p. 19)

Another difference between the two concepts is that

cultural analyses are comparative and descriptive while

climate studies are evaluative and value laden (Reichers &

Schnieder, 1990).

While recognizing the differences in approach between

researchers studying climate and those studying culture,

Denison (1990) proposed to treat them interchangeably by

concentrating on the product of studies rather than on the

process:

The debate over organizational culture and climate
is in many ways a classic example of methodological
(and epistemological) differences obscuring a basic
substantive similarity. The argument is not so
much about what to study as how to study it .
they must explain the way in which the behavioral
characteristics of a system affect the behavior of
individuals, while at the same time explain the way
in which the behavior of individuals, over time,
creates the characteristics of an organizational
system. (pp. 22-24)

This review, then, while focusing on issues of climate,

occasionally addresses issues of culture where they become

pertinent to the review.










Historical Review

Reichers and Schneider (1990) have suggested that there

are three stages in the evolution of a concept's development.

The first stage, introduction and elaboration, "is

characterized by attempts to legitimize the new (or newly

borrowed) concept" (p. 6). During the second stage of

evolution, evaluation and augmentation, critical reviews

begin to appear in the literature and measurement techniques

are improved. In the third stage of concept evolution,

consolidation and accommodation, "controversies wane and

reviews of the literature state matter-of-factly what is and

is not known. One or two definitions of the construct become

generally accepted" (p. 7). This section reviews the concept

of organizational climate according to Reichers' and

Schneider's three evolutionary stages.

The first explicit studies of climate were initiated by

Kurt Lewin (1938) and Lewin, Lippitt, and White (1939) in an

attempt to describe the essential dynamics that linked human

behavior to generalized environmental stimuli. The primary

finding of these initial studies was that "the climate itself

proved more powerful than previously 'acquired' behavior

tendencies, and it was able to change the observed behavior

patterns of the group members" (Litwin & Stringer, 1968, p.

36). Fleishman (1953) and Argyris (1958) produced studies in

similar veins, the latter producing the first operational

definition of climate.










The next major contribution to the understanding of

organizational climate was The Human Side of Enterprise by

McGregor (1960). The work was mostly theorizing and

speculation (no quantitative measures were used), but it

provided the notion that management and supervision, through

the characteristics that they exhibit, create the climate in

which employees work (Reichers & Schneider, 1990). This work

was followed by Litwin and Stringer (1968) and Tagiuri and

Litwin (1968) who were able to explicate fully the concept of

organizational climate for the first time.

The literature is rich with evidence of stage two

development of the concept of organizational climate.

Critiques of the concept and seminal studies were published

by Campbell, Dunnette, Lawler, and Weik (1970), Guion (1973),

Hellriegel and Slocum (1974), James and Jones (1974), and

Johannesson (1973).

Following these critiques came refutations of the

critiques and revision of theory such that the definition of

organizational climate has come to read, "Climate is shared

perceptions of organizational policies, practices, and

procedures, both formal and informal. Climate is a molar

concept that is indicative of the organization's goals and

appropriate means to goal attainment" (Reichers & Schneider,

1990, p. 22).










The Covey Model of Organizational Climate

In his book Principle-centered Leadership Stephen R.

Covey (1990/1991) developed a model for creating an

organizational climate based on certain guiding principles.

In describing these guiding principles, he said,

Natural laws in the human dimension are
just as real, just as unchanging, as laws such
as gravity are in the physical dimension.
These principles are woven into the fabric of
every civilized society. Principles are
not invented by us or by society; they are the
laws of the universe that pertain to human
relationships and human organizations. They
are part of the human condition,
consciousness, and conscience. To the degree
people recognize and live in harmony with such
basic principles as fairness, equity, justice,
integrity, honesty, and trust, they move
toward either survival and stability on the
one hand or disintegration and destruction on
the other. (p. 69)

Covey also suggested that principles form

an enlightened approach to management and
leadership. Individuals and organizations
ought to be guided and governed by a set of
proven principles. These are the natural laws
and governing social values that have
gradually come through every great society,
every responsible civilization, over the
centuries. They surface in the form of
values, ideas, norms, and teachings that
uplift, ennoble, fulfill, empower, and inspire
people. (p. 69)

Covey described his principles allegorically. The first

example of this is his notion of "maps and compasses." Maps

refer to any management paradigm. Scientific

authoritarianism, benevolent authoritarianism, human

relations movement, and total quality management are all

examples of our "subjective attempts to describe or represent










the territory" of an organization (Covey, 1990/1991, p. 19).

Covey used the term "compass" to describe the ways in which

organizations orient their "maps." Thus, he asserted that

organizational paradigms have been oriented toward profits,

productivity, processes, or any other similar talisman which

then governs the implementation of the paradigm. The aim of

the Principle-centered Leadership (PCL) model is to orient

the PCL map toward the compass of immutable guiding

principles that govern human relationships, those of

fairness, equity, justice, integrity, honesty, and trust

(Covey, 1990/1991).

There are three levels which form the basis of the PCL

paradigm, each level has a key principle to be discussed

below.

The Personal Level--Trustworthiness

Covey identified competence and character as the two

keys to trustworthiness on the personal level. Competence

was recognized as simply that which a person is capable of

doing Character was treated as a much more complex issue.

In describing character issues, Covey used what he called the

"inside-out versus outside-in" approach. Covey recognized

that often in our society we attempt to resolve personal

deficiencies through what he called the "personality ethic";

that is, we assume some affectation or facade that masks our

true selves. We approach personal interventions from the

outside-in. Covey suggested that "deep, fundamental problems










we face cannot be solved on the superficial level ..

Inside-out is a continuing process of renewal, an upward

spiral growth that leads to progressively higher forms of

responsible independence and effective interdependence"

(Covey, 1990/1991, p. 63).

Another key to character, according to Covey, was his

concept of "abundance mentality versus scarcity mentality."

Covey was convinced that American society is permeated with

the quest for a "piece of the pie" and the implication that

there is only so much of the "pie" to go around. He called

this tendency a scarcity mentality. He further asserted that

those enslaved by this mindset are usually mistrusted by

others for good reason--they are prone to being

untrustworthy. Instead, he advocated the adoption of an

abundance mentality. A person with an abundance mentality

would not think of dividing the "pie" but rather of enlarging

the "pie." According to Covey, a person who is convinced

that there is "plenty of pie to go around" would not be prone

to back-stabbing and other untrustworthy activities.

Covey's notions on trustworthiness were supported by

Whitney (1994) with the following:

Trust also exists among professionals,
conditioned by respect for competence
and reliability. These are necessary but
insufficient conditions for trust within
organizations where interdependence suggests a
need for justice and fairness in addition to
competence and reliability. Integrity, of
course, is a precondition for trust in all
cases. (p. 15)










The Interpersonal Level--Trust

Covey used allegory to describe levels of trust between

individuals. The allegory he introduced on the interpersonal

level was that of "emotional bank accounts." Covey suggested

that when principle-centered transactions occur, they become

deposits in an emotional bank account. When accounts are

high, trust exists; when accounts are depleted, trust

suffers. Covey recognized that sometimes leaders are forced

into making authoritarian demands, but he also stated that

such occasions (which dip into the balance of the emotional

bank account) need not destroy levels of trust if a

sufficiently high account exists.

Trust was seen by Covey as crucial to communication on

the interpersonal level:

When trust is high, we communicate easily,
effortlessly, instantaneously. We can make
mistakes and others will still capture our
meaning. But when trust is low, communication
is exhausting, time-consuming, ineffective.
We must be very careful about the words
we use or we risk giving offense. People
become suspicious and distrustful, making a
man "an offender for a word" instead of
attempting to interpret the meaning and intent
of his words. (Covey, 1990/1991, pp. 18 & 112)

As noted above, trustworthiness and trust form the first

two levels of Covey's PCL model. When people in an

organization are worthy of trust and they begin to extend

that trust to others within the organization, the other

levels of the paradigm begin to function. Mills (1994), Wall

and Wall (1995), McLagan and Nel (1995), and Bickham (1996)










all recognized trust as critical to successfully integrating

the next level of the PCL paradigm.

The Managerial Level--Empowerment

The work of Maslow (1943) and Herzberg et al. (1959)

contributed to Covey's understanding of motivation. Covey

(1990/1991) stated that the "highest level of human

motivation is a sense of personal contribution" (p. 70).

Covey used this understanding to unite his theory to the next

logical thread-higher productivity. Kravetz (1988) found

that there is a strong congruence between high-performing

firms and the use of progressive and participative practices,

while Manz (1991), Conger (1993) and Komives (1994) discussed

the merits of granting empowerment to employees to help them

develop a sense of purpose in their approach to work. There

are six conditions of empowerment in the PCL model:

1. Win-win agreement, means that supervisor and
subordinate are working toward mutually agreed
upon goals and that accomplishment of these
goals is mutually beneficial.

2. Self-supervision comes naturally with high
trust, 'if you have high trust... you don't
supervise them, they supervise themselves. You
become a source of help.' (Covey, 1990/1991, p.
155)

3. Helpful structure and systems are the various
financial, human, technical, organizational,
and training resources available to employees
to assist them in getting desired results.

4. Accountability indicates employee participation
in defining exact standards of acceptable
performance to eliminate diversion of blame.










5. Determination of consequences involves reaching
a before-the-fact understanding of what
follows when the desired results are achieved
or not achieved.

6. Empowerment skills refer to the help that the
supervisors provides and includes
encouragement, feedback and facilitation.
(Covey, 1990/1991, pp. 192-198)

Each of Covey's six empowerment conditions were to be

meshed inextricably with guiding principles, those that could

"uplift, ennoble, fulfill, and inspire" workers to the

benefit of themselves and the organization (Covey, 1990/1991,

p. 69).

Covey's model seems to propose a relationship between

empowerment and job satisfaction/dissatisfaction; that is, a

climate with high levels of trust and trustworthiness where

workers are fully empowered to strive toward objectives that

are properly aligned with guiding principles can lead to high

levels of job satisfaction. If there is, indeed, congruence

between empowerment and job satisfaction/dissatisfaction,

then the study of one can lead to conclusions about the

other. Alternately, intervention in elements of

organizational climate can affect elements of job

satisfaction/dissatisfaction. This study, therefore,

proposes to determine the relationship between organizational

climate and job satisfaction/dissatisfaction.

Covey is not the only person to theorize about

productivity enhancements through empowerment. Block (1987)

suggested that bureaucracy is a major hindrance to










productivity and that empowerment of employees is the best

way to cut through bureaucracy, thereby enhancing

productivity. Kanter (1983) theorized that organizational

power should "circulate" throughout the organization rather

than to "focus" at certain points. Nevertheless, she saw the

necessity to ensure that occasionally "power gets pulled out

of circulation and focused long enough to permit project

completion" (p. 171).

Measuring Empowerment

The Employee Empowerment Questionnaire (EEQ) was

designed specifically to measure the degree to which

empowerment exists and dictates organizational climate.

While the EEQ does not directly measure trustworthiness or

trust, the literature insists that empowerment cannot exist

without them. Blanchard, Carlos, and Randolph (1996) noted

that "trust is crucial for an empowered organization" (p.

33). McCoy (1996) echoed that statement with "there is

perhaps no issue more fundamental to the success of

empowerment than the issue of trust" (p. 198). He went on to

assert that trust can only exist and be maintained when the

bearer of that trust is worthy of it (p. 207). Mills (1994)

also built much of his empowerment paradigm around the

necessity of trustworthiness and trust. One can, therefore,

conclude that if empowerment can be proven to exist,

trustworthiness and trust must be implied.










Hayes (1994) developed the EEQ to identify the extent of

empowerment in organizations, determine how empowerment

interacted with other organizational variables to influence

climate, and to enable organizations to compare their level

of empowerment with the levels found in other organizations.

Hayes constructed a 14 item Likert-type response instrument

using factor analysis to determine loading on two factors.

These factors allowed Hayes to determine "the extent to which

employees believe that they have the authority to act on

their to increase quality" and "the extent to which employees

desire to have more authority in their present jobs" (p. 44).

Other items were added to the EEQ to enable it to convey

levels of task variety, task autonomy, task identity, task

importance, task feedback participation, organization-based

self-esteem, management's commitment to quality, supervisors'

commitment to quality, and coworkers' commitment to quality.

Results of two extensive studies showed that the EEQ is "a

reliable and valid measure of empowerment" (p. 46).

Job Satisfaction

Definition

In addressing definition perhaps it is useful to start

with what job satisfaction is not. Gruneberg (1979) stressed

the importance of distinguishing between satisfaction and

morale. He offered job satisfaction as an affective response

to individual stimulus while morale remained as a reference

to group well-being (p. 3). If satisfaction is not morale,










then neither is it motivation. According to Herzberg (1976)

motivation can be internal or external but always involves

"getting someone to do something" (p. 17). It can be implied

from this that internal motivation can be enhanced through

satisfaction, but they are clearly not synonymous.

In the preface to the book, The Motivation to Work

Herzberg et al. (1959) asserted the following: When an

economic entity has reached full employment of plant and

facilities, the only way to achieve a marginal increase in

productivity is to increase the productivity of the

individual on the job. Thus is the justification for the

study of job satisfaction.

Kornhauser (1930) is believed to be the first to

formally address job satisfaction as a separate area of

research (Mac Taggert, 1971, p. 9). Since then, there have

been thousands of articles, dissertations, and research

projects produced in an effort to measure and understand an

individual's satisfaction in the workplace (Locke, 1976).

While Hoppock (1935) stated that job satisfaction, as an

independent variable, "may not even exist," he nevertheless

defined it as "any combination of psychological,

physiological, and environmental circumstances that causes a

person truthfully to say, 'I am satisfied with my job'" (p.

47). Wanous and Lawler (1972) also recognized a variety of

circumstances and, therefore, list nine different operational

definitions based on differing theoretical orientations.










Cranny, Smith, and Stone (1992) viewed job satisfaction as

"an affective reaction to a job that results from the

incumbent's comparison of actual outcomes with those that are

desired" (p. 1). Researchers that echo this notion of

"emotional reaction" include Gruneberg (1979), Locke (1976),

and Lofquist and Dawis (1969). Porter, Lawler, and Hackman

(1975) captured the essence of this emotional reaction

particularly well when they stated that satisfaction "is

determined by the difference between the amount of some

valued outcome that a person receives and the amount of the

outcome he feels he should receive" (pp. 54-55).

Historical Overview

The first formal experiments on humans in the workplace

were conducted by Frederick Taylor (1911). Through these

experiments he developed the theory and coined the term

"scientific management." Most of his work, however, dealt

with issues of human performance efficiency (p. 7) through

time-and-motion study. Worker tasks were broken down,

simplified, mechanized, or specialized so that practically

anybody could do the tasks (Waring, 1991). This gave

management vastly increased control so that despite the

dehumanizing effect of scientific management approach, "by

midcentury it had come to dominate managerial theory and

practice" (Waring, 1991, p. 9).

While management embraced the increased degree of

control that scientific management offered, workers rebelled.










They resented the fact that it "reduced workers from people

to machines, undermined status and identity in the community,

and caused wages to lag behind productivity and profits"

(Waring, 1991, p. 12). Very high rates of worker turnover

were the result of this resentment.

The first documented break in this adversarial trend

came through Elton Mayo's studies at the Western Electric

Plant in Hawthorne, Illinois (Mayo, 1933). Mayo, known as

the "father of research on the human relations problems of

industry" (Henderson, 1996, p. 24), was trying to find

relationships between physical conditions of work and the

productivity of employees. What he found instead was a

phenomenon which later became known as the "Hawthorne

Effect." Stated simply, the Hawthorne Effect was an

"increase in productivity resulting from high worker morale

at having been singled out for special attention by the

experimenters" (Henderson, 1996, p. 25). Having discovered

this unanticipated effect, Mayo redirected his inquiry to

reach the following conclusions:

(1) work is a group activity; (2) the social world
of the adult is basically patterned around work
activities; (3) the need for recognition, security,
and a sense of belonging are more important in
employees' morale and productivity than the
physical conditions in which they work; (4) a
complaint is not necessarily an objective
reflection of facts about the job but is often a
symptom of other problems; (5) each worker's
attitudes and effectiveness are conditioned by
social demands from both inside and outside the
workplace; (6) informal groups on the job exercise
strong social controls over the work habits and
attitudes of the individual worker; (7) the change










from an established to an adaptive society tends to
continually disrupt the social organization of a
workplace in particular and of industry in general;
and (8) work group collaboration does not occur by
accident; it must be planned for and developed.
(Henderson, 1996, p. 26)

These findings formed the basis for what is known as the

human relations movement in management theory. While the

human relations movement helped to give workers "a sense of

participation, a feeling of release from constraint, and a

desire to cooperate" (Waring, 1991, p. 15), it did not

completely alleviate worker resentment since the systems of

scientific management, and control, were still in place.

Herzberg (1976) noted, "The failure of human relations

training to produce motivation led to the conclusion that the

supervisor or manager himself was not psychologically true to

himself in his practice of interpersonal decency" (p. 20).

Hoppock (1935) was one of the first to recognize that

human relations in itself does not necessarily lead to worker

satisfaction. Rather, he concluded that job satisfaction was

the result of a variety of factors. When present, these

factors led to satisfaction, when absent they led to

dissatisfaction. As Kem (1994) noted, "Based on his

research, he formulated a theory suggesting that satisfaction

and dissatisfaction form a continuum" (p. 16).

Hoppock's satisfaction/dissatisfaction continuum went

largely unchallenged until 1957 when Herzberg et al. shifted

the paradigm. He and his associates theorized that










satisfaction was independent of dissatisfaction and, thus,

the two emotions constituted two different continue.

The 1960s and 1970s saw continued growth in studies

related to job satisfaction, including the formulation of two

distinct groupings for motivation/satisfaction theories.

Campbell, Dunnette, Lawler, and Weick (1970) identified these

groupings as "mechanical or process theories" and

"substantive or content theories." Process theories "attempt

to specify how the variables interact and influence one

another to produce certain kinds of behavior," while content

theories "are more concerned with the specific identity of

what it is within an individual or his environment that

energizes and sustains behavior" (p. 341).

One of the most prominent content theorists was Abraham

Maslow. His hierarchy of human needs (Maslow, 1943) helped

form the theoretical basis for many job satisfaction studies.

The basic human needs identified by Maslow are (a)

physiological needs, (b) safety needs, (c) love needs, (d)

esteem needs, including achievement and recognition, and (e)

self-actualization, or the need to be "doing what he is

fitted for" (p. 382). According to the theory, each need

must be satisfied in ascending order before the next need is

recognized by the individual. Absence of a recognized need

produces motivation toward its attainment, while satisfaction

of the need both removes motivation and begins a dawning

recognition of the next need in the hierarchy. Maslow










recognized that need satisfaction is not a permanent

condition. Just as hunger returns, so does the need for,

say, further recognition. Bockman (1971) charted this

fluctuation as a single continuum for job satisfaction.

According to Bockman dissatisfaction was related to negative

feelings and described the extreme left of the continuum.

Likewise, satisfaction was related to positive feelings and

defined the extreme right point on the continuum. The center

of the continuum was defined as neutral, or neither satisfied

nor dissatisfied. In explaining this continuum Bockman

stated,

This approach explains job satisfaction as the
total body of feeling an individual has about his
job, this feeling being made up of both job-related
and environment-related factors, the interaction of
which causes fluctuation between a condition of
satisfaction and of dissatisfaction. Midway
between satisfaction, or negative feelings about
the job, is a condition of neutrality, in which the
individual is neither satisfied nor dissatisfied.
Dissatisfaction is thus the opposite or obverse of
satisfaction. If an individual is deprived of any
factors or combination of them, .. he moves
toward the negative end of the continuum, unless
the presence of other factors counterbalances the
lace. Adding or improving a factor or combination
of them causes movement in a positive direction.
(Bockman, 1971, p. 156)

Herzbera's Motivation/Hvyiene Theory of Job Satisfaction

In 1957 Herzberg, Mausner, Peterson, and Campbell

published a review of the existing literature on job

satisfaction. The primary authors characterized the existing

literature as "disappointing to fruitful theorizing"

(Herzberg et al., 1959. p. 8). Their book entitled The










Motivation to Work was intended to fill the void. They

adapted Flanagan's (1954) critical incident method to

determine a respondent's psychological state during

on-the-job events. Herzberg and his associates found that

certain events were more frequently associated with

satisfaction while other events were more frequently

associated with dissatisfaction. Further, they grouped these

events into two categories which they called "hygiene

factors" and "motivation factors." Hygiene factors were

described as follows:

When feelings of unhappiness were reported, they
were not associated with the job itself but with
conditions that surround the doing of the job.
.When there are deleterious factors in the
context of the job, they serve to bring about poor
job attitudes. Improvement in these factors of
hygiene will serve to remove the impediments to
positive job attitudes. When hygiene factors
deteriorate to a level below that which the
employee considers acceptable, then job
dissatisfaction ensues. (Herzberg et al., 1959,
p. 113)

Motivation factors were seen as those which satisfy the

individual's need for self-actualization. Cummings and

ElSalmi (1968) characterized these as "feelings that the

individual has regarding the content of his job. They

reflect the individual's active search for psychological

growth" (p. 133). In stark contrast to the Hoppock

continuum, the Herzberg two-factor model was presented as two

continue. The first line related to the presence or absence

of motivators. Depending on the motivators, an individual

could move from neutrally satisfied (no particular feeling










one way or the other) at the extreme left of the continuum to

totally satisfied at the extreme right. The second

continuum, then, used hygienes to similarly described

dissatisfaction, moving from neutrally dissatisfied on the

extreme left to totally dissatisfied on the far right. By

using this two-factor description, Herzberg was able to get

much richer descriptions of worker attitudes. His model

offered the ability to quantify and explicate worker

dissonance related to the permutations possible when a

researcher charted either presence or absence of both

satisfaction and dissatisfaction. In other words, he could

help a worker to answer the question, "Why am I both deeply

satisfied and bitterly dissatisfied at the same time?"

The six motivators or satisfiers identified by Herzberg

et al. (1959) and Herzberg (1966) correspond to Maslow's

higher order needs of esteem and self-actualization and are

comprised of the following:

1. Achievement includes successful completion of
a job, solutions to problems, vindication, and
seeing the results of one's work.

2. Recognition is any act by a supervisor,
management personnel, client, peer, colleague,
or the general public that is perceived by the
worker as a source of feelings of recognition.
It can include both praise and blame and
therefore encompasses both positive and
negative recognition.

3. Work Itself refers to the actual doing of the
job or the tasks of the job as a source of good
or bad feelings The work can be routine or
varied, creative or stultifying, overly easy or
overly difficult. Each of these conditions can
contribute to or detract from satisfaction.











4. Responsibility factors include personal
authority for one's own work or the work of
others. Issues related to 'insufficient
authority to carry out one's assignments' is
classified under policy issues rather than
responsibility.

5. Advancement refers to actual changes in the
status or position of an individual in an
organization. It also includes the probability
of or hope for advancement.

6. Possibility of growth includes both the chance
of further developing one's skills and
abilities and the chance of moving upward. The
authors also included lack of growth
opportunities in the theory. (pp. 95, 191-198)

Hygiene factors corresponded to Maslow's lower order

needs and were listed by Herzberg and his associates as those

factors external to the job itself. The definitions of the

eight hygienes or dissatisfiers are as follows:

1. Supervision deals with issues of competence,
fairness, willingness to delegate responsibility,
willingness to teach, tendency toward nagging, and
efficiency as demonstrated by the individuals
superiors.

2. Company policy and administration describes
events in which some overall aspect of the
company is a factor. Examples include
malevolent policies and situations where it is
unclear to whom one reports.

3. Working conditions can include the physical
conditions of the work, the amount of work or
the facilities available for doing the work.
Specific examples include ventilation,
lighting, tools, space, etcetera.

4. Interpersonal relations plays a role in several
other categories, such as recognition.
However, this category deals specifically with
interaction between the individual and
superiors, peers, and subordinates. These
relations can include either working










relationships or purely social relationships on
the job.

5. Status refers to some sign or appurtenance of
status affecting a person's feelings about the
job. Company cars, executive washroom's, and
personal secretaries are examples of status.

6. Job security includes objective signs of the
presence or absence of job security. It
includes stability of the organization and
tenure, among others. The researchers avoided
subjective feelings of the respondents.

7. Salary includes all sequences of events in
which compensation plays a role. All of these
sequences involve wage or salary increases, or
the unfulfilled expectation of salary
increases.

8. Personal life factors do not include situations
where an individual's personal life affect the
work. The study does consider the opposite
case, where the work affects the individual's
personal life. A company's demand for
relocation would affect this category.
(Herzberg, 1966, pp. 191-198)

Herzberg's theory has been widely embraced. Kem (1994)

cited at least 56 dissertations and numerous industry studies

that have dealt with the theory to some extent. Criticism of

the theory, however, does exist. Hinrichs and Mischking

(1967), among others, refuted the two-factor theory in favor

of the Hoppock (1935) single-continuum theory. Rosen (1963)

suggested that the model should have been varied for

white-collar versus blue-collar workers. Friedlander (1966)

felt that Herzberg's use of self-reported data may be quite

different from data obtained objectively. In Herzberg's

defense Bockman (1971) stated that the criticisms were made

with complete disregard of the arguments and explanations










Herzberg presented. She further asserted that the criticism

was undertaken "not so much to add to knowledge of the

subject as in the hope of being the 'gun who gunned down the

biggest gun in the West'" (pp. 186-187).

Measuring Job Satisfaction

According to Cook, Hepworth, Wall and Warr (1981) there

are two approaches to the construction of instruments which

measure satisfaction. One type of instrument focuses on

"specific features of a job, such as pay, working conditions,

or the supervisor, yielding separate scores for satisfaction

with each feature" (p. 13). The second approach assesses

overall job satisfaction and may be measured in the following

ways:

1. One can obtain separate reactions of specific
features of a job, summing or averaging across
these to obtain an overall score.

2. One can obtain a number of general evaluative
reactions to a job without citing specific
features. In this case questions are variants
of the central theme 'how much do you like your
job?', being phrased in terms of interest,
attraction, satisfaction, boredom, etc.

3. Some investigators have combined the previous
approaches, introducing both specific and
general evaluations into their scales. (Cook et
al., 1981, p. 13)

Herzberg et al. (1959) used the first of the above

approaches in developing the critical incident technique.

Others who followed this example with modified versions of

this technique include Thomas (1977), Kozal (1979), and Burr

(1980/1981). One such instrument is the Minnesota










Satisfaction Questionnaire (MSQ). This instrument has been

used by Olson (1988/1990) in a survey of college placement

officers and by Kem (1994) in a survey of librarians. In

terms of its potential success as a measurement of

satisfaction, Guion (1978) wrote, "The MSQ gives reasonably

reliable, valid, well-normed indications of general

satisfaction at work and of 20 aspects of that satisfaction,

collapsible into intrinsic and extrinsic components" (p.

1679).

The MSQ has both long-form and short-form versions.

While both forms have similar reliability and validity

levels, the short-form was determined to be most appropriate

for this study as it is more suitable for distribution

through the mail and can be completed more quickly, thereby

ensuring higher levels of return responses.

Summary

The literature contains extensive support for the theory

that organizational climate relates, to a large extent, to

productivity. Campbell et al. (1970), Hellriegel and Slocum

(1974), James and Jones (1974), Litwin and Stringer (1968),

and Reichers and Schnieder (1990) presented strong support

for this link. More recently, Steven Covey's (1990/1991)

best seller, Principal-centered Leadership, stressed the

importance of climate in employees' attitude and in decision

making.







36

Herzberg's job satisfaction/dissatisfaction theory has

been useful in improving organizational climate through

enhancing employee relations. This theory may also provide

insight into an important dimension of Covey's organizational

climate model. However, no research was found in the

literature that related the element of empowerment to

Herzberg's theory. This would be an important contribution

to the literature since Covey considers empowerment to be

essential in building a climate conducive to world class

economic competition in the Herzberg theory.

The problem of this study, then, is to determine the

relationship of empowerment as described by Covey to the

theory of employee job satisfaction as described by Herzberg.















CHAPTER III
DESIGN AND METHODOLOGY

Organization of the Chapter

The design and methodology of the study are described in

this chapter. It contains an explanation of the research

problem, the research population and procedures, which

include data collection, instrumentation, and statistical

treatment.

Statement of the Research Problem

The problem investigated in this study was to determine

the relationship between empowerment and job satisfaction/

dissatisfaction in organizational climates. Two well-

established theories related to organizational climates

guided the study. The first theory (Covey, 1990/1991)

suggested that productivity could be enhanced by creating a

principle-centered climate. Covey identified empowerment as

one of the most crucial elements of a principle-centered

climate. The second theory (Herzberg, 1966; Herzberg et al.,

1959) asserted that job satisfaction relates to a set of work

environment conditions called "motivators" and job

dissatisfaction relates to a different set of work

environment conditions called "hygienes" and that the balance

between these conditions also contributes to productivity.










Multiple regression was used to determine whether or not

a positive relationship exists between feelings of

empowerment as measured by the EEQ and conditions of

satisfaction and dissatisfaction related to intrinsic and

extrinsic elements of the work environment. It was theorized

that such a relationship could demonstrate that job

satisfaction could be increased and job dissatisfaction could

be decreased through increasing empowerment. The second

correlation attempted to establish correlation coefficients

between the major variables at work in the two theoretical

constructs. Specifically, the second correlation attempted

to determine whether empowerment is related more closely with

job content or with job context. These relationships between

variables contained in Herzberg's theory and those found in

Covey's theory were tested through analysis of the feelings,

attitudes, and perceptions of U.S. Navy and Marine Corps

combat pilots currently engaged in training the next

generation of naval aviators.

Population

This population presented strong potential as a

particularly descriptive sample group due to the homogeneity

of objectives among the various subgroups represented.

Still, high variance in responses was expected due to great

variety among communities. This variety is manifest in

characteristics such as mission scope, history, and

philosophical underpinnings.










Each fleet replacement squadron (FRS) has a common

mandate and standardized objectives. At the same time each

fleet replacement squadron enjoys autonomy in its approach

based on fundamentally differing philosophical perspectives.

The essence of each community is as follows (Bearden, 1990):

SEAHAWK (SH-60B) helicopter pilots are autonomous
scouts reporting their findings and awaiting attack
instructions.

FOXTROT (SH-60F) helicopter pilots are "pack"
hunters of submarines.

TOMCAT (F-14D) fighter pilots are high altitude
"pack" defenders who converge on interlopers.

HORNET (F/A-18) fighter/bomber pilots are tenacious
seekers of their assigned objective.

PROWLER (EA-6B) pilots perpetrate electromagnetic
legerdemain to confuse defenders.

HARRIER (AV-8B) pilots are highly responsive attack
bombers supporting fighting troops on the ground.

SEADRAGON (MH-53E) pilots sweep the sea lanes clear
of mines.

SEEKING, SEAKNIGHT & SEASTALLION (CH-3, CH-46.
CH-53A/D) pilots transport supplies, equipment and
personnel to and from combat zones and also conduct
search and rescue and medical evacuation.

HAWKEYE (E-2C) pilots perform early warning for a
carrier battle group, command and control functions
for all local aircraft. They also perform guidance
and coordination for strike, intercept and search
and rescue missions.

ORION (P-3C) pilots provide very long range anti-
submarine patrol capability. They can attack subs
with torpedoes or ships with missiles.

VIKING (S-3) pilots are carrier based all purpose
attack jets for interior protection. Primarily
sub-hunters, they pack a lethal air-to-surface
punch for anything foolhardy enough to attack the
carrier.











HERCULES (C-130) fliers pilot the most versatile
tactical-transport aircraft ever built. It
transports personnel, weapons, supplies to and from
combat zones. It can perform electronic
surveillance, aerial refueling, search and rescue,
etc. It can even land on snow and ice.

A value of studying organizational climate theories in this

context is that the research benefits from homogeneity of

objectives in instruction coupled with heterogeneity of

approach to instruction.

All potential subjects in the sample were officers in

the United States Navy or Marine Corps, in the grade of

Lieutenant or Captain (0-3), and Lieutenant Commander or

Major (0-4). They all held baccalaureate degrees at a

minimum. All had completed basic naval flight training,

followed by training in the fleet replacement squadron (FRS)

syllabus. After a tour of duty in the community for which

their fleet replacement squadron prepared them, each

potential subject returned for an instructor tour in his or

her community's fleet replacement squadron.

Procedures

Data Collection

Instructor pilot (IP) empowerment data were collected

using the Employee Empowerment Questionnaire (EEQ). Job

satisfaction data were collected using the Minnesota

Satisfaction Questionnaire (MSQ). Both measures are

self-reporting forms, described as appropriate for

distribution through the mail. Commanders of each of the










Department of the Navy's 14 fleet replacement squadrons were

contacted in an initial mailing (see Appendix A). The

initial mailing requested permission to administer

instruments designed to measure attitudes to the instructor

pilots currently on staff. Twelve of the 14 fleet

replacement squadron commanders consented to allow

instruments to be distributed. The researcher was informed

of the number of instructor pilots assigned to each squadron.

Instrument packets were then mailed in bulk to each squadron

and distributed internally. Packets contained an addressed

and stamped envelope for ease of return by the respondent.

Confidentiality was assured because the respondent returned

consent to participate forms separately from response forms.

A cover letter (Appendix B) explaining the study, requesting

participation, and assuring confidentiality for participants

was sent to the 236 individuals who constituted the subject

pool, along with two sheets containing both the EEQ form and

the MSQ form, along with a demographic form which

supplemented the demographic section of the MSQ. Those

contacted were asked to reply within one week. These two

mail contacts completed the data collection sequence.

Finally, commanders and participants who wished to learn

more about the results of the study or who had individual

questions were encouraged to contact the researcher in a

separate letter or message. Some questions were answered










immediately; those requesting information concerning results

were retained in a file for later response.

Instrumentation

The study is based on two constructs. The first

construct is a worker's perception of the degree to which

empowerment exists with his/her own organizational climate.

The Employee Empowerment Questionnaire (EEQ) was used to

measure this datum. The second construct addressed in the

study is job satisfaction/job dissatisfaction. The Minnesota

Satisfaction Questionnaire (MSQ) was used to measure the

second construct.

Employee Empowerment Ouestionnaire

The Employee Empowerment Questionnaire (EEQ) was

developed to allow companies to "identify the extent of

empowerment in their organizations" (Hayes, 1994, p. 41).

Since empowerment is a theoretical construct, its presence or

absence can only be measured through systematic observation

of measurable traits relating to the construct. Inferences

can then grow out of such observation (Hayes, 1994, p. 41).

The use of questionnaires is a common way to obtain

systematic observation of traits relating to a given

construct of human behavior. One caveat is that

questionnaires must be tested for both reliability and

validity before inferences may be considered.

Reliability refers to "the consistency or dependability

of a behavioral measurement" (Shavelson, 1988, p. 502).










While there are a number of ways to establish reliability,

Hayes chose to estimate reliability through the use of a

technique called internal-consistency. This form of

reliability, he noted,

indicates the extent to which the items in the
measurement are related to each other. The higher
the interrelationship among the items, the higher
the internal consistency. If a questionnaire is
designed to measure one underlying construct, the
items are expected to be related to each other--
that is, people who respond in one way to an item
are likely to respond the same way to the other
items in the measure. (p. 41)

Shavelson's (1988) definition of internal consistency

was similar. He noted that in the case where the parallel

tests consist of only one item each, "if the tests are given

to subjects at the same time, we can use these repeated

measures to index reliability" (p. 503). Hayes used

Cronbach's (1951) alpha estimate to measure internal

consistency.

Validity of the EEQ was established using a method known

as construct validity. In assessing construct validity, "the

primary focus is on the questionnaire itself rather than on

what the survey predicts" and involves correlation with other

measures (Hayes, 1994, p. 42). Validity may be established

through either positive correlation with an instrument

purported to measure a similar construct or negative

correlation with an instrument designed to measure a

different construct. In the initial form of the EEQ Hayes

used "reverse coded items" to facilitate the correlation. In










a 14-item instrument he obtained responses to items designed

to measure both empowerment and the lack of it. Through

factor analysis he found the groupings of items to be

negatively correlated, thus supporting, by definition,

construct validity. Hayes also found that eight of the items

loaded heavily on factor I, empowerment. Reliability of the

remaining items was calculated to be .85 using Cronbach's

Alpha Estimate. With preliminary correlations completed,

Hayes was left with an eight-item instrument that "is a

reliable and valid measure of empowerment" (Hayes, 1994, p.

46).

Minnesota Satisfaction Ouestionnaire

In 1957 a series of research studies began under the

auspices of The Minnesota Studies in Vocational

Rehabilitation, also known as the Work Adjustment Project.

These studies led to the development of a variety of

instruments to measure indicators of work adjustment. The

Minnesota Satisfaction Questionnaire (MSQ) is a measure for

one of the primary indicators of work adjustment. A strength

of the MSQ is that it allows the researcher to obtain a more

individualized assessment of worker satisfaction. This is

possible because the MSQ not only measures general

satisfaction but also accounts for sources of satisfaction

(Kem, 1994).

The MSQ is available in long form and in short form.

Validity and reliability for the two measures are similar,










although Kem (1994, p. 64) considered the short form MSQ to

be more appropriate for distribution through the mail as its

10-minute completion time makes it more likely that potential

subjects would participate. The MSQ is self-administering

with directions on the first page.

The short form MSQ was selected for this study. It

consists of 20 questions that measure 21 dimensions of job

satisfaction (ability utilization, achievement, activity,

advancement, authority, compensation, coworkers, creativity,

independence, moral values, policies and practices,

recognition, responsibility, security, social service, social

status, supervision-human relations, supervision-technical,

variety, and working conditions). Each of the 20 items

refers to a possible motivator or hygiene. Each item is

measured by a Likert-type scale which asks respondents to

indicate their degree of agreement with a statement related

to that dimension of job satisfaction. Five response

possibilities (strongly agree, agree, undecided, disagree, or

strongly disagree) are provided for each item. The responses

are weighted from 5 to 1 in descending order so that strongly

agree is assigned the minimum of 1 point. The 21st

dimension, general job satisfaction, is interpreted as an

aggregate of scores in the 20 dimensions measured separately.

Weiss, Davis, England, and Lofquist (1967) identified three

scales of the short-form MSQ. The Intrinsic Scale measures

motivators and hygienes related to job content. The










Extrinsic Scale measures motivators and hygienes related to

job context. The General Scale measures general

satisfaction.

The most meaningful way to interpret the MSQ is to use

the most appropriate norm group for the individual and then

to use percentile scores for each scale obtained for the norm

group. The most appropriate norm group would be one that

corresponds exactly to the individual's job. As norm

groups are not available for all occupational areas, a

similar norm group which shares characteristics, such as

tasks performed, type of supervision, physical working

conditions, and so forth, may be used. If no appropriate

norm group has yet been developed, the MSQ raw scores can be

converted to percentile scores using Employed Disabled or

Employed Nondisabled norms. Finally, MSQ raw scores for all

scales can be interpreted by ranking them. This indicates

areas of relatively greater or lesser job satisfaction (Weiss

et al., pp. 4-5) When used with an individual subject,

percentile scores of 75 or greater generally represent a high

level of job satisfaction; scores in the 26 to 74 percentile

range indicate average satisfaction; and a percentile score

of 25 or lower indicates a low level of satisfaction (Kem,

1994, pp. 64-65).

The current MSQ manual reports norms for seven

occupational groups for the short-form MSQ. One such norm

group is that of engineers. This norm group holds several










background factors that are similar to background factors of

the population sample chosen for this study. These factors

include educational requirements for employment (college

degree and additional education or training), years of

employment in the profession and years in current position,

and similarities in subject matter dealt with on the job.

Using the scoring recommendations set forth by Weiss et al.

(1967), the norm group for engineers was selected as the most

useful comparison for the norms which emerge from this

research study.

Validity for the short-form MSQ is inferred, in part,

from validity for the long form as the short form is based on

a subset of the long form. Items from the long form that

were found to be most frequently correlating with a

respective scale were selected for the short form. A group

of 1,460 employed individuals completed the measure. A

factor analysis of the resulting data yielded two factors,

intrinsic satisfaction and extrinsic satisfaction. The 12

items that loaded high on one factor constitute the Intrinsic

Scale. Six factors constitute the Extrinsic Scale, and all

20 items constitute the General Satisfaction Scale. This

provides for scores on all three scales.

Since the MSQ has repeatedly been shown to perform

according to theoretical expectations, it offers strong

indications of construct validity. Construct validation

studies of other questionnaires, based on the Theory of Work










Adjustment and developed through the Work Adjustment Project,

support this conclusion.

Additional evidence supporting the validity of the

short-form MSQ is provided by studies of group differences by

occupation and studies on the relationship between job

satisfaction and satisfactoriness. Occupational group

differences in mean satisfaction scores for the seven

available norm groups were statistically significant for each

of the three scales.

The Manual for the Minnesota Satisfaction Questionnaire

(Weiss et al., 1967) offers Hoyt reliability coefficients

for each norm group and each short-form scale. These were

reported to be, in general, high. For the Intrinsic Scale,

they ranged from .84 (assemblers and electrical assemblers)

to .91 (engineers). The Extrinsic Scale range was .77

(electrical assemblers) to .82 (engineers and machinists).

The range for the General Satisfaction Scale was .87

(assemblers) to .92 (engineers). The median reliability

coefficients were .86 for the Intrinsic Satisfaction Scale,

.80 for the Extrinsic Satisfaction Scale, and .90 for the

General Satisfaction Scale.

The stability of scores obtained from the short-form MSQ

is currently being studied but no data have, as yet, been

reported. However, data on the General Satisfaction Score

for the long-form MSQ show correlations of .89 for a one-week

test-retest period and .70 for a one-year test-retest










interval. Stability for the General Satisfaction Score of

the short-form MSQ may be inferred from these data.

Research on both forms of the MSQ continues.

Researchers wishing to use the MSQ must agree to report their

results to the Work Adjustment Project at the University of

Minnesota. Results of this study will be forwarded and may

represent yet another occupational norm group for the

short-form MSQ.

Statistical Procedures

The data gathered for this study were analyzed within

the context of the problem statement set forth in Chapter I.

All data other than demographic data were obtained by

administering the Employee Empowerment Questionnaire (EEQ)

and the Minnesota Satisfaction Questionnaire (MSQ).

The EEQ derives its score by simply averaging the

response items. Thus, the researcher obtains a single score

whether sampling an individual, a group, a company, or an

occupational population.

The responses to the MSQ were averaged in a manner

similar to the EEQ. Raw scores can then be converted into

percentile scores by referencing the appropriate norm group

found in the MSQ scoring manual. Raw MSQ data were also

analyzed using multiple regression, one-way analysis of

variance, and other correlations.

The mean score and standard deviation for each of the

items on the MSQ and the EEQ were calculated, as well as the










mean score and standard deviation for the Intrinsic Scale,

the Extrinsic Scale, and General Satisfaction Scale of the

MSQ.

Multiple regression using the step-wise technique were

used to determine the contribution of the Intrinsic and

Extrinsic satisfaction scales to the dependent variable,

empowerment.

Summary

This chapter outlined the procedures of the study. Data

were collected from naval instructor pilots for the purpose

of determining the relationship between empowerment and job

satisfaction/dissatisfaction in organizational climates. The

Employee Empowerment Questionnaire and the Short-Form

Minnesota Satisfaction Questionnaire were selected as the

instruments used to measure each of these areas. Data

treatment methods utilized were frequency distribution,

multiple regression, and correlational coefficients. The

following chapter presents the results and analysis of these

data.















CHAPTER IV
RESULTS AND ANALYSIS OF DATA

The problem investigated in this study was to determine

the relationship between empowerment and job satisfaction/

dissatisfaction in organizational climates. Two well-

established theories related to organizational climates

guided the study. The first theory (Covey, 1990/1991)

suggested that productivity could be enhanced by creating a

principle-centered climate. Covey identified empowerment as

one of the most crucial elements of a principle-centered

climate. The second theory (Herzberg, 1966; Herzberg et al.,

1959) asserted that job satisfaction relates to a set of work

environment conditions called "motivators" and job

dissatisfaction relates to a different set of work

environment conditions called "hygienes" and that the balance

between these conditions also affects productivity.

In designing this study it was theorized that the

variables of empowerment (attributed to Covey's model) and

job satisfaction/dissatisfaction (attributed to Herzberg's

model) interact in ways that could be meaningful to

educational institutions. Neither Herzberg's motivators/

hygienes nor Covey's PCL model directly measured elements of

empowerment.










The instrument chosen to measure empowerment was the

Employee Empowerment Questionnaire (EEQ). The instrument was

designed specifically to measure the degree to which

empowerment exists in and influences organizational climate.

The EEQ derives its score by simply averaging the response

items. Thus, the researcher obtains a single score whether

sampling an individual, a group, a company, or an

occupational population.

The instrument chosen to measure job satisfaction and

job dissatisfaction was the Minnesota Satisfaction

Questionnaire (MSQ). Each of the 20 items in the MSQ refers

to a possible motivator or hygiene. Each item is measured by

a Likert-type scale which asks respondents to indicate their

degree of agreement with a statement related to that

dimension of job satisfaction. Five response possibilities

(strongly agree, agree, undecided, disagree, or strongly

disagree) are provided for each item. The responses are

weighted from 5 to 1 in descending order so that strongly

agree is assigned the minimum of 1 point. The 21st

dimension, general job satisfaction, is interpreted as an

aggregate of scores in the 20 dimensions measured separately.

Responses can be compared to norm groups which have been

established from percentile comparison.

The study attempted to determine whether job

satisfaction/dissatisfaction was related to empowerment.

Multiple regression was used to determine whether or not a










positive relationship exists between feelings of empowerment

as measured by the EEQ and conditions of satisfaction and

dissatisfaction related to intrinsic and extrinsic elements

of the work environment. It was theorized that such a

relationship could demonstrate that job satisfaction could be

increased and job satisfaction could be decreased through

increasing empowerment.

A linear correlation analysis was also performed to

determine relationships between variables in the two

theoretical constructs. Specifically, the second correlation

attempted to determine if empowerment is related more closely

with job content or with job context. These relationships

between variables contained in Herzberg's theory and those

found in Covey's theory were tested in an educational

environment. Specifically, attitudes and perceptions were

observed by administering the Minnesota Satisfaction

Questionnaire and the Employee Empowerment Questionnaire to

U.S. Navy and Marine Corps instructor pilots.

In addition to analysis and discussion of the above

correlations, this chapter contains an analysis of the

variance between response groups within response categories

(general satisfaction, empowerment, intrinsic and extrinsic

satisfaction) among the response groups. This chapter also

contains means and standard deviations for EEQ and MSQ

response items and a description of the sample.










Description of the Sample

The sample in this study was comprised of 236 naval

aviators selected from the 14 U.S. Navy and Marine Corps

Fleet Replacement Squadrons (FRS). All prospective

participants were instructor pilots (IP) in the grade of 0-3

or 0-4 (Lieutenant or Lieutenant Commander, USN; Captain or

Major, USMC). The criteria for the distribution of

instrument packets included those instructor pilots actively

engaged in the training of fleet replacement pilots.

Instructor pilots on temporary assignments not involving

instruction were excluded from the study.

As government employees and military members holding

classified security clearances, all potential participants

were shielded from name and address access by policy.

However, in most cases each squadron commander agreed to

distribute the instruments and return them to the researcher,

thus ensuring confidentiality.

It was estimated that each of 14 fleet replacement

squadrons had about 25 instructor pilots that would fit the

criteria for inclusion. Of these, one fleet replacement

squadron commander declined access, and three squadrons

agreed to grant access but failed to distribute the

instrument packets. This produced a sample of 236. Of the

236 subjects contacted, 116 or 49.15% responded with usable

data. Given the profession in question, military aviators

are most often engaged in the act of coming or going in the










course of their flying duties. It is, therefore, remarkable

that the researcher was able to achieve such high response

rates on an initial mailing. No follow-up mailing was

attempted because the initial mailing yielded sufficient

responses to establish variance and, thus, sustain the key

correlations.

All respondents held a baccalaureate degree or higher.

Just one of the respondents was female. The reason for this

paucity of female representation in the study is clear. All

of the Navy and Marine fleet replacement squadrons are

"combat commands," meaning that the pilots trained are

considered combat pilots. Females were first given the

opportunity to go through combat training and fly combat

aircraft in 1994. Additionally, it takes approximately one

year to go through a fleet replacement squadron and secure

assignment to a fleet combat squadron. That tour is

generally three years and is the primary prerequisite for

orders to a fleet replacement squadron as an instructor

pilot. In the next few years women instructor pilots are

expected to become more numerous.

Motivators and Hyvienes of Instructor Pilots

In Herzberg's two-factor theory of job satisfaction/

dissatisfaction, motivators correspond to Maslow's higher

order needs. They are considered intrinsic and are listed as

job content factors such as achievement, recognition,

advancement, responsibility, and the inherent interest of the










work itself. Herzberg theorized that when these factors are

present in a job, they act as satisfiers because they have a

positive effect on employee job satisfaction.

According to Herzberg, hygienes correspond to Maslow's

lower order needs. They are considered extrinsic and are

listed as job context factors such as pay, security,

supervision, and physical working conditions. These items

are linked to job dissatisfaction.

The MSQ has 20 items which are divided into Intrinsic,

or job content items, and Extrinsic, or job context items.

These categories were designed to be closely analogous to

Herzberg's motivators and hygienes. The short-form MSQ

generates a third score, the General. It is derived by

combining the Intrinsic and the Extrinsic with two additional

items. Individual item response means and standard

deviations are presented in Table 1 for more specific

analysis. Table 2 presents the Intrinsic, Extrinsic, and

General satisfaction means and standard deviations of the

MSQ. Table 3 presents the scores of the population of

instructor pilots compared to the norming tables of engineers

provided by the authors of the MSQ.

By comparing the means scores from Table 1, it can be

observed which motivators are most satisfying and which

hygienes are most dissatisfying. Some of the means presented

in Table 1 are substantially higher than others while some

rank much lower. This order is not coincidental according to











Table 1

Mean Score and Standard Deviation by Item. Minnesota
Satisfaction Ouestionnaire (Short Form)


Standard
MSQ Item and Job Characteristic Mean Deviation


Ability to keep busy

Chance to work alone

Opportunity to do something different
from time to time

Chance to be "somebody" in the community

How the boss handles his/her workers

Supervisor's decision-making ability

Being able to do things that don't
go against my conscience

Job provides steady employment

Opportunity to do things for others

Opportunity to tell people what to do

Chance to do something that makes use


4.16 0.80

3.81 0.76


of my abilities 4.10 0.93

#12. How company policies are put into practice 3.08 1.10

#13. My pay and the amount of work I do 3.30 1.23

#14. Chances for advancement 3.70 0.94

*15. Freedom to use my own judgment 3.94 0.84

*16. Opportunity to try my own methods 3.91 0.88

17. Working conditions 3.41 1.16

18. Relationships of coworker with each other 4.12 0.83

#19. Praise I get for doing a good job 3.59 1.01

*20. Feeling of accomplishment I get 4.14 0.77

Note. Denotes Intrinsic items, 12 in all; # denotes Extrinsic items,
6 in all.










Table 2

Minnesota Satisfaction Questionnaire Intrinsic, Extrinsic,
and General Satisfaction Means and Standard Deviations for
Instructor Pilots



Intrinsic Extrinsic General
Satisfaction Satisfaction Satisfaction


Mean SD Mean SD Mean SD


4.01 0.55 3.60 0.75 3.86 0.56



Table 3

Comparisons of Instructor Pilots to Minnesota Satisfaction
Questionnaire Norm Group (Engineers)



Intrinsic Extrinsic General
Satisfaction Satisfaction Satisfaction


Total Total Total
Score Percentile Score Percentile Score Percentile


Instructor
Pilots 48.14 40 21.57 50 77.25 40

Norm Group 48.53 40 21.32 50 77.88 40
(engineers)




Herzberg's theory. In Table 1 the highest satisfaction means

are almost all associated with Intrinsic items (motivators)

while the lowest means are all associated with Extrinsic

items (hygienes). In general, instructor pilots feel

satisfaction because they have the opportunity to meet the










following higher order needs: to be industrious and to stay

busy (item 1), to share their time and talent with others

(item 9), to build relationships (item 18), to feel

successful and accomplished (item 20), and to feel faint

stirring of self-actualization (item 11). Instructor pilots

tend to feel dissatisfaction when the following lower order

needs are not being met: knowing where they stand from one

day to the next (item 12), fair compensation for what they

provide in a day's work (item 13), and the fear of failing to

be promoted (item 14; the Navy does not retain officers who

are not promoted after three reviews).

According to the MSQ scoring manual, percentile scores

are the most meaningful scores to use in interpreting the

MSQ. A percentile score of 75 or higher would be taken to

represent a high degree of satisfaction; a percentile score

of 25 or lower would indicate a low level of satisfaction;

and scores in the middle range of percentiles indicate

average satisfaction. Tables 2 and 3 present several views

of instructor pilot satisfaction. According to the data

presented in Table 2 based on the Likert scale, instructor

pilots seem to be satisfied with job characteristics

intrinsic to their work and somewhat less so with job

characteristics extrinsic to their work. An analysis of the

percentile scores reported in Table 3 supports this. When

compared against their norm group, instructor pilots'

responses are nearly identical. These responses indicate the










presence of Herzberg's motivators and hygienes, although

neither the motivators nor the hygienes are strong enough to

drive General Satisfaction above or below average.

Correlations

Correlation coefficients were computed for each of the

variables in this study. The variables were Employee

Empowerment Questionnaire group mean (EEQ), Minnesota

Satisfaction Questionnaire Intrinsic score (MSQI), Minnesota

Satisfaction Questionnaire Extrinsic score (MSQE), and

Minnesota Satisfaction Questionnaire General score (MSQG).

Correlation coefficients were determined using the Pearson

product-moment method. The results of these correlations are

presented in Table 4.

Review of the Pearson correlations presented in Table 4

support the link between Herzberg's theory of job

satisfaction/dissatisfaction and Covey's theory of

empowerment in the following two ways. First, there is a

relationship between empowerment and general satisfaction.

Second, there is a strong positive relationship (r = .68)

between Intrinsic and Extrinsic job satisfaction. Herzberg

has suggested that the presence or absence of both motivators

and hygienes should be independent of each other, yet related

hierarchically based on Maslow's hierarchy of needs. The

results of this study show a positive relationship between

motivators and hygienes, thereby supporting this theory.










Table 4

Pearson Correlations between Empowerment Scores and Job
Satisfaction/Dissatisfaction Scores



Empowerment Intrinsic Extrinsic General
Satisfaction Satisfaction Satisfaction


r r2 r r2 r r2 r r2


EEQ 1.000 1.000 0.572 0.327 0.382 0.146 0.535 0.287

MSQI 0.572 0.327 1.000 1.000 0.678 0.460 N/A

MSQE 0.382 0.146 0.678 0.460 1.000 1.000 N/A

MSQG 0.535 0.287 N/A N/A 1.000 1.000

Note. Certain items are marked N/A for "not applicable." MSQG is
derived by combining MSQI and MSQE, thus biasing correlation between
these two variables. MSQI = MSQ Intrinsic; MSQE = MSQ Extrinsic; MSQG
MSQ General.



Finally, the proportion of variability in Intrinsic

satisfaction that can be accounted for when the level of

empowerment is known (r2 for EEQ with respect to MSQI) is

substantially higher than that of Extrinsic satisfaction.

That is, empowerment as a predictor for satisfaction is much

more powerful with respect to Intrinsic satisfaction than to

Extrinsic satisfaction. In other words, empowerment is a

better predictor of motivators than of hygienes because it is

more closely related to higher order needs than to lower

order needs. This finding would tend to support Covey's

Principle-Centered Leadership Model with which he strove to










satisfy certain higher order needs such as to "uplift,

ennoble, fulfill and inspire people" (Covey, 1990/1991,

p. 69). This finding also suggests a strong relationship

between variables of both Covey's and Herzberg's theories.

Multiple Regression

A stepwise multiple regression was performed with the

dependent variable Empowerment (as defined by the EEQ) and

the independent variables Intrinsic Satisfaction and

Extrinsic Satisfaction (as defined by the MSQ). The stepwise

method was selected to eliminate the potential for

interaction among the independent variables.

The formula produced a multiple R of .57225, meaning

that the interaction of Intrinsic and Extrinsic job

satisfaction can be accurate predictors of the dependent

variable Empowerment. This finding is significant to the .01

level. The R2 produced a value of .3275, meaning that nearly

33% of the variation in perceptions of empowerment can be

accounted for by variations in Intrinsic and Extrinsic job

satisfaction (Table 5).


Analysis of Variance

In Chapter III of this study it was stated that the

chosen population of instructor pilots was particularly

attractive due to its homogeneity of objectives combined with

expectations of high variance in responses due to variety

among communities. According to Shavelson (1988), the










Table 5

Stepwise Multiple Regression for the Dependent Variable
Empowerment (Independent Variables Intrinsic and Extrinsic
Satisfaction)



Multiple R R Square


.57225 .32747




purpose of a one-way analysis of variance (ANOVA) is "to

compare the means of two or more groups in order to decide

whether the observed differences between them represent a

chance occurrence or a systematic effect" (p. 342). If the

ratio of variance between squadrons and within squadrons

(Fobsered) exceeded the critical value of F for the given

degrees of freedom (Fcritical), it means a systematic effect can

explain the variance. If Fcritical exceeded Fobserved, it means

variance is due to chance occurrence.

One-way ANOVA was performed for the results of each

instrument: EEQ, MSQI, MSQE, and MSQG. The results of that

analysis are presented in Tables 6 through 9. Referring to

Tables 6 through 9, it can be seen that differences in

empowerment scores (Table 6) and intrinsic satisfaction

scores (Table 7) were attributable to chance, while variation

in extrinsic satisfaction and general satisfaction were

attributable to systematic effect. In other words, no

significant difference was observed in the way subjects

reported empowerment between squadrons. Neither was there











significant difference between squadrons for intrinsic

satisfaction. However, there was significant difference

between squadrons in how they reported extrinsic satisfaction

and general satisfaction.


Table 6

One-way Analysis of Variance of Emoowerment Scores


(EEO)


DF Mean Square Fobserved Fcritical*
(variance)


Between squadrons 9 .783 1.493 1.97

Within squadrons 106 .524


* Significant at the .01 level. Fcritical obtained from table located in
Shavelson (1988).



Table 7

One-way Analysis of Variance of Intrinsic Satisfaction Scores
(MSOI)



DF Mean Square Fobserved Fcritical*
(variance)


Between squadrons 9 .457 1.610 1.97

Within squadrons 106 .284


* Significant at the .01 level. Critical obtained from table located in
Shavelson (1988).










Table 8

One-way Analysis of Variance of Extrinsic Satisfaction Scores
(MSOE)



DF Mean Square Fobserved Fcritical*
(variance)


Between squadrons 9 1.34 2.730 1.97

Within squadrons 106 .491


Significant at the .01 level. Feritical obtained from table located in
Shavelson (1988).



Table 9

One-way Analysis of Variance of General Satisfaction Scores
(MSOG)



DF Mean Square Fobserved critical*
(variance)


Between squadrons 9 .689 2.500 1.97

Within squadrons 106 .276


* Significant at the .01 level. Fctical obtained from table located in
Shavelson (1988).



With these differences across squadrons it appears that

there may be room for greater standardization of extrinsic

satisfaction factors between squadrons.

Summary

The results and analysis of this study are presented in

Chapter IV. Following a description of the sample analysis,










including population means and standard deviations,

correlations, multiple regression, and analysis of variance

are reported. Specifically, findings show that job

satisfaction is strongly related to empowerment for U.S. Navy

and Marine Corp instructor pilots. Intrinsic job

satisfaction is also more closely related to empowerment than

is extrinsic job satisfaction. Results also supported

Herzberg's two-factor theory of job satisfaction/

dissatisfaction. It was expected that the population of

instructor pilots would exhibit satisfaction/dissatisfaction

perceptions similar to those of their closest population norm

group, engineers. The results support this and are

consistent with findings reported in the research literature.

Following this chapter, a summary of the study is

presented. In addition, implications of the study and

recommendations for further research are set forth.















CHAPTER V
SUMMARY, CONCLUSIONS, AND IMPLICATIONS

Research Problem and Procedures

The problem investigated in this study was to determine

the relationship between empowerment and job satisfaction/

dissatisfaction in organizational climates. Two well-

established theories related to organizational climates

guided the study. The first theory (Covey, 1990/1991)

suggested that productivity could be enhanced by creating a

principle-centered climate. Covey identified empowerment as

one of the most crucial elements of a principle-centered

climate. The second theory (Herzberg, 1966; Herzberg et al.,

1959) asserted that job satisfaction relates to a set of work

environment conditions called "motivators" and job

dissatisfaction relates to a different set of work

environment conditions called "hygienes" and that the balance

between these conditions also contributes to productivity.

These relationships between variables contained in Herzberg's

theory and those found in Covey's theory were tested through

analysis of the feelings, attitudes, and perceptions of U.S.

Navy and Marine Corps combat pilots currently engaged in

training the next generation of naval aviators.







68

The literature provided much information and data on job

satisfaction in general, but no research was found which

related to U.S. Navy and Marine Corps instructor pilots.

Substantial literature related to empowerment was found, but

very little reference was made to the relationship between

empowerment and job satisfaction/dissatisfaction.

In order to determine the relationship between

empowerment and job satisfaction/dissatisfaction, the

Employee Empowerment Questionnaire (EEQ) and the Minnesota

Satisfaction Questionnaire (MSQ) were administered to 236

individuals identified as U.S. Navy and Marine Corps

instructor pilots. Of these, usable data were provided by

116 (49.2%) instructor pilots currently engaged in training

new pilots in Navy and Marine Corps Fleet Replacement

Squadrons. All but one of the respondents were male.

Data for the two instruments were analyzed using means

and standard deviations, stepwise multiple regression

analysis, correlation, and analysis of variance. Means and

standard deviations were used to determine satisfaction/

dissatisfaction levels of instructor pilots. Stepwise

multiple regression analysis was used to determine the

predictive power of satisfaction motivators and hygienes with

respect to empowerment. Correlations were performed to

determine the degree to which empowerment and satisfaction

variables are related. Analysis of variance was used to










determine whether the squadrons participating constituted a

population.

Empowerment

The population of instructor pilots sampled in this

study identified themselves as "not too sure" whether or not

they are empowered. This conclusion is based on the mean EEQ

response score for the population of 3.43. It should be

noted, however, that of the eight response items in the EEQ,

item 4 (I do not have to go through a lot of red tape to

change things) and item 8 (I can make changes on my job

whenever I want) seemed to skew the results with means of

2.81 and 2.80, respectively. Without these the mean EEQ

would fall well into the "empowered" region.

This result is predictable since military bureaucracies

are well known for the reams of "red tape" generated and

their rigid adherence to tradition. The low levels of

empowerment reported for items 4 and 8 are also

understandable when one considers that making changes on the

job in military aviation involves aeronautical engineering

tolerances and performance envelopes as well as the history

of what does and does not work in the air. Navy leaders

should be somewhat rigid when lives and multimillion dollar

aircraft are at stake.

Satisfaction and Dissatisfaction

This population exhibited average satisfaction and

average dissatisfaction. The MSQ measures Intrinsic, or job










content, and Extrinsic, or job context, items. These are

analogous to Herzberg's motivators and hygienes. This

population matched its norm group almost exactly in both

intrinsic and extrinsic satisfaction. This suggests that

they are satisfied with some things (while not overly

enthusiastic) and dissatisfied with other things (while not

overly disgruntled).

Some of the things that instructor pilots are most

satisfied about are the ability to be industrious and stay

busy, to share their time and talent with others, to build

relationships, to feel successful and accomplished, and to

feel faint stirring of self-actualization (doing that which

he was "born to do"). Some of the things that instructor

pilots are most dissatisfied about are not knowing what

policies will dictate from one day to the next, not receiving

fair compensation for what they provide in a day's work, and

the fear of failing to promote.

The Relationship Between Empowerment and
Job Satisfaction/Dissatisfaction

The regression analysis revealed that there is a

relationship between empowerment and job satisfaction/

dissatisfaction. Levels of empowerment can be accurately

predicted if levels of intrinsic and extrinsic satisfaction

are known. Also, intrinsic and extrinsic satisfaction

account for about 33% of empowerment.

This finding suggests that neither theories of

empowerment nor theories of satisfaction/dissatisfaction










fully describe organizational climates. Rather, the two

constructs interact with each other to influence the climate.

Correlations

Pearson product-moment correlations were performed

between EEQ and MSQ General, EEQ and MSQ Intrinsic, EEQ and

MSQ Extrinsic, and MSQ Intrinsic and MSQ Extrinsic. Two

interesting issues arose from the correlations performed.

First, a strong correlation was found between Intrinsic and

Extrinsic satisfaction. As noted above, the Extrinsic score

was intended to measure failure to satisfy Maslow's lower

order needs (hygienes), while the Intrinsic score was

intended to measure satisfaction of Maslow's higher order

needs (motivators). Herzberg suggested that these two

constructs should be measured independently but that they

were related hierarchically. The strong correlation between

them (r=.67) is perhaps reflective of this relationship, thus

supporting both Herzberg's and Maslow's theories.

The second interesting issue is the difference between

correlations of empowerment to motivators and empowerment to

hygienes. Empowerment accounts for only about 15% of

Extrinsic or job context satisfaction while it accounts for

over 32% of Intrinsic or job content satisfaction. This

means that empowerment contributes much more to satisfaction

of higher order needs such as esteem, achievement,

recognition than it does to lower order needs such as safety

and security.










Implications

The most important assets, indeed in many cases the only

asset, educational leaders have are the teachers they employ.

The productivity of those teachers is determined by their

ability to be physically and mentally present for their

students every minute of every day, year in and year out.

This ability is affected by the climate in which teachers

work. The climate, in turn, is strongly affected by the

level of empowerment extended to teachers and the amount of

satisfaction they derive from aspects of job content and job

context.

High levels of empowerment can lead to high levels of

intrinsic job satisfaction. The interaction of these two

variables in organizational climate may determine how

teachers perform on the job and may even help to determine if

they stay on the job. Covey's Principle-centered Leadership

Model is helpful in describing conditions of empowerment but

is an inadequate descriptor of total climate because it does

not encompass issues of satisfaction and dissatisfaction.

Herzberg's two-factor theory of Job satisfaction/

dissatisfaction is similarly inadequate for its omission of

issues of empowerment. Educational leaders wishing to obtain

and maintain an optimum organizational climate must

incorporate elements of both theories.










Recommendations for Further Research

Based on the findings of this study, the following

recommendations for additional research were offered.

1. The study was limited in scope and only included

instructor pilots from Navy and Marine Corps Fleet

Replacement Squadrons. The issues addressed in this study,

however, can be extended to a much broader spectrum of

society. Replication of this study in elementary and

secondary schools and universities as well as business and

industry could provide a wider base for expanding the theory.

2. As stated earlier, the sample was made up almost

exclusively by male instructor pilots. Female representation

will be much stronger in years to come. Replication with

this emerging demographic characteristic may give greater

insight regarding the interaction of empowerment and

satisfaction/dissatisfaction.

3. As noted in Chapter IV, some variance was noted

among squadrons in response to extrinsic satisfaction items

and general satisfaction items. Further studies could be

helpful in isolating and explaining this variance.

4. Finally, other professional populations, such as

college or university faculty, managers in business or

industry, teachers, health care professionals, and persons

employed in state and local governments, could be appropriate

for a study of empowerment and job satisfaction/







74

dissatisfaction. Additional data related to these constructs

could result from such studies.

















APPENDIX A
INITIAL MAILING TO SQUADRON COMMANDERS
















DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVY
HEUCOPTER ANTISUBMARINE SQUADRON LIGHT FOUR ZERO
NAVALSTATION
MAYORT, FLORIDA 32Sul.WO
Ser 00/ 482
Jul 18 1997

From: Co-L'anding Officer, Helicopter Antc-Submarine Squadron Light FOUR ZERO
To: Distribution

SUDo: CONSENT TO SURVEY "

1. This is a letter of introductionn for Jonathan O. Woods, a civilian
instructor serving my command. I have known Mr. Woods for 11 years. Over the
years he nas served unaer me in various capacities and I have watched him grew
in stature within my community.

2. He is now poised to become a Ph.D. in Education and Administration and I
ask your assistance in helping him to attain this credential.

3. Mr. Woods is conaucting a dissertation study that may powerfully impact our
understanding of empowerment and job satisfaction as these issues relate to
instructor pilots.

4. I heartily endorse tnis project and have consented to allow Mr. Woods to
survey my own people. I hope that you may also consent to allow Mr. Woods
brief access to the instructor pilots under your command. The material tra;
follows nas been produced by Mr. Woods and explains his request.


SJ. 0. FURNESS

Distrlbut-on: V
VF-101
HS-3
VMAT-203
VAW-120
VAQ-129
VP-30
HS-10
HSL-41
VF-L06
VF-125
VS-41
VMGRT-253
HMT-302











Dear Commander,

I am writing to request your assistance in my doctoral dissertation
research study designed to explore the areas of empowerment and job
satisfaction among Navy and Marine Corps fleet replacement squadron
instructor pilots. As a simulator instructor for the SH-60B program at
Mayport, I designed the study, and I believe it has the potential to
provide useful information to commanding officers about the work
environment of their instructor pilots.

In order to conduct my research, I need to tabulate responses to a
survey questionnaire related to pilots' feelings of empowerment and job
satisfaction. I have sent identical requests to all fleet replacement
squadron commanding officers.

In anticipation of any apprehensions or misgivings you may have, let me
assure you that the information your pilots would provide me could not
possibly cast your command or naval aviation in a bad light. I am only
trying to determine the degree to which empowerment permeates the
various domains of job satisfaction. The focus of my study will be on
the interaction of the two constructs rather than on the significance of
your command's responses. Nevertheless, those cumulative responses,
while remaining confidential, will provide you with valuable insight
into your pilots' perceptions of empowerment and job satisfaction.

Specifically, I am asking just one thing from you. I would like to send
your command a box of survey packets and ask that they be distributed
during an AOM. The survey consists of a two-page questionnaire and a
"consent to participate" form. The survey will take only 10-15 minutes
to complete. It will include a self-addressed and stamped envelope so
that the respondent may simply drop it in the mail after completion.

Your participation in this study is very important. It represents a
first ever attempt to identify the level of empowerment we extend to our
instructor pilots and the role that empowerment plays in job
satisfaction. If I can get unanimous participation in this project from
all of the fleet replacement squadron commanding officers, the results
can provide an invaluable personnel management and policy resource to
you and your successors. I will provide you with a detailed report of
my findings when my study is complete. I have included a sample survey
for your perusal.

Thank you very much for taking the time to consider my request. Whether
or not you consent to allow your instructor pilots to participate,
please take a moment to detach, initial, and return the following sheet.

Very respectfully submitted,


Jonathan O. Woods
















APPENDIX B
COVER LETTER










Dear Colleague:

I am writing to request your assistance in my doctoral dissertation research
study designed to explore the areas of empowerment and job satisfaction among
FRS instructor pilots. As a CSI instructor for the SH-60B program at Mayport, I
designed the study and I believe it has the potential to provide useful information
about the work environment of FRS instructor pilots.
Please complete the enclosed forms and return them to me in the envelope
provided. The forms have been pre-tested and should take approximately 15
minutes of your time to complete. Employee Empowerment Questionnaire
(EEQ) and the Minnesota Satisfaction Questionnaire (MSQ) have directions
printed on the respective forms. Please complete both the EEQ form and the
MSQ form. You do not have to answer any question you do not wish to answer.
Your participation in this study is very important. It represents a first ever
attempt to identify the level of empowerment we extend to our instructor pilots
and the role that empowerment plays in job satisfaction. Please answer all
questions as honestly as you can. Data obtained from you will be kept
confidential to the extent provided by law. As you will notice, your name does
not appear on the form at all. Please retum all forms to me in the enclose,
stamped envelope by __ 1997.
Be advised of the following: There are no anticipated risks to participants in
the study. There are no anticipated potential benefits to participants in the study.
There will be no compensation. Participation is voluntary and you may withdraw
without consequence.
If you wish additional information about the completed study, please jot a
note to me at the bottom of this page. I will be happy to provide you with results
of the study or a short discussion of any of the background or procedures
involved.
Thank you for your assistance with this project. Please acknowledge your
consent to participate by including your signature below and be sure to include
this sheet in the return envelope. Questions or concerns about the research
participant's rights can be directed to the UFIRB office, PO Box 112250,
University of Florida, Gainesville, FL 32611-2250; ph (352) 392-0433. If you
have any questions about the study, you can contact me at (904) 655-1213 or
my faculty supervisor, Dr. John Nickens, at (352) 392-2390.

Sincerely,


Jonathan O. Woods
I have read the procedure described above. I voluntarily agree to participate in
the procedure and I have received a copy of this description.

Apprved by the
Unveiy of Florida signed
Institutional Review Board
(IRS 02) for use through
JUN 2 5 1998















REFERENCES

Argyris, C. (1958). Some problems in conceptualizing
organizational climate: A case study of a bank.
Administrative Science Quarterly. 2, 501-520.

Argyris, C. (1964). Integrating the individual and the
organization. New York: Wiley and Sons.

Bearden, B. (1990). The bluejackets' manual. Annapolis,
MD: The United States Naval Institute.

Bennis, W., & Nanus, B. (1985). Leaders: The strategies
for taking charge. New York: Harper & Row.

Bickham, W. (1996). Liberating the human spirit in the
workplace. Chicago: Irwin Professional Publishing.

Blanchard, K., Carlos, J. P., & Randoph, A. (1996).
Empowerment takes more than a minute. San Francisco:
Berrett-Koehler Publishers.

Block, P. (1987). The empowered manager: Positive
political skills at work. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass
Publishers.

Bockman, V. M. (1971). The Herzberg controversy.
Personnel Psychology, 24, 155-189.

Burr, R. K. (1981). Job satisfaction determinants for
selected administrators in Florida's community colleges and
universities: An application of Herzberg's motivator-
hygiene theory (Doctoral dissertation, University of
Florida, 1980). Dissertation Abstracts International, 41,
3794A.

Campbell, J. P., Dunnette, M. D., Lawler, E. E., &
Weick, K. E. (1970). Managerial behavior, performance, and
effectiveness. New York: McGraw-Hill Book Company.

Conger, J. A. (1993). The brave new world of
leadership training. Organizational Dynamics. 21(3), 46-59.










Cook, J. D., Hepworth, S. J., Wall, T. D., & Warr, P. B.
(1981). The experience of work: A compendium and review of
249 measures and their use. Orlando, FL: Academic Press.

Covey, S. R. (1990/1991). Principle-centered leadership.
New York: Simon & Schuster.

Cranny, C. J., Smith, P. C., & Stone, E. F. (1992). How
people feel about their jobs and how it affects their
performance. New York: Lexington Books.

Cronbach, L. J. (1951). Coefficient alpha and the
internal structure of tests. Psvchometreka, 16. 297-334.

Cummings, L. L., & ElSalmi, A. M. (1968). Empirical
research on the basis and correlation of managerial
motivation: A review of the literature. Psychological
Bulletin. 70. 127-144.

Denison, D. R. (1990). Corporate culture and
organizational effectiveness. New York: Wiley.

Flanagan, J. C. (1954). The critical incident
technique. Psvcholooical Bulletin, 51, 327-358.

Fleishman, E. A. (1953). Leadership climate, human
relations training, and supervisory behavior. Personnel
Psychology, 6. 205-222.

Friedlander, F. (1966). Motivations to work and
organizational performance. Journal of Applied Psychology,
0 143-152.

Gruneberg, M. M. (1979). Understanding iob satisfaction.
New York: John Wiley and Sons.

Guion, R. M. (1973). A note on organizational climate.
Organizational Behavior and Human Performance. 9. 120-125.

Guion, R. M. (1978). Minnesota Satisfaction
Questionnaire. In O. A. Buros (Ed.), The eighth mental
measurements yearbook (Vol. 2, pp. 1677-1680). Highland Park,
NJ: The Gryphon Press.

Hayes, B. E. (1994). How to measure empowerment. Quality
Progress. 27(2), 41-46.

Hellriegel, D., & Slocum, J. W., Jr. (1974).
Organizational climate: Measures, research, and
contingencies. Academy of Management Journal, 17, 255-280.










Henderson, G. (1996). Human relations issues in
management. Westport, CT: Quorum Books.

Herzberg, F. (1966). Work and the nature of man. New
York: Thomas Y. Crowell Publishers.

Herzberg, F. (1976). One more time: How do you motivate
employees? In M. M. Gruneberg (Ed.), Job satisfaction--A
reader (pp. 17-55). New York: John Wiley and Sons.

Herzberg, F., Mausner, B., Peterson, R. O., & Campbell,
D. F. (1957). Job attitudes: Review of research and opinion.
Pittsburgh, PA: Psychological Service of Pittsburgh.

Herzberg, F., Mausner, B., & Snyderman, B. (1959). The
motivation to work. New York: John Wiley & Sons, Inc.

Hinrichs, J. R., & Mischking, L. (1967). Empirical and
theoretical limitations of the two-factor hypothesis of job
satisfaction. Journal of Applied Psycholocv. 51, 191-200.

Hoppock, R. (1935). Job satisfaction. New York: Arno
Press.

James, L. R., & Jones, A. P. (1974). Organizational
climate: A review of theory and research. Psychological
Bulletin, 81, 1096-1112.

Johannesson, R. E. (1973). Job satisfaction and
perceptually measured organisation climate: Redundancy and
confusion. In M. W. Fry (Ed.), New developments in management
and organisation theory, (Proceedings of the 8th annual
conference, Eastern Academy of Management, pp. 27-37).

Kanter, R. M. (1983). The change masters. New York:
Simon and Schuster.

Kem, C. R. (1994). The relationship between Herzberg's
motivator/hygiene theory and work behavior types of academic
librarians in Florida (Doctoral dissertation, University of
Florida, 1994). Dissertation Abstracts International, 56-11,
4293A.

Komives, S. R. (1994). Women student leaders:
Self-perceptions of empowering leadership and achieving
style. NASPA Journal. 31(2), 102-112.

Kornhauser, A. W. (1930). The study of work feelings.
Personnel Journal, 8, 348-351.










Kozal, A. P. (1979). An application of the reformulated
(Herzberg) theory of job satisfaction to selected
administrative affairs staff in the Florida State University
System (Doctoral dissertation, University of Florida, 1979).
Dissertation Abstracts International, 40. 1788A.

Kravetz, D. (1988). The human resources revolution. San
Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

Lewin, K. (1938). The conceptual representation and the
measurement of psvchological forces. Durham, NC: Duke
University Press.

Lewin, K., Lippitt, R., & White, R. K. (1939). Patterns
of aggressive behavior in experimentally created "social
climates." Journal of Social Psvcholocv. 10, 271-299.

Litwin, G. H., & Stringer, R. A. (1968). Motivation and
organizational climate. Cambridge, MA: Harvard Business
School, Division of Research.

Locke, E. A. (1976). The nature and causes of job
satisfaction. In M. D. Dunnette (Ed.), Handbook of industrial
and organizational psvcholoov (pp. 1297-1349). Chicago: Rand
McNally College Publishing.

Lofquist, L. H., & Dawis, R. V. (1969). Adjustment to
work: A psychological view of man's problems in a work-
oriented society. New York: Appleton-Century-Crofts.

Mac Taggert, D. S. (1971). Job satisfaction and
organizational openness as perceived by elementary teachers
in a Florida school system (Doctoral dissertation, University
of Miami, 1971). Dissertation Abstracts International. 32-07,
3622A.

Manz, C. C. (1991). Superleadership: Beyond the myth
of heroic leadership. Organizational Dynamics. 19(4),
18-36.

Maslow, A. H. (1943). A theory of human motivation.
Psychological Review. 50. 370-396.

Mayo, E. (1933). The human problems of an industrial
civilization. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.

McCoy, T. J. (1996). Creating an open book organization
where employees think and act like business partners. New
York: Amacom.

McGregor, D. (1960). The human side of enterprise. New
York: McGraw-Hill.











McLagan, P., & Nel, C. (1995). The age of participation:
New governance for the workplace and the world. San
Francisco: Berrett-Koehler Publishers.

Mills, D. Q. (1994). The empowerment imperative: Six
steps to a higher performance organization. Amherst, MA:
Human Resource Development Press, Inc.

Porter, L. W., Lawler, E. E., & Hackman, J. R. (1975).
Behavior in organizations. New York: McGraw-Hill.

Reichers, A. E., & Schnieder, B. (1990). Climate and
culture: An evolution of constructs. In B. Schnieder (Ed.),
Organizational climate and culture (pp. 5-39). San Francisco:
Jossey-Bass Publishers.

Rosen, H. (1963). Occupational motivation of research
and development personnel. Personnel Administration, 26.
37-43.

Shavelson, R. J. (1988). Statistical reasoning for the
behavioral sciences. Boston: Allyn and Bacon, Inc.

Tagiuri, R., & Litwin, G. H. (Eds.). (1968).
Organizational climate: Explorations of a concept. Cambridge,
MA: Division of Research, Graduate School of Business
Administration, Harvard University.

Taylor, F. W. (1911). The principles of scientific
management. New York: Harper and Brothers Publishers.

Thomas, S. C. (1977). An application of Herzberg's
two-factor theory of job attitudes to selected community
college administrative roles (Doctoral dissertation,
University of Florida, 1977). Dissertation Abstracts
International. 38. 3326A.

Trice, H. M., & Beyer, J. M. (1993). The cultures of
work organizations. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall.

Wall, S. J., & Wall, S. R. (1995). The new strategists:
Creating leaders at all levels. New York: The Free Press.

Wanous, J. P., & Lawler, E. E. (1972). Measurement and
meaning of job satisfaction. Journal of Applied Psvcholoog
56, 95-105.

Waring, S. P. (1991). Tavlorism transformed: Scientific
management theory since 1945. Chapel Hill: The University of
North Carolina Press.







85

Weiss, D. J., Davis, R. V., England, G. W., & Logquist,
L. H. (1967). Manual for the Minnesota Satisfaction
Questionnaire. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press.

Whitney, J. 0. (1994). The trust factor: Liberatina
profits and restoring corporate vitality. New York:
McGraw-Hill, Inc.















BIOGRAPHICAL SKETCH

Jonathan Orrin Woods was born in Madera, California, and

grew up in Kingsburg, California. He attended public schools

and graduated from Kings River College with an Associate of

Arts degree. He entered the United States Navy and served

with the "Proud Warriors" of Helicopter Anti-Submarine

Squadron (Light)-42. He flew 110 combat support missions in

the Persian Gulf in 1988, earning several individual and

theater decorations.

After leaving the naval service, he completed a Bachelor

of Science degree in Education from Southern Illinois

University at Carbondale. He continued his education at

Jacksonville University and earned a Master of Business

Administration degree in 1992.

Since 1990 he has been a civilian instructor of pilots

and aircrew for the U.S. Navy Fleet Replacement Squadron in

Mayport, Florida. His professional interests include the

psychology of tactical aircrew coordination and enhanced

realism in combat simulation.









I certify that I have read this study and that in my
opinion it conforms to acceptable standards of scholarly
presentation and is fully adequate, in scope and quality, as
a dissertation for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy.



ohn M. Nickens, Chair
Professor of Educational
Leadership


I certify that I have read this study and that in my
opinion it conforms to acceptable standards of scholarly
presentation and is fully adequate, in scope and quality, as
a dissertation for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy.



Ja s L. Doud
Professor of Educational
Leadership


I certify that I have read this study and that in my
opinion it conforms to acceptable standards of scholarly
presentation and is fully adequate, in scope and quality, as
a dissertation for the degree of Doctor of Ph losophy.



D vid S. Hfoneyin
Professor of Educational
Leadership


I certify that I have read this study and that in my
opinion it conforms to acceptable standards of scholarly
presentation and is fully adequate, in scope and quality, as
a dissertation for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy.



Cary L. R card
Professor of Special Education









This dissertation was submitted to the Graduate Faculty
of the College of Education and to the Graduate School and
was accepted as partial fulfillment of the requirements for
the degree of Doctor of Philosophy.


May, 1998 r-


Dean, Graduate School

Dean, Graduate School














LD
1780
199
















UNIVERSITY OF FL ORIDA
illlllI lll III 0l 5 Ill llli III II 8111111111
3 1262 08555 0134




Full Text
xml version 1.0 encoding UTF-8
REPORT xmlns http:www.fcla.edudlsmddaitss xmlns:xsi http:www.w3.org2001XMLSchema-instance xsi:schemaLocation http:www.fcla.edudlsmddaitssdaitssReport.xsd
INGEST IEID EFCK2MA30_Z6SXZ9 INGEST_TIME 2013-09-28T00:19:41Z PACKAGE AA00014252_00001
AGREEMENT_INFO ACCOUNT UF PROJECT UFDC
FILES