Group Title: application of the reformulated +Herzberg) theory of job satisfaction to selected administrative affairs staff in the Florida State University System /
Title: An application of the reformulated +Herzberg) theory of job satisfaction to selected administrative affairs staff in the Florida State University System /
CITATION PDF VIEWER THUMBNAILS PAGE IMAGE ZOOMABLE
Full Citation
STANDARD VIEW MARC VIEW
Permanent Link: http://ufdc.ufl.edu/UF00098839/00001
 Material Information
Title: An application of the reformulated +Herzberg) theory of job satisfaction to selected administrative affairs staff in the Florida State University System /
Alternate Title: Application of the reformulated +Herzberg) theory of job satisfaction ..
Physical Description: xv, 260 leaves : ; 28 cm.
Language: English
Creator: Kozal, Albert Phillip, 1942-
Publication Date: 1979
Copyright Date: 1979
 Subjects
Subject: Job satisfaction   ( lcsh )
Job satisfaction -- Florida   ( lcsh )
Educational Administration and Supervision thesis Ph. D   ( lcsh )
Dissertations, Academic -- Educational Administration and Supervision -- UF   ( lcsh )
Genre: bibliography   ( marcgt )
non-fiction   ( marcgt )
 Notes
Thesis: Thesis--University of Florida.
Bibliography: Bibliography: leaves 252-259.
General Note: Typescript.
General Note: Vita.
Statement of Responsibility: by Albert Phillip Kozal.
 Record Information
Bibliographic ID: UF00098839
Volume ID: VID00001
Source Institution: University of Florida
Holding Location: University of Florida
Rights Management: All rights reserved by the source institution and holding location.
Resource Identifier: alephbibnum - 000088249
oclc - 05623437
notis - AAK3624

Downloads

This item has the following downloads:

PDF ( 16 MBs ) ( PDF )


Full Text












AN APPLICATION OF THE REFORMULATED (HERZBERG) THEORY
OF JOB SATISFACTION TO SELECTED ADMINISTRATIVE
AFFAIRS STAFF IN THE FLORIDA
STATE UNIVERSITY SYSTEM








By


ALBERT PHILLIP KOZAL


A DISSERTATIO'X PRESENTED TO THE GRADUATE COUNCIL OF
THE UNIVERSITY OF FLORIDA
IN PARTIAL FULFILLMENT OF THE REQUIREMENTS FOR THE
DEGREE OF DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY









UNIVERSITY OF FLORIDA


1979





























To my beautiful wife, Pamela,
and son, Christopher,
who are my life















ACKNOWLEDGMENTS


I would like to take this opportunity to express my ap-

preciation to the following individuals who assisted me with

this research study, First, I extend my sincere thanks to

h- chairman of my doctoral committee, Dr. C. Arthur Sandeen,

without whose support and guidance this publication would not

have been possible. Next, I would like to recognize the other

members of my doctoral committee, Dr. James L. Wattenbarger,

Dr. Ralph Kimbrough, and Dr. Thomas Goodale for their helpful

assistance in this endeavor.

I am deeply indebted to Mrs. Angie Fremen and to my wife,

Pamela, who devoted many long hours to the typing of this

;an;uscript. Their support, patience, and understanding will

al?.ays be appreciated.

A special thanks to my lovely wife, Pamela, and son,

Christopher, for their love, understanding, and personal sac-

rifice. I realize that I shall never be able to make up for

the lonely evenings and fatherless weekends.

Finally, and most important, I thank the Good Lord for

answering my prayers.
















Table of Contents


Page

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS . . . . ... . . . .iii

LIST OF TABLES . . . . ... . . vii

LIST OF FIGURES . . . . . xi

ABSTRACT . . . . . . . . . . xii



CHAPTER

I INTRODUCTION . . . . . . . 1

Statement of Problem . . . . . . 7
Theoretical Background . . . . . 8
Justification of the Study . . . . .
Delimitations and Limitations of the Study. 1
Hypotheses . .. .. . . . . . . 15
Definition of Terms .... . . .. . 26
Bessarch Methodology . . . . .. 29
Sample Selection .. . . . . . 30
instrumentation . . . . . . . 31
Data Collection . . . . . 32
Data Analysis . .. . . . . . 33
Organization of Subsequent Chapters. . .. 34


II REVIEW OF THE LITERATURE . . . . . 35

Need Reduction/Gratification Theories of
Job Satisfaction . . . . .. 36
Expectancy and Othei Relativistic Theories
of Job Satisfaction . . . .. . 42
The Traditional Theory of Job Satisfaction. 48
Herzberg's Two-Factor Theory of
Job Satisfaction . . . . . . 50
Research in Support of the T-o-Factor
Theory of Job Satisfacticn . .... 56
Hesearchi Critical of the Two-Factor
Theor; of Job Satist nation . . . 50
Hocy' and Miskel's Reforomulated
(Herzb rg) Theory . . . . . 63










CHAPTER


Job Satisfaction Research Among
(Cent.) Non-Instructional Administrators
in Higher Education . . .


III PRESENTATION OF DATA .....


. . . 69


Director of Purchasing . .
Profile . . . . .
Satisfying Experiences . .
Dissatisfying Experiences .
Satisfying/Dissatisfying
Experiences . . . .
Overall Job Satisfaction/
Dissatisfaction . . .
Director of Security and Safety
Profile . . . . . .
Satisfying Experiences . .
Dissatisfying Experiences
Satisfying/Dissatisfying
Experiences . . . .
Overall JoL Satisfaction/
Dissatisfaction . . .
Director of Personnel Relations
Profile . . . . .
Satisfying Experiences . .
Dissatisfying Experiences .
Satisfying/Dissatisfying
Experiences . . . .
Overall Job Satisfaction/
Dissatisfaction . . .
Director of Physical Plant .
Profile . . . . . .
Satisfying Experiences . .
Dissatisfying Experiences .
Satisfying/Dissatisfying
Experiences . . . .
Overall Job Satisfaction/
Dissatisfaction . . .
University Controller . . .
Profile . . . . .
Satisfying Experiences . ,
Dissatisfying Experiences .
Satisfying/Dissatisfying
Experiences . . . .
Overall Job Satisfaction/
Die sa tisfaction . . .
The Five Positions . .


. . . . 75
. . . . 75
. . . . 76
. . 81

. . . 84

. . . . 85
. . 88
. . . . 88
. . 89
. . 92

. . . 96

. . . 97
. . . 100
. . . . 100
. . . 101
. . . 105

. . . 109

. . 110
. . 113
. . . . 113
. . . . 114
. . . . 117

. . 121

. . . . 122
. . . . 126
. . . . 26
. . . . 127
. . . . 131

. . . . 134

. . . 136
. . . 139


Page










CHAPTER

IV DATA ANALYSIS AND DISCUSSION


Discussion of Ily
Hypothesis 1
Hypothesis 2
Hypothesis 3
Hypothesis 4
Hypothesis 5
Hypothesis 6
Hypothesis 7
Hypothesis S
Hypothesis 0
IHypothesis 10
Hypothesis 11
Hypothesis 12
Hypothesis 13
Hypothesis 14
Hypothesis 15
Hypothesis 16
Hypothesis 17
Hypothesis 18
Hypothesis 19
hypothesis u
Hypothesis 21


pothesos .


. . . .
. . . .
. . o .

. .


Discussion of Data to Related Research . .


V SI1UMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS . . . . . .

Sur onary . . . . . . . . ..
Major Findings . . . . . . . .
Conclusions . . . . . . . . .
Suggestions for Further Research . .


Page

. . . 157


APPENDICES


A INTERVIEW GUIDE Dih.-CTOR OF PURCHASING 213
E INTERVIEW GUIDE DIRECTOR OF SECURITY
AND SAFETY ..... .. .. . . .. 221
C INTERVIEW GUIDE DIRECTOR OF PERSONNEL
RELATIONS . . . . . . . . 228
D INTERVIEW GUIDE DIRECTOR OF PHYSICAL
PLANT . . . .. . . . . . 237
E INTERVIEW GUIDE UNIVERSITY CONTROLLER . 244


B!D!,IOGAPY ..... . . . . . . . 252

BIOGRAPHICAL SKETCH ... ... . . . . . 260


157
157
160
161
163
165
166
168
170
171
173
175
176
178
180
182
183
185
186
187
188
188
189


197

197
199
203
210















List of Tables


Table Page

1 Classification of Factors in Satisfying
Incidents for Directors of Purchasing . .. 78

The Probability of Motivators, Ambients,
and Hygienes (As Individual Groups)
Contributing to Satisfying Experiences
for Directors of Purchasing . . . ... .80

3 Classification of Factors in Dissatisfying
Incidents for Directors of Purchasing . 82

4 The Probability of Motivators, Ambients,
and Hygienes (As Individual Groups)
Contributing to the Dissatisfying
Experiences for Directors of Purchasing 83

5 Distribution of all Critical Incidents
(Satisfying and Dissatisfying) by
Factor Classification for Directors
of Purchasing . . . . . . . 85

6 Classification of Factors Contributing
to Overall Job Satisfaction for
Directors of Purchasing . . . . .. .86

7 Classification of Factors Contributing
to Overall Job Dissatisfaction for
Directors of Purchasing . . . ... 87

8 Classification of Factors in Satisfying
Incidents for Directors of Security
and Safety . . . . . . . ... 90

9 The Probability of Motivators, Ambients,
and Hygienes (As Individual Groups)
Contributing to Satisfying Experiences
for Directors of Security and Safety . . 92

10 Classii cation of Factors in Dissatisfying
Incidents for Directors of Security and
Safety . . . ... . . . . .93











31 The Probability of Motivators, Ambients,
and Hygienes (As Individual Groups)
Contributing to the Dissatisfying
Experiences for Directors of Security
and Safety . . . . . .. . . 95

12 Distribution of all Critical Incidents
(Satisfying and Dissatisfying) by
Factor Classification for Directors
of Security and Safety . . . . . 96

12 Classification of Factors Contributing
to Overall Job Satisfaction for
Directors of Security and Safety . . .. .98

14 Classification of Factors Contributing
to Overall Job Dissatisfaction for
Directors of Security and Safety . ... 99

15 Classification of Factors in Satisfying
Incidents for Directors of Personnel
Relations . . . .. . . 02

16 The Probability of Motivators, Ambients,
and Hygienes (As Individual Groups)
Contributing to Satisfying Experiences
for Directors of Personnel Relations . 104

17 Classification of Factors in Dissatisfying
Incidents for Directors of Personnel
Relations ... . . . . . . . 106

1S The Probability of Motivators, Ambients,
and Hygienes (As Individual Groups)
Contributing to the Dissatisfying
Experiences for Directors of Personnel
Relations . . . . . . . ... .108

19 Distribution of all Critical Incidents
(Satisfying and Dissatis-ying) by
Factor Classification for Directors
of Personnel Relations . . . ... .109

20 Classification of Factors Contributing to
Overall Job Satisfaction for Directors
of Personnel Relations . . . . .. Ill

21 Classification of Factors Contributing to
Overall Job Dissatisfaction for Directors
of 'ersonnel Relations . . . . . 112


viii


Table


Page











22 Classification of Factors in Satisfying
Incidents for Directors of Physical
Plant . . . . . .. . ... . 115

23 The Probability of Motivators, Ambients,
and Hygienes (As Individual Groups)
Contributing to Satisfying Experiences
for Directors of Physical Plant . . .. .117

34 Classification of Factors in Dissatisfying
Incidents for Directors of Physical
Plant . . . . .. ... .. ... . .119

25 The Probability of Motivators, Ambients,
and Hygienes (As Individual Groups)
Contributing to the Dissatisfying
Experiences for Directors of Physical
Plant . . . . ..... . . . . 120

26 Distribution of all Critical Incidents
(Satisfying and Dissatisfying) by
Factor Classification for Directors
of Physical Plant . . . . ... .122

27 Classification of Factors Contributing to
Overall Job Satisfaction for Directors
of Physical Plant . . . . . .124

28 Classification of Factors Contributing to
Overall Job Dissatisfaction for Directors
of Physical Plant . . . . . . 125

29 Classification of Factors in Satisfying
Incidents for University Controllers ... .128

30 The Probability of Motivators, Armbients,
and Rygienes (As Individual Groups)
Contributing to Satisfying Experiences
for University Controllers . . . ... .130

31 Classification of Factors in Dissatisfying
Incidents for University Controllers . .. 332

32 The Probability of Motivators, Ambients,
and Hygienes (As Individual Groups)
Contributing to the Dissatisfying
Experiences for University Controllers . .133

33 Distribution of all Critical Incidents
(Satisfying and Dissatisfying) by Factor
Classification for University Controllers. 135


Page


Table











34 Classification of Factors Contributing
to Overall Job Satisfaction for
University Controllers . . . . .. 137

35 Classification of Factors Contributing to
Overall Job Dissatisfaction for
University Controllers . . . . .. 138

36 Classification of Factors in Satisfying
Incidents for the Five Administrative
Types (As One Group) . . . . ... .140

37 Motivators, Ambients, and Hygienes
Contributing to the Satisfying
Incidents for the Five Administrative
Positions . . . . . . . .. 142

38 Classification of Factors in Dissatisfying
Incidents for the Five Administrative
Types (As One Gi up) . . . . . .. .146

30 Motivators, Ambients, and Hygienes
Contributing to the Dissatisfying
Incidents for the Five Administrative
Positions . . . . . . . .. 148

40 Distribution of all Critical Incidents
(Satisfying and Dissatisfying) by
Factor Classification for the Five
Administrative Positions . . . . .. .151

41 Classification of Factors Contributing to
Overall Job Satisfaction for the Five
Administrative Positions . . . . .. .153

42 Classification of Factors Contributing to
Overall Job Dissatisfaction for the
Five Administrative Positions . . .. .155


Table


Page
















List of Figures


Figure Page

1 Maslow's Hierarchy of Needs ...... . 37

2 A comparison of Maslow's Need Hierarchy
to Alderfer's E.R.G. Need Hierarchy . . 40

3 Lawler's Model of Job Satisfaction . . 45

4 Bockman's Traditional Model of Job
Satisfaction . . . . . . 4

5 Herzberg's Two-Factor Attitude Model . . 5]

6 Hoy's and Miskel's proposed modification
of Herzberg's Two-Factor Theory . . .. .66









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


AN APPLICATION OF THE REFORMULATED (HERZBERG) THEORY OF JOB
SATISFACTION TO SELECTED ADMINISTRATIVE AFFAIRS STAFF IN THE
FLORIDA STATE UNIVERSITY SYSTEM


By

Albert Phillip Kozal

March 1979

Chairman: Dr. C. Arthur Sandeen
Major Department: Educational Administration


The focus of the current investigation was twofold:

(.) to test the applicability of Hoy's and Miskel's Reformu-

lated (Herzberg) Theory to selected administrative affairs

staff in the Florida State University System and (2) to test

the applicability of the Reformulated Theory in examining

job sa-isfaction and dissatisfaction associated with the ma-

jor job tasks of the director of purchasing, director of se-

curity and safety, director of personnel relations, director

of physical plant, and university controller.

The Reformulated Theory is based on the belief that

there are three distinct groups of factors which contribute

to an individual's job satisfaction and/or job dissatisfac-

tiort: motivators, hygienes, and ambients. Motivators are

associated with job satisfaction and include achievement,

reccgniion, advanctnment, responsibility, and work itself.

HKyjiones. ou the other hand, are those factors related to

job dissatisfaction and include supervision-technical,










interpersonal relations, company policy and administration,

working conditions, job security, and personal life. Ambi-

ents, the most recently established classification, are those

factors which occur with equal frequency in satisfying as

well as dissatisfying job incidents. Factors included in

this classification are salary, status, growth possibility,

risk opportunity, and relationship with superordinates.

Twenty-five administrators in the Florida State Univer-

sity System, five in each of the aforementioned positions,

were interviewed by the researcher using one of the five in-

terview guides. Each guide consisted of demographic ques-

tions, a list of the major job responsibilities associated

with the position, and two questions concerning specific

overall job satisfaction/dissatisfaction. Using a modifica-

tion of Flanagan's critical incident technique, the re-

searcher asked each administrator to recall two experiences

related to each of the major job tasks associated with his

or her present position. The first experience requested of

each respondent concerned a time when he or she felt ex-

tremely satisfied about a particular task area; the second,

a time when he or she felt extremely dissatisfied.

The critical aicidents were classified into one of Hoy's

and Miskel's 5 motivators, 6 hygienes, or 5 ambients. The

researcher, usirg his 21 hypotheses as a guide, analyzed the

dAta using Chi-square and a computer software program called

the "Probable Impact Exploration System."


xiii









Hoy's and Miskel's theory was not supported; however,

data were found to support the motivator and hygiene ele-

ments of the theory. Motivators were found to be associated

more frequently with job satisfaction than hygienes or ambi-

ents. Out of 249 factors used to classify the reported sat-

isfying incidents, 170 were motivators (6S%), 61 were hy-

gienes (24%), and 18 were classified as ambients (7%).

I.-ievement was the most frequently occurring motivator fol-

lowed by responsibility and recognition. Work itself was

the only motivator found not to be associated more fre-

quenzly with job satisfaction.

Hygienes were associated more frequently with job di s-

satisfaction than motivators or ambients. For the 245 fac-

tors used to classify the dissatisfying incidents, 137 were

hygienes (57%), 101 were motivators (41%), and 7 were ambi-

ents (3%). Company policy and administration and interper-

scnal relations were the most frequently mentioned hygienes.

All six of ioy's and Miskel's hygienes were found to occur

more frequently in dissatisfying than in satisfying inci-

dents with two exceptions, personal life and job security.

The data concerning Hoy's and Miskel's most recently es-

tablished classificaLion, ambients, did not prove accurate.

Of the 494 factors used to classify the critical incidents

in the study, only 25 were identified as ambients, 18 in

satisfying incidents (4%), and 7 in dissatisfying (1%).

Th:rc: were considerable di ffrences noted between the

five Tdmini .;troative posi-tions in the type of mo ivators,









bygienes, or ambients which occurred in satisfying and dis-

satisfyi.ng incidents. A discussion of the data in relation

to previous studies utilizing Herzberg's Two-Factor Theory

is also presented.
















CHAPTER I


INTRODUCTION


There w.as very little interest in the study of job

a.i.sfaction until the early 1930's at which time the hu-

m ..n relations movement began to emerge. Prior to 1930 job

TOe.formirnce wcas the major dependent variable studied

(Wir.anous. 1976), the major thrust in both education and in-

dustry being directed toward maximizing worker output.

Elton Mayo and M ry ParKer Follett are the two individuals

.nost; often redijted with creating this new emphasis in ad-

inistrat ive theory. According to Kimbrough and Nunnery

(1976 rhec.rists of the period promoted the following

four co:cepI's: (a) building and maintaining harmonious

-,-an relations, (b) meeting the psycho-social needs of

employees, (c) the significance of the informal organiza-

tion. and (d) organizational authority based on knowledge,

participation, and reason.

Research concerned explicitly with the study of job

satisfaction datlE.f back to Hoppock's (1935) community sur-

ve, regarding working adults. Chester Barnard (1938), who

w/r-~.o 't'he Pilunction ol the ELxecuntive, w%'As one of the first

to d i'i ffrei iat:Lte Ibtl.ween the formal anoi informal aspects

O[ a- r.'.r t. on!. e .heorized third an organnijiatiot 1 s









survival was dependent upon what he called "effectiveness"

and "efficiency." Effectiveness was defined as the extent

to which the organization's goals are accomplished. Effi-

ciency, on the other hand, referred to the extent that an

individual's needs are satisfied. Barnard suggested that

an individual would remain with an organization only as

-crg as he was deriving sufficient satisfaction from his

involvement,

Roethlisberger and Dickson (1939) created new inter-

est in job satisfaction with their classic sumr.ary of the

Hawthorne research in Management and the Worker. At the

Hawthorne Plant near Chicago a series of experiments were

conducted in the WesternElectric Company to determine the

effects of the physical environment upon productivity,

The results of these studies proved inconclusive, but in-

dicated that the problem was a socio-psychological one and

promoted interest in another series of experiments: The

new studiie-, conducted between 1928 and 1933, identified

the importance of informal group relations within the for-

rzi.l oirga.iz.itional structure.

Shortly after the completion of the Hawthorne Studies

irdus'trjal psychologists began focusing their attention on

the wor-ker -.as a "feeling" and "experiencing" human being,

Quinn (1974), in a recent literature search conducted by

the Amtrcrican Psychological Association, reported that be-

tw.,c:n I)i37 and 1972, 556 studies were publl],shed concerning

ijo. : ai ifaJ ioni. Locke (1969) estimated that well over










4,000 articles had been written on the subject by 1969. Un-

fortunately, despite the tremendous interest that has been

devoted to the study of job satisfaction, our understanding

of this complex phenomenon has not increased appreciably.

According to the research literature there are three

reasons as to why the study of job satisfaction has prog-

ressed so slowly:

1, The term job satisfaction has not been properly

identified and. as a result, many studies which have at-

tempted to measure and correlate it have ended in failure.

It is a multi-dimensional attitude, claimed Sedlock (1966)

and Harwood and Brown (1969), that can be positive toward

some aspects of a job while negative in other aspects.

2. The task of relating the findings of one study

with another became increasingly difficult, reported

Fournet, Distefano, and Pryer (1966), due to the variety

of instruments used to measure job satisfaction. Data

collection techniques employed by those involved in re-

searching job satisfaction include questionnaires, inter-

views, rank-order studies, sentence completion tests, and

"critical incident" inquiries. Glennon, Owens, Smith, and

Albright (1960) claimed that lack of uniformity severely

restricted comparability of research studies.

3. According to Wanous and Lawler (1972), the lack

of consistency regarding the subjects studied, the

tireo of the studies, and the location of the studies also

hampered comparabi.li Ly. Thomas (1977) noted that in










some studies an entire population was sampled whereas in

others the study was restricted to blue-.collar or white-

collar workers,

Hoppock (1935) regarded job satisfaction as any com-

bination of psychological, physiological, and environmental

circumstances that would cause a person to say, "I am sat-

isfi ed with my job." However, the definition proposed by

Locke (1969) is more widely accepted among job satisfaction

theorists:

The pleasurable emotional state result-
ing from the appraisal of one's job as
achieving or facilitating the achieve-
ment of one's job values. Job sat-
isfaction is a function of the perceived
relationship between w,,.t one wants from
one's job and what one perceives it as
offering. (Locke, 1969, p. 10)

While job satisfaction has been variously defined,

there is general agreement among researchers that the study

of job satisfaction is an important and worthwhile undertak-

ing. Smith, Kendall, and Hulin (1969) felt that the study

of job satisfaction was necessary for two reasons: First,

job satisfaction is an end in itself and is therefore de-

sirable by nature. Second, under certain circumstances

jo' satisfaction, particularly job dissatisfaction, may

have an impact on an organization through such behavior as

high turnover and absenteeism.

One of the most recent theories to be developed con-

cerning job satisfaction is the Two-Factor Theory proposed

by Frclotri.ck lct -rbocrg, Bernard Mausner, and










Barbara Snyderman. In their book entitled The Motivation

to WVrk (1959), 203 accountants and engineers were asked

to describe an event which made them feel exceptionally

good about their jobs and another in which they felt ex-

ceptionally bad about their jobs. The respondents' state-

ments (critical incidents) were then content-analyzed and

provided the basis from which Herzbe-g and associates for-

.--lated their theory on job attitudes. The researchers,

as a result of their study, were able to distinguish be-

tween conditions which contributed to job satisfaction and

those which caused job dissatisfaction. Conditions re-

ported to cause satisfaction were found to relate to the

content or intrinsic portion of their jobs. These factors

were called "satisfiers" or "motivators," Herzberg et al.

(1959) included six factors in this classification:

achievement, recognition, work itself, responsibility, ad-

vancement, and possibility of growth. Conditions which re-

sulted in feelings of dissatisfaction were found to relate

to the context or extrinsic aspect of their jobs, These

3crTors wvere called "dissatisfiers" or "hygienes," Eight

f.cto.s were included in this category: company policy and

administration, supervision-technical working conditions,

salary, personal liCe, job security, status, and interper-

sonal relations. As a result of their findings, Herzberg

eit a.l (395.i) 1, ieotrizi-d that the oppnqito of job satisfac-

icW' is not job d' :ss.tJisl'ct i; it is, no satisfact on;

c,'nvr:-sy, the opposite of job di sstisfacto io is not










satisfaction, but no job satisfaction. The researchers

also claimed that if the positive aspects of both satis-

fiers and dissatisfiers are present in the work situation

in sufficient levels, the result will be greater job sat-

isfaction; however, should the satisfiers (motivators) be

rerovled from the work situation, indifference, not job

dissatisfaction, will result. Dissatisfaction, argued

E.rzberg et al. (1959), will only occur when the negative

aspects of the dLssatisfiers (hygienes) are not adequately

fulfilled.

Although Herzberg's Two-Factor Theory has many advo-

cates among job satisfaction theorists, it also has its

share of critics. One of the most complete criticisms of

Herzberg's Two-Factor Theory was published by House and

Widgor (1967). They concluded that the data did not sup-

port the Two-Factor Theory and represented an oversimpli-

fication of the relationship between the sources of job

ssatisfatioi and dissatisfaction. In defense of Herzberg's

Theory, Whitsatt and Winslow (1967) argued that studies

critical of Herzberg et al. (1959) findings were weak not

only in methodology but also in interpretation. The Two-

Pactor Theory, ciaiamed Whitsett and Winslow (1967), had

clearly retained its utility and validity; however, they

.ronglly -recommended that modifications were necessary be-

for-t the theory coul.d. be adequately applied to an edica-

tional s.I t Ing.









In an attempt to improve the credibility and applica-

bility of the Two-Factor Theory, Hoy and \Miskel (1978) pro-

posed an elaboration of the theory which they called the

Reformulated (Herzberg) Theory.


Statement of the Problem

This research study was undertaken in order to test

tih applicability of Hoy's and Miskel's (1978) Reformulated

(:,srzberg) Theory to selected administrative affairs staff

i; the Florida State University System. Another objective

o:f the study was to examine the levl of job satisfaction

and dissatisfaction associated with major job tasks for

each of the following five administrative positions:

director of purchasing, director of security and safety,

director of personnel relations, director of physical

plant, and university controller.

In addition, the researcher sought the answers to the

following two questions:

1. What are the similarities and differences among

the five administrative positions in reference to

job satisfaction and job dissatisfaction?

2, Will the critical incidents reported by the re-

sponadnts in the five administrative staff po-

sitions support Hoy's and Mi.skel's theory of

job satisfaction?










Theoretical Background

Hoy's and Miskel's Reformulated (Herzberg) Theory, the

basis of this research study, was developed in 1978 as an

extension to the Herzberg et al. (1959) Two-Factor Theory.

Hc.v.ver, unlike Herzberg's theory, the Reformulated Theory

consists of three components instead of two: motivators,

!U.tgienes. and ambients,

Motivators, like those defined by Herzberg et al.

(i:59),are factors which related to job satisfaction. Iloy

and Miskel (1978) included five factors in this group:

achievement, recognition, work itself, responsibility, and

adv-an)cement.

fBygienes, on Obe other hand, are associated with pro-

dec.ing job dissatisfaction. Factors in this category in-

clude relationships with subordinates, relationships

ci't peers, supervision-techunical, policy and administration,

job security, working conditions, and personal life.

Ambients, the distinctive factor in the Reformulated

Theoy,, contribute with equal frequency to job satisfaction

and dissatisfaction. Included in this category are salary,

growth possibility, risk opportunity, relationship with su-

perordiinates, and status,

According to Ioy and Miskel (1978) the theory is based

on: three concepts:

1. Motivators, as a group, contribute more to job

sati sfaccion than to job disa tilfaction; however,

a lack of adequate motiva.ors ;,ay contribute Lo

di sjs t isf ac t i on









2. Hygienes, as a group, contribute more to job dis-

satisfaction, but an abundance of hygienes may

contribute to job satisfaction.

3. Ambients, as a group, contribute equally to job

satisfaction and dissatisfaction.


Justification for the Study

One issue that all researchers of job satisfaction are

able to agree on is that the study of job satisfaction is

important and needs to be expanded. Unanswered questions

regarding job satisfaction still remain; for example, the

controversy over whether the determinants of job satisfac-

tion lie solely in the job itself, reside wholly in the

rind of the employee, or whether job satisfaction is the

consequence cf an interaction between the employee and his

work environment (Locke, 1969).

Vaughn (1972) noted that understanding the source

ofi job satisfaction and dissatisfaction is important in it--

self neca.us of the mental health aspect. Similarly,

Qu:i n (1974) suggested that dissatisfied workers may

draw disprnporcionately on our national resources. Em-

ployees whose jobs negatively affect their physical and

mental health place an additional demand on the nation's

alre-ady overburdened health care delivery system. In

addi tion, workers who are dismissed from their jobs be-

cause of evens relatted to job di ssa. is action place a

t i.n on soc", .y, particulaly a the comrr.:-unity level,










if they are unable to find another suitable position and

must turn to unemployment compensation for financial sup-

port.

Much of the concern of management and unions today

rests in the areas of organizational structure, decision-

making processes, job enrichment programs, supervisory

training, and automation and are based on the assumption

that these factors play a very important role in influenc-

ing the feelings, attitudes, and behavior of employees.

Consequently, they are extremely interested in evaluating

the impact these processes and programs have upon their

employees.

According to Sheppard (1976) the cost of a dissatis-

fied employee has not yet been fully realized in America.

A dissatisfied worker may demonstrate his or her dissatis-

fection i:- many ways: tardiness, absenteeism, work slow

down, work stoppage, and ultimately in employee termination.

Several researchers in the field consider the problem of

employee turnover to be the greatest problem facing organ-

izations today.

Brayfield and Crockett (1955) pointed out that atti-

tudinal studies conducted on worker turnover focused ex-

clusively on job satisfaction as a predictor of tenure.

According to Thomas (1977) one need onlly scan the educa-

tional journals, The Chronicle of Higher Education for ex-

amp.le, to realize that there are abundant position vxcan-

cie particularly ii the upper echelons of educational










admnii strati on. The frequency of position turnovers at

this level may indicate the degree of job dissatisfaction

associated with these positions. However, contrary to

Thomas' (1977) observation, there have been relatively few

vacancies in the five staff positions selected for the

present study in comparison to other administrative posi-

tions within the university hierarchy, The present re-

search study is an examination of job satisfaction and

dissatisfaction among upper-level higher education admin-

istrators and an endeavor to discover whether certain

factors (notiva-ors, ambients, and hygienes) contribute

more than others to worker satisfaction and/or dissatis-

faction. From a practical side, this research study is

relevant to the selection and training of present and fu-

ture educational administrators and is important in the

c,-:elopm!ent of position assignments. Ford and Borgatta

(1970) theorized that if a job could be developed to pro-

vide greater job satisfaction. for the worker, the level of

the employee's motivation would be increased substantially.

Even though higher education is one of the nation's

largest industries (2.4 percent of the Gross National

Product in 1974--1975), little effort has been devoted to

the understanding of job satisfaction among educational

administrators, particularly those responsible for super-

\isin; the ncn--acdeoic operation of our institutions.

After an extensi \ve re'view:v of the lit eraiure by the re-

scarT(.h it became evidi:nt that, although numerous










research studies have been conducted involving job satis-

faction in education, very few studies have focused spe-

cifically on higher education. Furthermore, of those

studies concerned with higher education, the majority have

focused primarily on faculty satisfaction. This study is

one of the first investigations to concentrate solely on

administrative positions of a purely non-academic nature.

The study, to the researcher's knowledge, is the first

acteopt in which Hoy's and Mliskel's Reformulated (Ilerzberg)

Theory has been applied in an educational setting. Accord-

ing to the literature researched, Herzberg's theory, the

bast.s of the Reformulated Theory, has been applied to non-

academic administrators in higher education in only two

other instances' the Thomas (1977) study of community col-

lege administrators, and the Groseth (1978) study of stu-

dent affairs administrators, both conducted within the

Florida State University System.

It is anticipated that the findings of this investi-

gation will contribute to the knowledge of job satisfac-

tion and dissatisfaction and will provide useful informa-

tion from which to better prepare educational administra-

tors for the tasks and demands associated with their po-

sitions, In addition, valuable insight can be gained from

investigation of these administrative positions which the

Florida State University System could conceivably use in

the development of job enrichment programs to better serve

the individual needs of each institution within the system,










Delimitations and Limitations of the Study

The following constraints were observed by the re-

searcher when seeking answers to the previously stated

questions (Page 7):

1. The study focused on directors of purchasing, di-

rectors of security and safety, directors of per-

sonnel relations, directors of physical plant, and

university controllers at selected universities

within the Florida State University System. The

institutions selected for the study were chosen on

the basis of their. organizational structure; the

selection process will be discussed further in

this chapter under the subheading "Sample Selec-

tion.

2. A separate interview guide was developed for each

of the five administrative positions. The format

of questions employed in each instrument was based

on a modified version of Flanagan's (1954) and

Herzberg's, Mausner's, and Snyderman's (1959) crit-

ical incident technique. With the exception of sev-

eral introductory demographic questions, the inter-

view guide consisted of questions concerning feel-

ings of job satisfaction and/or job dissatisfaction

associated with the major job responsibilities for

each position, and two specific questions concern-

ing overall job satisfaction and dissatisfaction.










There were four limitations in the study which must be

acknowledged:

1. Since the study involved only staff in the depart-

ments of administrative affairs from institutions

within the Florida State University System, the

findings cannot and should not be generalized to

other populations.

2. The collection of data was based on information

provided by the respondents and is, therefore,

subject to their perception and interpretation.

To encourage honesty in responding, the researcher

assured each subject that the information contrib-

uted would be kept in strict confidence and would

be used only in the manner specified by the re-

searcher. Names of individuals and institutions

were not identified in the study.

3. Since the researcher administered the instruments

and classified the data according to Herzberg's

and Hoy's and Miskel's nomenclature (motivators,

hygienes, and ambients, the interpretation of the

data may be subject to the threat of internal

validity.

4. In Hoy's and Miskel's discussion of the various

components of their theory, they failed to define

the terms "adequate motivators' and "abundance, of

hygicnes" in reference to the motivator and hy-

giene components of the theory.










H hypotheses

The following hypotheses were developed by the re-

searcher to serve as a guide in testing the applicability

of Hoy's and Miskel's Reformulated Theory to selected ad-

ministrative affairs staff in the Florida State University

System.

1. For the major job tasks associated with the po-

sition of director of purchasing, motivators, as

a group, will be associated more frequently with

job satisfaction than hygienes or ambients. Ma-

jor tasks identified in the State University Sys-

tem of Florida Administrative and Professional

Job Description #9325 (1975) for this position

include:

a. develop, review, coordinate, and evaluate all

purchasing policies, procedures, and work

methods

b. interpret and transmit policies and procedures

of governmental agencies

c, complete reports and studies as required by

university, state, and federal officials

d. assist in the equipping of new building con-

struction

e, select, supervise, coordinate, and evaluate

staff

f. prepare and control budget










g. conduct long-range planning and forecasting

studies

h. consult with directors, managers, depart-

ment heads and other administrative personnel

on a regular basis

i. develop specifications for all contracted

agreements.

2. For the aforementioned major job tasks associated

with the position of director of purchasing, hy-

gienes, as a group, will be associated more fre-

quently with job dissatisfaction than motivators

or ambients.

3. For the major job tasks associated with the po-

sition of director of purchasing, ambients, as a

group, will be associated with. equal frequency

with job satisfaction and job dissatisfaction.

Major tasks identified in the State University

System of Florida Administrative and Professional

Job Description #9325 (1975) for this position

include:

a. develop, review, coordinate, and evaluate all

purchasing policies, procedures, and work

inethods

bI interpret and transmit policies and procedures

of grvcrnrnental agencies i

c. conmp le I reports and studies as required by

un.iv(ersirty. state, and federal officials










d. assist in the equipping of new building con-

struction

e. select, supervise, coordinate, and evaluate

staff

f. prepare and control budget

g. conduct long-range planning and forecasting

studies

h. consult with directors, managers, department

heads and other administrative personnel on

a regular basis

i. develop specifications for all contracted

agreements.

4. For the major job tasks associated with the posi-

tion of director of security and safety, motiva-

tors, as a group, will be associated more fre-

quently with job satisfaction than hygienes or

amrbients. Major tasks identified in the State

University System of Florida Administrative and

Professional Job Description #1893 (1975) for

this position include:

a. plan, coordinate, and evaluate all law en-

forcement and security policies and pro-

cedures.

b. select, train, supervise, and evaluate staff

c. direct and/or participate in the investiga-

tion of crimes, other offrrnses, and automo-

bi le accidents










d. plan, organize, and participate in student,

university, and community programs

e. formulate and control budget

f. organize and supervise security and traffic

control programs related to special events

g. coordinate security program with city, state,

and federal agencies.

5. For the aforementioned major job tasks associated

with the position of director of security and

safety, hygienes, as a group, will be associated

more frequently with job dissatisfaction than mo-

tivators or ambients.

6. For the major job tasks associated with the po-

sition of director of security and safety, ambi-

ents, as a group, will be associated with equal

frequency with job satisfaction and job dissatis-

faction. Major tasks identified in the State

University System of Florida Administrative and

Professional Job Description #1893 (1975) for this

position include:

a. plan, coordinate, and evaluate all law enforce-

ment and security policies and procedures

b. select, train, supervise, and evaluate staff

c. direct and/or participate in the investiga-

tion of rimes, otber offenses, and automobile

accidents










d. plan, organize, and participate in student,

university, and community programs

e. formulate and control budget

f. organize and supervise security and traffic

control programs related to special events

g. coordinate security program with city, state,

and federal agencies.

7. For the major job tasks associated with the posi-

tion of director of personnel relations, motiva-

tors, as a group, will be associated more fre-

quently with job satisfaction than hygienes or

ambients, Major tasks identified in the State

University System of Florida Administrative and

Professional Job Description #93361 (1975) for

this position include:

a. plan, recommend, implement, and interpret all

policies concerning personnel administration

and labor relations

b. direct the recruitment, employment orienta-

tion, and training of new employees

c. formulate and control budget

d. direct the maintenance of employee personnel

records

e. develop and maintain employee service programs

f, conduct .long-range p lannrirnF and forecasting

studies










g. coordinate program with other university,

state, and federal agencies

h, counsel and advise career service, administra-

tive and professional, and faculty administra-

tors in matters relating to fringe benefits

and personnel administration

i, select, train, coordinate, and evaluate staff

j. administer Workmen's Compensation, Wage and

Hour Agreement, and Unemployment Compensation.

8, For the aforementioned major job tasks associated

with the position of director of personnel rela-

tions, hygienes as a group, will be associated

more frequently with job dissatisfaction than mo-

tivators or ambients.

9. For the major job tasks associated with the posi-

tion of director of personnel relations, ambients,

as a group, will be associated with equal fre-

quency with job satisfaction and job dissatisfac-

tion. Major tasks identified in the State Univer-

sity System of Florida Administrative and Profes-

sional Job Description #93361 (1975) for this po-

sition include:

a. plan, recommend, implement, and interpret all

policies concerning personnel administration

and labor relations

b. direc.c the recruitment, employment orientation,

and training of new employees









c. formulate and control budget

d, direct the maintenance of employee personnel

records

e. develop and maintain employee service programs

f. conduct long-range planning and forecasting

studies

g. coordinate program with other university,

state, and federal agencies

h. counsel and advise career service, administra-

tive and professional, and faculty administra-

tors in matters relating to fringe benefits

and personal administration

i. select, train, coordinate, and evaluate staff

j. administer Workmen's Compensation, Wage and

Hour Agreement, and Unemployment Compensation.

10. For the major job tasks associated with the posi-

tion of director of physical plant, motivators, as

a group, will be associated more frequently with

job satisfaction than hygienes or ambients. Major

tasks identified in the State University System of

Florida Administrative and Professional Job Des-

cription #9353 (1975) for this position include:

a. select, train, coordinate, and evaluate staff

b. plan, organize, and direct the operation and

maintenance of the physical plant

C. consult and advise campus. local, and state

officials










d. interpret, communicate, and recommend all poli-

cies within state and federal laws

e. prepare and control budget

f. initiate cost studies and conduct long-range

planning

g. assist architects, engineers, and contractors

with building construction and/or renovation.

11. For the aforementioned major job tasks associated

with the position of director ol physical plant,

hygienes, as a group, will be associated more fre-

quently with job dissatisfaction than motivators

or ambients.

12, For the major job tasks associated with the posi-

tion of director of physical plant, ambients, as

a group, will be associated with equal frequency

with job satisfaction and job dissatisfaction.

Major tasks identified in the State University

System of Florida Administrative and Professional

Job Description #9353 (1975) for this position in-

clude:

a. select, train, coordinate, and evaluate staff

b. plan, organize, and direct the operation and

maintenance of the physical plant

c. consult and advise campus, local, and state

officials

d,. interpret, communicate, and recommend all pol-

icies within state and federal laws










e. prepare and control budget

i. initiate cost studies and conduct long-range

planning

g. assist architects, engineers, and contractors

with building construction and/or renovation.

13, For the major job tasks associated with the posi-

tion of university controller, motivators, as a

group, will be associated more frequently with job

satisfaction than hygienes or ambients. Major

tasks identified in the State University System of

Florida Administrative and Professional Job Des-

cription #9297 (1975) for this position include:

a. plan, organize, and direct the fiscal and ac-

counting function of a university

b, prepare periodic and special fiscal reports

c. budget analysis and control

d. develop and administer policies and procedures

within state and federal guidelines

e. interpret and communicate fiscal policies as

required by the Federal Government

f. select, train, coordinate, and evaluate staff

g. coordinate program with university, state, and

federal officials

h. supervise the receipt and disbursement of all

general university funds, and the billing and

collection of all general university receiv-

ables.










14. For the aforementioned job tasks associated with

the position of university controller, hygienes,

as a group, will be associated more frequently

with job dissatisfaction than motivators or am-

bients.

15, For the major job tasks associated with the posi-

tion of university controller, ambients, as a

group, will be associated with equal frequency

with job satisfaction and job dissatisfaction.

Major tasks identified in the State University

System of Florida Administrative and Professional

Job Description #9297 (1975) for this position

include:

a. plan, organize, and direct the fiscal and ac-

counting function of a university

b. prepare periodic and special fiscal reports

c. budget analysis and control

d. develop and administer policies and procedures

within state and federal guidelines

e. interpret and communicate fiscal policies as

required by the Federal Government

f. select, train, coordinate, and evaluate staff

g. coordinate program with university, state,

and federal officials

h, supervise the receipt and disbursement of all

general university funds, and the billing and

collection of all general university receiv-

:ble s.










16. For the five administrative positions researched

(director of purchasing, director of security and

safety, director of personnel relations, director

of physical plant, and university controller) mo-

tivators, as a group, will be associated more fre-

quently with job satisfaction than will hygienes

or ambients.

17. For the five administrative positions researched

(director of purchasing, director of security and

safety, director of personnel relations, director

of physical plant, and university controller) hy-

gienes, as a group, will be associated more fre-

quently with job dissatisfaction than will moti-

vators or ambients.

18. For the five administrative positions researched

(director of purchasing, director of security and

safety, director of personnel relations, director

of physical plant, and university controller) am-

bients, as a group, will be associated with equal

frequency with job satisfaction and dissatisfac-

tion.

19. For the five administrative positions researched

(director of purchasing, director of security and

safety, director of personnel relations, director

oP physical plant, and university controller) mo-

ti.vators, as a group, will be associated more fre-

qulently, with overall job satisfaction than hy-

giJnes or amnbients.









20. For the five administrative positions researched

(director of purchasing, director of security and

safety, director of personnel relations, director

of physical plant, and university controller) hy-

gienes, as a group, will be associated more fre-

quently with overall job dissatisfaction than mo-

tivators or ambients,

21. For the five administrative positions researched

(director of purchasing, director of security and

safety, director of personnel relations, director

of physical plant, and university controller) am-

bients, as a group, will be associated with equal

frequency in overall job satisfaction and overall

job dissatisfaction.


Definition of Terms

Ambients. Factors which, according to Hoy and Miskel, con-

tribute to an employee's satisfaction and dissatisfaction

with equal frequency; for example, salary, status, and risk

opportunity.

Critical incident. A situation which has been identified

a:; producing feelings of satisfaction or dissatisfaction

related to an individual's job.

Dir.otor of personnel relatio s. The highest ranking ad-

mLnistrative officer at each university under the vice pres-

ident for administrative affairs whose major responsibility

in; the ;;ma;:g'l.men: to all aspects of personnel administration










and labor relations activities. He or she is responsible

for administration of a coordinated system of personnel

management for all administrative, professional, and career

service employees including retirement counseling and

fringe benefit programs. In addition, he or she assists

faculty supervisors in the administration of employee rela-

rions services.

Director of physical plant. The highest ranking adminjs-

trative officer at each university under the vice president

for administrative affairs whose major responsibility is

the management of all activities of the physical plant di-

vision. He or she is responsible for grounds maintenance,

buil.t.ng maintenance, telephone service, utility distribu-

tion and generation.

Director of purchasing. The highest ranking administrative

officer at each university under the vice president for ad-

.miuiscrative affairs whose major responsibility is the man-

agement of all activities of the purchasing division. He

or she is responsible, under state statutes and regula-

tions of the State Purchasing Division, for the acquisition

of all commodities and services required by the university,

bidding procedures, establishment of contracts, and lease

arrangements for equipment and premises.

Director of security and safety. The highest ranking ad-

ministrative officer at each university under the vice

president Lor administrative affairs whose major responsi-

bility is the management of all activities of the police










department in the protection of life and property within

the university community.

igienes. Factors which, according to Herzberg et al.,

contribute to an employee's dissatisfaction and are related

to the context portion of a person's job; for example, work-

ing conditions, company policy and administration, and in-

terpersonal relations.

Job satisfaction. The pleasoreable emotional state result-

ing from the appraisal of one's job as achieving or facili-

tating the achievement of one's job values.

ojior job responsibilities. Duties assigned to, associated

with, or assumed by a particular administrator and identi-

fied in the State University System of Florida Administra-

tive and Professional Job Description.

Motivators. Factors which, according to Herzberg et al.,

ar1- associated with producing employee satisfaction and

are related co the content portion of an individual's job;

for example, achievement, recognition, and responsibility.

University controller. The highest ranking administrative

officer at each university under the vice president for ad-

miiaistrative affairs whose major responsibility is the man-

ag-imeut of all activities of the finance and accounting di-

visioi. He or sh'e Is responsible for the maintenance of

accounting records, collection and disbursement of univer-

s. ty :iun;s, control of the annual budget, and the prepar-

ation of' financiall. statements.









Research Methodology

The purpose of this research study, as previously

stated, was to test the applicability of Hoy's and Miskel's

Reformulated (Herzberg) Theory and to examine job satis-

faction and dissatisfaction within five specific adminis-

trative positions in administrative affairs. A modifica-

tion of Flanagan's (1954) critical incident technique, a

technique which was refined and applied successfully by

EHrzberg et al. (1959),was utilized in the collection of

data. Each respondent was asked to describe a situation

regarding his or her present position in which they felt

exceptionally good and another in which they felt excep-

tionally bad concerning the major job responsibilities as-

sociated with their position. Their responses then were

classified on the basis of Hoy's and Miskel's 16 factors

relating to job satisfaction and dissatisfaction.

According to Fox (1969) the critical incident tech-

nioue is an extremely useful instrument. It combines some

of the advantages of the impersonal interaction with the

fact that the respondents themselves select incidents which

they feel are significant to the study. The critical in-

cident techniques "avoids the problem of the perception of

the outuJde observer reading motives into the behavior of

the respondent" (Fox, 1069, p. 559). A second advantage

often cited by researchers in the utilization of this

t!:'-cnicnque thUnt th- respondent is a lowed to provide in-

formationa which wioun.d not otherwise e be easily obtained by

applici.-,tion of a different procedure.










Sample Selection

Individuals occupying five key administrative posi-

tions within administrative affairs in the Florida State

System were interviewed. The positions studied included:

director of purchasing, director of security and safety,

director of personnel relations, director of physical

plant, and university controller. The decision to include

cr exclude a particular university from the ilivescigation

was based upon the institution's administrative affairs

organizational structure. Consideration was given to those

institutions at which the administrative positions being

researched reported directly to the vice president for ad-

ministrative affairs. However, due to the variety of or--

ganizational structures in existence throughout the Florida

Statt University System and the presence or absence of the

positions in question, it became necessary to interview at

lerst one administrative type from each of the campuses in

the Florida State University System, with the exception of

the University of West Florida in Pensacola. Institutions

included in the study were: University of Florida in

Gainesville; Florida State University in Tallahassee;

Florida Agricultural and Mechanical University in

Tallahassee; Florida Technological University in Orlando;

University of South Florida in Tampa; University of North

Florida in Jacksonville; Florida AtlanLic University in

Boca Raton; and Florida Internatioral University in Miami.










Instrumentat ion

Five parallel interview guides modeled after those

utilized by I!erzberg et al. (1959), Thomas (1977), and

Groseth (1978) were developed by the researcher. The in-

strumentf, were designed for the purpose of examining the

degree of job satisfaction and job dissatisfaction asso-

ciated with five administrative positions in administra-

:'iv affairs and the major job responsibilities associated

with each of these positions. The research instruments

also included several demographic questions which provided

the researcher with essential background information from

which to develop an administrative profile for each po-

sition.

The researcher reviewed several institutional and

Florida Sliate University System Position Descriptions be-

Afore selecting the major job responsibilities associated

witb each position. One document which proved helpful in

this undertaking was the Florida State University System

Position Description Statement for Administrative and Pro-

fessional Staff (1975), Class Codes #9353, #9297; #1893,

.9325, and #9336. In addition, personal appointments were

made with the director of purchasing (Baumer, 1978); di-

rector of physical plant (Greene, 1978); director of cam-

pus security (Shuler, 1978); and director of personnel re-

lations (Button, 1978) at the University of Florida for

the pluipose of i denti ying major institutional job respon-

sijblitie








any major job responsibility from the interview guide

which they felt more accurately reflected their primary

responsibilities.

Data Collection

The data collection process employed by the researcher

cc.rsisted of four basic steps, The first involved sending

a letter to the Vice Chancellor for Admrrnistratien and Sup-

pcr- for the Florida State University System, Mr. Steve

:!cArthur, which briefly explained the purpose of the re-

search study and requested his cooperation and support in

this endeavor.

Stop two of the data collection process involved a

second letter authored Ly Mr. Steve McArthur and sent to

each of the administrative vice presidents at the eight

selected universities in the State University System. In

edditio,0 to sol .iting support and cooperation for the

project, the letter requested each vice president to name

thr individuals at his/her institution who occupied the

positions selected for the study.

In step three the researcher then scheduled appoint-

lments with the individuals named to participate in the

stidy. The intcrvierws were scheduled during the first

part ,o October, 1978. Arranging the interviews for this

particular period ensured that the majority of administra-

tor:-; ,-'eCr available to participate in the study.

The fouILh aid final step in tLh dta collection pro-

ces; wa~ the interview itself. EL :h jn erL'iew; Lasted









approximately one hour. The researcher utilized the appro-

priate Interview Guide (see Appendices A, B, C, D, and E).

At the onset of each interview the researcher assured

each respondent that the information collected would be

used only for the purpose outlined by the researcher and,

under no circumstances, would the institution or person be

identified in the study. Also, as standard procedure, the

researcher briefly reiterated the purpose of the study for

each respondent.

Data Analysis

The first step in the data analysis involved classi-

fication of each critical incident reported to determine

which of Hoy's and Miskul's 16 factors was the most influ-

ential: achievement, recognition, work itself, responsi-

bility, or advancement (motivators); relationship with sub-

ordinates, relationship with peers, supervision-technical,

co-pany policy and administration, job security, personal

life, or working conditions (hygienes); salary, growth pos-

sibility, risk opportunity, relationship with superordinates,

or status (ambients). Definitions developed by Herzberg

et al. (1959) and Hoy and Miskel (1978) were employed. Each

critical incident was indexed and recorded in a frequency

distribution based upon those factors (of the 16 factors)

found to be the most dominant. It was necessary in some

instances to assign more than one factor to a particular

critical incident when it was determined that two factors

wer-e equally infJl u ai..










The statistical analysis of the data followed as the

next step in the process. The researcher, adhering to the

recommendations of Fox (1969), Siegel (1956), and Hoscoe

(1975) concerning the proper use of Chi-square, utilized

this statistical procedure only if there were five or more

responses in at least 80 percent of the cells in the; Chi-

scuare. In situations where there were less than five re-

s;pn.ses to a cell, the researcher employed a Bayesian sta-

tistical procedure known as the Probable Impact Exploration

System (P.I.E.S.), According to Nickens (1977), the pro-

cedure would enable the researcher to estimate probabilities

of impact ranges on data where only a minimal number of sam-

ples were available for analysis and limits (ranges) had

not been previously established.

Organizat on of Subsequent Chapters

Th-e second chapter presents an in-depth review of the

rese;-.-ch literature concerning the involvement of job sat-

is-:Etion theories, with particular emphasis devoted to ad-

mni.-strators in higher education. Chapter III contains the

findings of this research study; Chapter IV presents analy-

see and discussion of the data in relation to the 21 hypoth-

eses. The final chapter consists of a summary of the study,

conclusions, and suggestions for further research.















CHAPTER II


REVIEW OF THE LITERATURE


The following chapter consists of eight sections. The

f-.zt provides the basic foundation for understanding job

satisfaction and begins by reviewing theories involving in-

dividual needs, commonly referred to as need reduction or

gratification theories. The five theories discussed under

this; classification include Murray's Theory of Psychogenic

Needs, -Massow's Hiera.e'-y of Needs Theory, Alderfer's Exis-

tence, Relatedn-ss and Growth (E.R.G.) Theory, McGreger's

Theory X and Theory Y, and the Work Adjustmeni Theory.

Section rto exxaines those theories which are relativ-

isicl cr expce'tancy n nature. The four theories discussed

include Vroom's Validation, Instrumentality and Expectancy

(VT.E.) Theory, Lawler and Por-cer's Intrinsic/Extrinsic

Theory, Adai-'s Equity Theory, and the Smith, Kendall and

e-lin Cornell Approach.

Section three rvi ews the traditional theory of job

sa. tsaciionl, and sections four, five and six present an

in-depth examination of Herzberg's Two-Factor Theory.

So~,e of the more prominent research studies, both supportive

anr' critical of IHerzberg's theory, are discussed.









Section seven examines in detail the most recent

theory to emerge in the area of job satisfaction, the Hoy

and Miskel Reformulated (Herzberg) Theory.

The final section presents a review of studies con-

ducted in higher education which focus on non-academic

administrators.


Need Reduction/Gratification Theories
of Job Satisfaction

One of the first theories to concern itself with the

needs of man was proposed by Henry A. Murray (1938) and was

knIo;n as the Theory of Psychogenic Needs. Murray studied a

number of people utilizing various instruments (interviews,

questionnnires, and psychological tests) from which he de-

veloped a list of 20 social motives called "psychogenic

needs." Included in the list were such characteristics as

achievement, dominance, nurturance, order, and play. This

was one of the. first attempts on the part of a theorist to

ca;.-gcri ae the needs of man.

One of the most recognized and most often cited the-

ories concerning worker satisfaction is Abraham Maslow's

Hi.erachy of Needs Theory. Maslow's theory consists of

five levels of needs: (a) physiological, (b) safety, (c)

belongingness or love, (d) esteem, and (e) self-actualiza-

tion. Each need level is related to the next in a hier-

:rchi.ai fashion (Ma,.slov,; 1954) with self-actual ization needs

ai ti- .top o' tho hierarchy and physio logical needs located










at the bottom (see Figure i for a diagram of Maslow's Need

Hierarchy).







Self
actual-
izatio.n:
to become
everything
that one is cap-
able of becoming
(measure up to our
own criteria of success

Esteem needs: self-
respect, positive self-
evaluation, prestige
(dependent on others)

Belongingness and love needs:
love, affection, friends compan-
ionship (dependent on self & others)

Safety needs: protection \
from the elements
/ (dependent on self & others)

/ Physiological needs:
hunger, thirst, sex, etc.
(dependent on self)



Figure 1. Maslow's Hierarchy of Needs


MasJow theorized that each need level is related to the

state of satisfaction or dissatisfaction of other needs. As

one o' the lower level needs becomes satisfied, a person's

inter-est switches to the next higher level need, etc. The

ult imutc goal of man, according to M.aslow (195'1), is to at-

ta.in sc el'-actualiz action or become every lhing that one i.s










capable of becoming. Maslow's Need Hierarchy Theory is

based on the premise that the lower order needs are never

completely satisfied, and if their satisfaction is deprived

for a given period of time, they evolve into strong motiva-

tors. The higher order needs on the other hand (self-

actualization and esteem) are rarely satisfied and must be

continually sought. Once a need is satisfied, it no longer

acTs as a motivator.

Even though Maslow's Hierarchy of Needs Theory is not

well supported by empirical research, there appears to be a

general consensus in the research literature that when more

of Maslow's basic needs are satisfied, the individual's job

satisfaction is likely to be greater. Blai (1964) found

that out of 470 people representing various occupations, job

security, work responsibilities, and self-actualization were

the strongest job satisfiers.

Another theory which focuses on the needs of individ-

-nas and is closely related to Maslow's Need Hierarchy The-

ory is Alderfer's E.R.G. Theory. This theory is based on

the assumption that people have certain needs which are, to

some degree. satisfied by their jobs. Alderfer (1969) con-

cluded that indLviduals have three basic needs which they

ccnstcantly strive to satisfy: (a) existence needs, (b) re-

latedness needs, and (c) growth needs. Although these

lhree iueds ;.re arranged in a quasi-hie archial fashion,

.ith exit.ee needs at the bottom ann growth needs on top,

ithe order iJ. not strictly adhered to Unli] e iis-oWv,'.










hierarchy, the fulfillment of lower order needs is not a

prerequisite for the emergence of higher order needs.

Inherent in the E.R.G. Theory is the concept of inter-

changeability within and between need levels. Within a

specific need class an individual may turn toward other ob-

jectives if unable to attain a specific one. An individual

,'ho focuses attention on an increase in fringe benefits if

h-s or her salary is unsatisfactory is an example of trans-

ferability within a need level. Alderfer (1969) theorized

that between need categories two cycles of transfer exist:

The first cycle occurs between existence and growth needs,

whereas the second cycle is present between relatedness

needs and growth neeas. Should an individual become frus-

traLted in satisfying relatedness needs, his or her atten-

tion will tuin toward existence needs for greater material

gratification (see Figure 2 for a comparisonn between Maslow's

Need Hierarchy and Alderfer's E.R.G. Hierarchy).

Existence needs include material substances and the

process involved in attaining these items. Needs classi-

fied in this category include: food, water, pay, fringe

benefits. Relatedness needs include persons or groups in-

volved in sharing thoughts and feelings and consist of

family, friends, supervisors, and subordinates. Growth

needs pertain to environmental settings and the process

thp individual undergoes in generating creative effects

on himnse:l and the environment.










MASLOW ALDERFER


Physiological --Existence
Existence
Safety -----
Safy Relatedness

Love

Esteem
Growth
Self-Actualization


Figure 2. A comparison of Maslow's Need Hierarchy
to Alderfer's E.R.G. Need Hierarchy



In his book entitled the Human Side of Enterprise,

Douglas McGregor (1960) identified two opposing points of

view regarding the nature of man. He referred to the first

view as Theory X; the second, Theory Y.

Theory X, often referred to as the traditional view of

man, is based on the lower order needs and the following

tsiree assumptions:

1. The average human being has an inherent
dislike for work and will avoid it if he
can.

2. Because of the human characteristic of
dislike of work, most people must be co-
erced, controlled, directed, or threat-
ened with punishment in order to put
forth adequate effort toward the achieve-
ment of organizational objectives.

3. The average human being prefers to be di-
rected, wishes to avoid responsibility,
has relatively little ambition, and wants
security above all. (McGregor. 1960,
pp. 33-34)

Theory Y, a more flatI'ering view of man, is based on

th:'e higher order nee'd.s aHd this six assumptions:









1. The expenditure of physical and mental
effort in work is as natural as play
or rest.

2. External control and the threat of pun-
ishment are not the only means of bring-
ing about effort toward organizational
objectives. Man will exercise self-
direction and self-control in the ser-
vice of objectives to which he is com-
mitted.

3. Commitment to objectives is related to
the rewards associated with their achieve-
ment.

4. The average human being learns, under
proper conditions, not only to accept
but also to seek responsibility.

5. The capacity to exercise high degrees of
imagination, ingenuity, and creativity in
the solution of organizational problems
is widely, not narrowly, distributed in
the population.

6. Under conditions of modern industrial life,
the intellectual potentialities of the
average human being are only partially
utilized. (McGregor, 1960, pp. 47-48)

McGregcr's Theory is based upon the assumption that in-

diviauals will exercise self-direction and self-control in

the achiJe'rment of organizational objectives if and to the

extent zhey commit themselves to those objectives.

The Work Adjustment Theory, the final theory discussed

in this section, was developed by Dawis, Lofquist, and

Wei-.s (1968). The theory focuses on the interaction be-

tween an individual and his environment and assumes that

pecile ,strive to achieve and maintain a close relationship

with their n, ironnmonts. The theory consists of three basic

corpo I en- (a) the re-enforcer system of the work









environment (the rewards available from a job), (b) the in-

divi-dual's needs (what an individual desires to obtain from

the work environment), and (c) the individual's abilities.

Satisfaction on the job, according to Dawis et al. (1968)

depends largely on the degree of correspondence between

what an individual needs from his environment and what the

environment provides.


Expectancy and Other Relativistic
Theories of Job Satisfaction

One of the most prominent theories among active re-

searchers in the field of motivation is known as the Ex-

pectancy or V.I.E. Theory. This theory was first formalized

by Vroom (1964) in his book entitled Work and Motivation.

The theory involves four concepts: (a) valence, (b) expec-

tancy, (c) instrumentality, and (d) force.

Valence is defined as an individual's perception of

the value of the reward or outcoro-e that might be obtained

by performing effectively. An outcome has positive valence

when a person desires to attain it and a negative valence

if the person does not desire the outcome.

The second concept, instrumentality, is the degree to

which an individual believes that one outcome is associated

with the attainment of other outcomes (Georgeopoulous,

'Mahboney, and Jones 1957). For example, an outstanding per-

.orir.ance will most likely result in an increase in nalar-y.

Instrutmentali ty relates one outcome to another. It is sim-

ilai to a corroe l tion coefficient in that it varjies from a










"plus one" to a "negative one." A plus' one indicates that

the second outcome will result if the first outcome occurs,

and a negative one indicates that a second outcome will def-

initely not occur if the first outcome occur.

Expectancy represents an individual's belief that a

particular outcome is associated with his behavior; for ex-

-',ple. increased effort on the part of an individual will

result in higher performance. The beliefs vary in scope

from a "1.0" to "0.0." A "1.0" indicates that a particular

outcome will definitely follow the behavior whereas the

"0.0" indicates that it will not.

Broedling (1975) theorized that the V.I.E. Theory is

based on the premise that motivation is "the result of the

extent to which an individual perceives that he or she can

and wants to perform well and the extent to which he or she

perceives that such performance will produce a desired out-

corA'e (Broedling, 1975. p. 67).

As defined by Vroom (cited in Mitchell, 1974, p. 1054)

job satisfaction is:


V. = (V Ijk

k = .


where V. = valence of outcome j,

Vk = valence of outcome k,

In number of ouL;-tcors,

Ijk = perc ei ved instrumentality of outcome

j for the attainment of outcome Jk










Expectancy Theory is primarily a theory of the individ-

ual which attempts to explain the process factors affecting

an individual's choices between alternative acts of behavior.

If an individual views money as a reward, then the more

money he makes from his job, the more attracted he will be

to his work role (Vroom, 1964).

Expectancy Theory concerns itself with situational

va'iables as they are perceived by the individual rather

than variables as they might be measured or estimated by

someone other than the individual. The theory assumes that

i is the perceived value of the variables which affects the

individual's behavior.

Expectancy Theory is a point or view which does not

specify which factors relate in what ways to satisfaction

or dissatisfaction. Instead, it speculates on the possi-

bility tha- satisfaction is a relativistic phenomenon; for

example, "persons develop different personal standards for

evaluating the amount of whatever kinds of satisfactions

the work offers" (Zytowski. 1968, v. 400).

Although Vroom (1964) provides one of the most con-

sistent interactionist theories to datF, a problem arises

concerning tho double usage of the concept of valence. On

ore band, the valence of an object or outcome is defined

as "one's desire for or anticipated satisfaction with some-

thi; not yet attained" .and on another, it is used ~snony-

moiusly with "one's degree of satisf'i tion with objects

whliici, one now )os.w2sses" (Vroou n, 1964., pp. 100-,10 ).






45 .


Researchers such as Campbell, Borgen, Eastes, Johansson,

and Peterson (1968) and Graen, Dawis, and Weiss (1969) con-

cluded that empirical tests provide moderate support for

the V.I.E. Theory.

Lawler and Porter (1967) offered an interesting vari-

ation to the Expectancy Theory and treated satisfaction as

a function of performance (see Figure 3 for Lawler's Model

cf Job Satisfaction).


Intrinsic
Rewards


Performance Perceived Equitable
Accompplishment __.e;ard = Job Satis-
S faction


Extrinsic
Rewards


Figure 3. Lawler's Model of Job Satisfaction


According to Lawler's model, performance leads to two

types of rewards, extrinsic and intrinsic. Extrinsic re-

wards are seen as being imperfectly related to performance

due to the difficulty of making rewards such as pay, promo-

tion, and security contingent upon performance. Intrinsic

rewards, contend Lawler and Porter (1967), are different in

that they refer to feelings of accomplishment which can be

given by the individual to himself. Thus, the relationship

between intrinsic rewards and performance is seen as more

di to-ti ve in nature.










Equity Theory is another theory of job satisfaction

which is closely related to Vroom's Expectancy Theory. It

is based on the assumption that individuals have an expec-

tation of an "equitable" reward level which they receive

from a social exchange. Employees have perceptions of their

worki-related outcomes (pay, recognition, and status) as well

a. -;vork-related inputs (job efforts, aptitude, and personal

ss.erifice) made in order to be on the job each day. People

also have perceptions of others' work-related outcomes and

inpits (Motowidlo, Dowell, Hopp, Borman, Johnson, and

Dunnette, 1976).

Tuttle and Hazel (1974) suggest that the theory re-

volves around the basic concepts oi "input" and "outcome."

Tlpuits are attributes which are brought to the exchange and

are perceived as relevant to the exchange. An attribute is

relevant if the person expects to receive a return. Out-

co.ro, ou the other hand, are an individual's receipt for

t.-; exchar.ge. Outcomes may be positive (pay, status, good

paci.king) or they may be negative (monotony, poor working

c-'nditians). If an individual perceives his rewards rela-

tive to his inputs equal to rewards others receive relative

to their inputs, t.he individual will experience job satis-

f.ction. Hoe.r--ve if an individual perceives his rewards

as being bo-eqal, over-rewa.rdod or under-rewarded relative

to another, the individual will experience job dissatis-

f'c t i on.










Although there have been several equity theory formu-

lations proposed, Adams' Equity Theory (1965) is considered

by many researchers to be the most complete. Adams claimed

that inequity exists when an individual perceives that the

ratio of his outcomes to his inputs are not equal to the

outcome/input ratio of another person. Equity Theory is

vre-r individualistic, its orientation always through the

e-es of the individual. Inputs and outcomes which are per-

ceived to be functioning by the person may or may not cor-

respond to the inputs and outcomes perceived to be function-

ing by other parties to the exchange relationship.

A strategy approach to the study of job satisfaction,

called the Cornell Studies, was developed in 1969 by Smith,

Kendaii, and Hulin. The approach measured several aspects

of job satisfaction through an instrument called the Job

Description Index (J.D.I.).

Smith et al. (1969) listed the following ten implica-

tions of thoir strategy:

1. An adequate model of satisfaction must take
into account interactive effects among var-
iables.

2. Relationships between satisfaction and overt
behavior vary from situation to situation.

3. Relations !ps between satisfaction and be-
havior cannot be reasonably expected unless
the behavior can be considered to be appro-
pri:Lte means of expressing satisfaction and
dissatisfaction.

4. Th!e manner in which questions are asked af-
fectcs thLe, time perspective of the respondent
and there ,ore af 'ects the alt rn:.iver: he
considers.










5. Satisfaction is a product of other variables
and may or may not. serve as a cause in itself.

6. There may be a relationship between satis-
faction and behavior since the same vari-
ables producing the satisfaction might also
produce the behavior, or changes in behavior
may act to change the situation and, there-
fore, satisfaction.

7. The relationship between satisfaction and
performance will vary depending on the as-
pect of the job being studied.

8. The importance of each aspect of the job sit-
ua.tion influences the individual's feeling of
satisfaction. Importance is considered to be
a function of the discrepancy between the ex-
isting situation and the alternatives avail-
able.

9. Legitimacy, the group norms defining the lo-
giTimate requirements for a job for a speci-
fied group, influence the acceptance of a
task and the attitude toward it.

10. It is, therefore, the interrelationship of
objective factors of the job, of individual
capacities and experience, of alternatives
available in the company and the community,
and of the values of the individual, that
can be expected to predict satisfaction and
performance. (Smith et al., 1969, p. 165)

The Cornell Studies do not represent a theory in and of

tihelmreves, but provide a useful guide from which to build

a theory of job satisfaction.


Traditional Theory of
Job Satisfaction -

Bockmar (1971) described the TraGicional Theory o job

satisfaTction as being the total body of feeling an individ-

.a! hai' about hi. or he.r job. This feelin:- encoTmpasses

bo,.h jo-rel ted and eor'v.on'meont-refl a t factor and [lucti.--

atoe (;n 'a. sin gle conti nui'm between n a condition of sati faction










and dissatisfaction. Midway between satisfaction and dis-

satisfaction is a condition of neutrality in which the in-

dividual is neither satisfied nor dissatisfied (see Figure 4

for an illustration of Bockman's Traditional Model of Job

Satisfaction).

Bockman (1971) theorized that if an individual is de-

prived of pay, advancement, recognition, or a. combination

of factors, he moves toward the negative end of the con-

tinuum unless the presence of other factors counterbalance

this effect. Consequently, adding or improving a factor,

salary for instance, causes movement in a positive direc-

tion. Supporters of the Traditional Theory feel that if the

presence of a variable in the work situation leads to job

satisfaction, then logically its absence will lead to job

dissatisfaction.

Carroll presented the following illustration:

If a worker earns $200 per month and gets
a $40 increase, he will be pushed further
on the satisfaction-continuum than if he
only received a $20 increase. If his sal-
ary is cut by $20, he will logically be
pushed on the end continuum toward the
dissatisfaction, (Carroll, 1969, p. 6)


Job Factors

Negative or Absent Positive or Present


Dissatisfaction Satisfaction

Neutrality


Figure 4. Bocki'an s 'Traditional lModel of
Job Satisfaction









Herzberg's Two-Factor Theory
of Job Satisfaction

In their book entitled The Motivation to Work. Herzberg,

MSausner, and Snyderman (1959) developed the concept that cer-

tain types of factors are more commonly associated with feel-

ings of satisfaction whereas other factors are more frequent-

ly associated with feelings of dissatisfaction. Herzberg

t Ral. (1959) tested this unique concept on 203 male en-

gineers and accountants in Pittsburg, Pennsylvania.

The methodology employed by Herzherg and associates

has its origin in the critical incident method developed by

Flanagan (1954). Subjects were asked to describe incidents

which led to marked increases oi do-reases in their job sat-

isfaction, the reasons why these incidents caused the

chaingefs in satisfaction, the duration of the changes, and

heir impact on the performance of the individual.

n. first question asked was:

Think of a time in the past when you felt
exceptionally good about your job. It may
have been on this job or any other. Can
you think of such a high point in your feel-
ings about your job? Please tell me' about
it. (Herzberg, !Mausner, and Snyderman,
1950, p. 20)

The second question asked for an example of when the re-

spondent felt exceptionally bad about his or her job.

iierzberg and his staff analyzed the content of the in-

te0rview statements and divided thenor into "thought units"

abit a :-;J gle event or condi Lion that. evoked a particular

f~'elinb, or a descrip ion of a. csigle ei [eel of events

(:. 'dc'l y, 1977).









Based on the outcome of this data, Herzberg et al..

(1959) developed their theory on job attitudes called the

Two-Factor Theory or Motivator-Iygiene Theory. Herzberg and

associatess found that there were two sets of factors respon-

sible for bringing about either job satisfaction or job dis-

a.-tisfaction. The first set of factors involved the actual

d.,ing of the job (the job content or intrinsic aspects of

t.; ,job) anId wvas referred to as "satisfiers" or "motivators.

The second set of factors identified concerned the environ-

ment-al setting cf the job (the surrounding conditions) and

wa. called "hvienles" or "dissatisfiers."

Cummings auid El Salmi (1968) divi-ed the Herzberg the-

ory into the following four concepuo:

1. Job satisfaction and job dissatisfaction
are unrelated and are not opposite one
another on a single bipolar continuum.
Instead, they are separate and distinct
continue (see Figure 5 for Herzberg's
Two-Factor Attitude Model).

2. The opposite of job satisfaction is not
job dissatisfaction; it is no job sat-
isfaction. Conversely; the opposite of
job dissatisfaction is not job satisfac-
tion, it is no job dissatisfaction.



Satisfaction (Satisfiers/ No Satisfaction
S i Motiva ors)


No Dissatisfaction (Dissatisfier/ Dissatisfaction
Hygienes)
~~-- ----------;-- --- -J-


Figure' 5. llerzberg's Two--Factor Attitude Miodel









3. Job satisfaction is determined by the feel-
ing the employee has towards the content of
his job or job environment. Content job fac-
tors are classified as: achievement, recog-
nition, advancement, responsibility, and
work itself. These factors were mentioned
most often by those interviewed as factors
which gave the most saLisfaction.

4. Job dissatisfaction is determined by the
feelings the individual has toward the context
of his job. Context factors include: com-
pany policy and administration, technical as-
pects io supervision, interpersonal relations
with supervision, salary, and working condi-
tions. These factors were mentioned most of-
ten as causing the employee the most dissat-
isfaction. (Cummings and El Salmi, 1968,
p. 133)

In the H-erh-er'g et al. (1959) original study, only five

factors were :identified as being motivators: advancement,

achbievem.it, recognition, work itself, and responsibility.

It rva- nrt until later that Iierzborg discovered a sixth moti-

vating factor, which he called "possibility of growth."

The six moi..vators or satisfiers as defined by Iierzberg

et al. (1959) and Herzberg (1968) follow:

1. Advancement refers to actual changes in
The 'st-ats or position -of an individual in
an organization. It also includes the
probability of or hope of advancement.

2. Achievement refers to all events which
lead toward realization of the worker's
personal objectives (successful comple-
tion of a job, finding a solution to a
problem, or seeing the results of one's
ow, work). The definition also includes
the opposite--failure to achieve.

3. Ilecoga i.tion comprises some act of praise,
not. ice (posit ive recogni tion) or blame
(ner tJ ivc )r'.ongtitjon) toard the emplIoy a
ifro the work eDnv:i.'ron"ntn (a peer, pro-
eLs lto1nal coll league, supervisor, or the
g-eIn. b pIublic).









4. Work itself denotes the actual doing of
the job or the tasks of the job as a source
of good or bad feelings. It also refers to
the opportunity to complete an assigned
unit of work.

5. Responsibility relates to authority and
includes those sequences of events in
which the worker mentioned satisfaction de-
rived from being given responsibility for
his own work or the work of others, or
being given new responsibility. Also in-
cluded were those incidents in which there
was a loss of satisfaction from lack of
responsibility.

6. Possibility of growth refers to growth in
specific skill areas as well as growth in
status which would enable the individual
to move onward and upward in a company.
This factor also encompasses the lack of
opportunity for growth. (Herzberg, 1966,
pp. 193-198)

Herzberg et al. (1959) identif.id five hygienes or dis-

satisfiers in their initial study: salary, working condi-

tions, supervision-technical, interpersonal relations, and

company policy and administration. Three additional factors

vere f-.und to contribute to job dissatisfaction as a result

of later experimentation: status, personal life, and job

security.

The eight hygienes or dissatisfiers as defined by

Herzberg (1966) include:

1. Salary includes all sequences of events
in which some type of compensation (wage
or salary increase) play a role. Unful-
filled expectations to receive an expected
salary increase is also included in; this
category.

2. Working condi ions refers to the physical
conditions of work and the facilities avail-
able for performing the work (adequate tools,
space, lighting, or ventilation).









3. Supervis ion-technical includes those events
in which the competence or incompetence of
the supervisor are the critical factors.
Statements concerning a supervisor's will-
ingness or unwillingness to delegate re-
sponsibility or his willingness or unwill-
ingness to instruct are included.

4. Interpersonal relations involve actual ver-
balization about the characteristics of the
interaction between the worker and another
individual. Three categories of interper-
sonal relations are specified: those in-
volving subordinates, those involving peers,
those concerning supervisors.

5. Company policy and administration includes
factors in which some overall aspect of the
company is involved. Herzberg (1959) iden-
tified two types: the first concerns the
adequacy or inadequacy of a company's or-
ganization and management; the second in-
volves the positive or negative effects oi
the company's personnel policies.

6. Status refers to the sequence of events in
which the respondent specifically mentioned
that a change in status affected his or her
feelings about the job (attaining a larger
office, use of a company car, or having a
personal secretary).

7. Personal life involves situacior- s in which
some aspect of the job affects the indi-
vid.ual's personal life in such a matter
tha- tne respondent's feelings about his
job are affected (a family-opposed job
transfer).

S. Job security refers to signs of job secur-
ity (continued employment, tenure, and fi-
nancial safeguards). FeelinAs alone of se-
curity or insecurity were not accepted.
(H'::rzberg, 1960, pp. 193-198)

Herzberg, ec al. (1959) theorized that if the positive

aspects of. both the motivators (satisfiers) and hygiene

(diss'Atti.sfiers) are present in sufficient levels, then job

,satisfa tiio.will be high. However, if the m'-ti'vtors a.i-e








removed, indifference not dissatisfaction will result. Dis-

-::atis'fact.ion will only occur if the negative aspects of the

dissatisfiers are present. In more specific terms, Herzberg

stated:

Poor working conditions, bad company pol-
icies and administration, and bad super-
vision will lead to job dissatisfaction.
Good company policies, good administration,
good supervision and good working condi-
tions will not lead to positive job atti-
tude. In opposition to this, as far as
our data has gone, recognition, achieve-
ment, interesting work, responsibility,
and advancement all lead to positive at-
titudes. Their absence will much less
frequently lead to job satisfaction.
(Herzberg, et al. 1959, p. 82)

One point which is often overlooked in the research lit-

erature is that reversals may occul in the Two-Factor The-

ory. Herzberg admitted that there could be times when moti-

vators my act :as hygienes and, conversely, times when hy-

gi 'Sns may function as motivators (Herzberg, et al. 1959).

After conducting 12 different investigations involving a

sample draw-n from 1,685 employees, Herzberg (1968) reported

t-hat 81 percent of all the factors contributing to job satis-

fact;on .ere classified Ls motivators and that 69 percent oC

all factors contributing to job dissatisfaction consisted of

bIlgion' factors.

IIlrzberg, et al. (1959) found it difficult to classify

salary as a hygiene in their original study. The problem

steaomeo from the fact that salary appeared in reports

I:ibcleld low sat isfaction as often as it appeared in the re-

ports .,of hl gh sat i:;faction. Upon further investing tion,









researchers discovered that when salary was mentioned in a

report classified as low satisfacLion, it was generally be-

cause the employee felt that he or she either deserved more

money or that a given increase was not based on performance.

On the other hand, when salary was listed in reports labeled

as high satisfaction, the employee viewed salary in a posi-

zive light and felt that his or her increase was based upon

performance.

To date, a tremendous amount of research has been stim-

ulated by Herzberg's Two-Factor Theory. Grigaliunas and

Herzberg (1971) reported that it is the most replicated

study in contemporary industrial psychology. Aebi (1973)

noted that the Two-Factor Theory had been tested in excess

of 158 times.


Research in Support of the Two-Factor
Theory of Job Satisfaction

Sahwartz, Jenusaitis, and Stark (1963), in their re-

search of supervisory personnel of public utilities, ob-

tained results in support of Herzberg's Two-Factor Theory.

At 21 utility companies 111 male supervisors were asked to

recall two work experiences, one good and one bad. These

experiences (critical incidents) were then classified ac-

cording to Herzborg's taxonomy of hygienes and motivators.

Tno researchers found thai (with the exception of achieve-

mcnt) recognition, work itself, rc.sponsibili ty and advalnce-

;men:t acted as inotivators. They also found that factors

irpnriing to job di-sa tisfartion were those related to the









context of the job and fell under IIerzberg's classification

of hygiene.

In a research study of 82 scientists and engineers,

Triedlander and Walton (1964) found that reasons for remain-

ing \%ith an organization were not necessarily opposite the

reasons for which one might leave an organization. Reasons

for remaining were more closely related to motivators or

content elements while reasons for departing were more

closely aligned with hygienes or context elements.

Myers (1964) found support for the Two-Factor Theory

in researching employees on five different industrial jobs.

Hle reported that job characteristics grouped naturally into

motivator-hygiene classifications, with the exception of one

motivator which acted as a hygiene.

iHerzberg again proved his theory in a study involving

Finnish supervisors in 1965. Walt (cited in Herzberg, 1966)

replicated Herzberg's findings using 50 women employed by

the government in research. The study by 'Walt (1966) was

significant in that it was the first replication of the Two-

Factor Theory in which women were used as subjects. Achieve-

ment, work itself, responsibility, and recognition were pres-

ent more often in incidents classified as satisfying as com-

pared to those incidents classified as dissatisfying. She

also found that among those factors classified as hygienes,

company policy and administration, working conditions, per-

* ;r.'i1 lit f, anrd slat us wore the 1rMost commonly lmntirened

.soIlurce of di:sa.Lis faction.









In a more recent study of 85 managerial level male em-

ployees between the ages of 60 and 65, Salch (cited in

Beckman, 1971) found that content items were related more

often to satisfaction and context items to dissatisfac-

tion.

Thomas (1977) provided evidence supporting Herzberg's

theory in a study of community college academic, business,

and student personnel administrators. Motivators were round

to contribute significantly more to job satisfaction than

did hygienes for each administrative officer. She also re-

ported that hygienes contributed significantly more to job

dissatisfaction than did motivators. The motivators,

achievement, work itself, responsibility, and recognition

vwere mentioned more often in positive than negative inci-

dents. Conversely, with the exception of salary, the hy-

gienes, company policy and administration, interpersonal

relations, working conditions, and supervision-technical

were m-.ntioned in significantly more negative than positive

incidents.

In an investigation of five administrative positions

in student personnel within the Florida State University

System, Groseth (1978) also fond strong support for

lerzberg's Two-Factor Theory. His study revealed that when

chief student personnel administrators, directors' of finan-

cil,1 aid, student union, housing and counseling were con-

sidered is one group, motivators contributed much more to

cri.i ti iniicdents labeled satisfying than did hygienes.









Hygienes, on the other hand, were found to contribute more

than irotivators to critical incidents classified as dissat-

isfying. The most frequently mentioned motivators in the

study were recognition, achievement, and work itself, where-

as the most. frequently mentioned hygienes were company pol-

icy and administration, interpersonal relations, and working

conditions.

Even though Herzberg's Two-Factor Theory has received

considerable criticism since it was originated in 1959, the

majority of the studies, according to the research litera-

ture. appear to be supportive of the theory. Studies which

have employed the Herzberg technique, or a modified forn. of

it, have, with few exceptions, supported the Two-Factor

Theory.


Research Critical of the Two-Factor
Theory of Job Satisfaction

One of the first criticisms of Herzberg's Two-Factor

iTheory is not directed toward the theory itself, but con-

cerns the terminology employed by researchers when defining

the theory and its concepts. Herzberg et al. (1959) labeled

the satisfying component of the theory as motivators and the

dissatisfying element, hygienes. Wolf (1970) claimed that

the motivaLor factor has been referred to by several dif-

Jorcut terms: the job content factor, the intrinsic factor,

and the satisfied. Similarly, hygiene factors have been

called dissat isrfirs, extrinsic: factor:, ;and job context

fac trn.








House and Widgor (167) contended that the Two-Factor

Theory was criticized ior three reasons: First, the theory

was methodologically bound; second, it was based on faulty

research; third, it was inconsistent with past research

findings.

Researchers argue that the Two-Factor Theory is only

sirtported when the original critical incident technique is

-used. They suggest this takes advantage of an individual's

defense bias. Vroom (1964) put the argument succinctly

when he stated:

It is . possible that obtained differ-
ences between stated sources of satisfac-
tion stem from defensive processes within
the individual respondent, Persons may be
more likely to attribute *''e causes of sat-
isfaction to their own achievements and
accomplishments on the job, On the other
hand, they may be more likely to attribute
their dissatisfaction not to personal in-
adequacies, but to factors in the work en-
vironnrent. (Vroom, 1964, p. 129)

Reacting to Vroom's explanation, Herzberg (1966) argued

that if this type of defense mechanism were employed by re-

spondents, the results would havc beer just the opposite

from those found in his study.

In another criticism oE Herzberg's theory, Evans

(1970) suggested that when individuals are asked to describe

certBai! aspects of their lives, those with low self-esteem

will respond much differently than those individuals with

high s ef-esteem. When questioned about the "good" aspects

of their lives, individuals hating low self-osteem will tend

to :sclept fu11 req-ionstibility .fr an outcome;








however, when questioned about the "bad" aspects, the indi-

vidua.ca, with low self-esteem will usually deny having any re-

sponsibiility for them and attribute them to elements over

which they have little or no control. Persons with high

self-:isteem, on the other hand, will tend to be more accur-

ate and realistic in their responses and will acknowledge

trezi ov.n contributions and those of the environment,

rhrctnei they be good or bad.

5Bayfield (1960) discounted Herzberg's findings on the

basis of using content analysis of interview data in con-

trast with more direct methods of determining satisfaction.

Sucies utilizing other methodologies, Q sorts and Q analy-

ses, forced-choice, and ratings do not support the indepen-

dence of the two factors (motivators and hygienes).

Peoihaps the most universal criticism of Herzberg's

Tvw,-Pactor Theory concerns the potential overlap cf his 1.1

mot vator-hygiene factors. For example, the motivator,

recognition, is associated with good job sequences while the

hygiene, interpersonal relations with supervisors and peers,

is associated with bad job sequences.

Graen (19G6) criticized Lhe coding of ierzberg's fac-

tcs as being not completely determined by the classifica-

tion of the I!ata but dependent upon the rater's interpretn-

t ion. Such a Jack of control coui'd allow the same response

to be classified di ff'crently by different raters. Graen

(199Gi f.ll th:'t t'.e dimiiisons3 ii' the various situations

doe;::ri.bld 'ia,\ L.nlld to reflcee more of the ia:ter's own intelr-

i,'etation than the respondeo't's own perceptions.









Ewen (1964) noted two additional criticisms of

Herzberg's study; the first concerned sample size, and the

second, validity of the instrument. Ewen (1964) argued

that since Herzberg et al. only investigated a very small

fraction of jobs (male engineers and accountants) they

should have replicated their study using different workers

irn d.f-erent work situations before proposing recommenda-

tions to industry. Ewen (1964) claimed that Herzberg et a].

(1 69) presented no evidence for the validity of the semi-

structural interview used in their study. He also noted

that no parallel form or test-retest reliability coefficient

was used in Herzberg's study. In opposition to this criti-

cism, Ande.ron and Nilsson (1964) claimed that the reliabil-

ity and validity aspects of the critical incident technique

appeared justifiable and that any information gathered in

this manner is both reliable and valid.

Hinrichs and Miischkind (1967' argued that Herzberg's

data did not adequately test his own notion because his re-

searchr was ot based solely on satisfaction in a current

job situation. Herzberg et al. (1959) requested his sub-

jects to indicate a time when they were satisfied or dis-

satisfied with their jobs, whether it be in their current

position or any other job they may have had in the past.

As a result, one cannot draw i1 erences concerning the con-

tribu- ions of various job factors to job satisfaction or

job dissatisfaction because there is no indication of what

specific v'wo..'k experience was being reported on.









Kin-g (1970) theorized that much of the confusion sur-

rounding ierzbeirg's theory is due to the five different ver--

sio;s of the Two-Factor Theory Lhat have either been stated

or implied by researchers in their studies. According to

King (1970) these versions range from the weakest (all moti-

va.tors combined contribute more to job satisfaction than to

j. dissatisfacti-on and all hygienes combined contribute

mr-re ;o dissat:isfact; on thar to sal t.isactjon) to the strong-

est version (only motivators determine satisfaction, only

lhyi
In a sludy rf 1,021 life insurance agents; Ewen (1964)

dci.scovrIed that some factors as.ted in the opposite direc--

tion predi.te' by IIerzberg. Ewni concluded that while in-

ztrinsic and excrinsic factors can b, both sources of satis-

fc:tion and dissatisfaction, e:trinsic factors are present

:;r .-- frequer t ;.y

berniront' and Dunnette (1966) found content and context

iie;::; -c'-h rt b-e sources of satisfaction and dissatisfac-

t:ion i.; a stud; o scicrntists and engineers. Content items

,were more predominan t in both satisfying and dissatisfying




Ho:c 's and Miskel's ReFormulated
(Herzberg) Theory

Despite the considerable amount of criticism levied

aain.t H"r.',hr,,'" Two--F:ct.'oe Theor.v and the fact that the

iIth,-:r', ]a.s s- i'n definite weakness- ;. a number o.f researchers

fi-el '-Lat. t;he theory sihruld not be abanl. eon'ed but improved









u-con instead. In their book entitled Educational Administra-

tion: Theory, Resea-ch, and Practice, Hoy and Miskel (1978)

are among those who feel that HIerzberg's Two-Factor Theory

can provide a basis for further job satisfaction research

if the following procedures are adhered to by researchers:

1. The development of an acceptable version
of the theory, one that is stated in spe-
cific terms

2. The expansion of the number of motivators
and hygiene factors

3. That individual differences should be
taken into consideration

4. The elimination of, or reinterpretation
of The concept of unidimensionality.
(Hoy & Miskel, 1978, p. 10()

In an attempt to satisfy the above objectives, Hoy

and Miskel (1978) proposed an extension to Herzberg's Two-

Factor Theory and called it simply the Reformulated

(Herzberg) Theory. Unlike IIerzberg's Two-Factor Theory,

the Reformulated Theory consists of three factors instead

of two: motivators, hygienes, and mb'oients.

M.oivators, as defined by lierzberg et .L. (1359), are

factors which are associated wit prod.ucjng employee job

satisfaction. Five factors were included in the motivator

classic fcation: acliievaient, recognition, advancement, re-

sponsibility, and ..ork itself. When-i contrasted to Herzberg's

'iTo--Factor Theory, which consisted r-f six motivator fac-

tors, only the possibility of growth factor was not in-

c(l. :l'd









Hoy's and Miskel's definition of hygienes, as

iHer'zborg's, refers to those factors which contribute to an

onmpicyo 's job dissatisfaction. Unlike Herzberg's theory,

only six factors were included in this category instead of

ei- t. They were: relationship with subordinates/relation-

s!'p ,it" pc-erz (interpersonal relations), supervision-

T ;c':-ic., comiTpny policy and iCw ministration, job security,

,-; nc, conditions. and personaI-l life. Salary and status

'..r., altl.ough included in Herzberg's theory as hygienes,

fr~xc :cluded frno this classification.

Ab'.r en s uh-' third and distinctive component in the

Refi n.,lml-.at' (Tierzberg) Theo.,ry, air defiaed by Hoy and

Miskel a -I- ustU f actors which occur vi.th equal frequency

i:: 'b..;>h satisfying ana dissatisfying Lncidents. The five

a.-bi:nt-L ac s defined by Hoy and Miskel are:

S.Cal;.rv refers to all those sequences of
events i:s which compensation plays a role.
This is the same definition used by
ier'zberg et al. (1959).

2. StaTus refers to a series of events in
wnich the respondent specifically cites
a change in status and how it affects
his or. her feelings about the job.

3 Gr-owth poss-ibiliity refers to growth in
specific type's of skill areas and the
lik<- hood of an individual advancing
vithir ar, o ganization. Also included
vwiilhn this definition are those situa-
tion; in which there is a lack of oppor-
tuifli y for growth. This is the same
definitionn which was used by Herzbebrg
et al. (1950).










4. Risk opportunity refers to the desirabil-
ity of seeking rewards in the motivator
group, which have a lower probability of
success over those in the hygiene group,
which have a higher probability of suc-
cess.

5. Relationship with superordinates refers to
instances involving some actual verbaliza-
tion about the characteristics of the in-
teraction between the worker and his/her
supervisor. (Hoy & Miskel, 1978, p. 110)

Hoy's and Miskel's proposed modification of Herzberg's

T-o-Factor Theory is illustrated in Figure 6.


Dissatisfying


Satisfying


Explanation


1. All motivators, as a
group, contribute more
to satisfaction than
dissatisfaction.




2. Al ambinr.ts
as a group, Ami
contribute gr
equally to Gr.
satisfaction bi
and dissatis- Rii
faction. Re
Su
St;

Hiygienes as a gioup:
Relationship -
Subordinates
relationship Peers
Super-Tcchnical
Policy & Adamin
Job Scurity
Personal Life
Working Conditions
Dissatisfyv n;


Motivators as a
group:
Achievement
Recognition
Work Itself
Responsibility
Advancement


bionts as a
oup: Salary
o-';ch Possi-
lity
sk Opportunity
latioiship
perordinates
atus

3. All hygienes
as a group,
contribute
mole to dis-
satisfaction
than satis-
faction.


Satisfying


Pi iur(c 0. loy'as :nd sliskel proposed modification
of [Herzberg 's Two-Fac.tor Theory









According to Hoy and Miskel (1978) the Reformulated

The1-ory elncompasses tlhe following three hypotheses:

1. All motivators, as a group, contribute more
to job satisfaction than to job dissatis-
faction; however, a ] .ci:c of adequate moti-
vators can contribute to dissatisfaction.

2. All hygiene, as a group, contribute more
to job dissatisfaction than to satisfac-
tion, but an abundance of hygienes can
contribute to job satisfaction.

3. All ambients, as a group, contribute equally
to satisfaction and dis-sa-tifaction. (IToy
and ?.;isk-el. 1978, p. 109)

Horzberg et ai. (1959) experienced difficulty in classi-

fy.ing salary dui to .he -fact that it appeared in those re-

ports labeled high satisfaction nearly as frequently as it

appeared in those labeled low satisfaction. Herzberg dis-

covererd that when salary was mentioned in a report classi-

ficd as low satisfaction, it was generally because the em-

ple-:ee fell he or she deserved more money. Wolf (1970) re-

pc.orced t.hnr salary can also act as a motivatorr, particularly

,ii-rn a- d iniidividuial can see a direct relationship between his

or har salary and performance. Hoy and Miskel classified

salary as an ambient since it may act as both a satisfier

and as a dissatisficr.

Growth possibility, the second factor included in the

artient g-rceap, may function as both a rmotivaior or a hygiene

diLe..endjn upon the situation. It functions as a motivator

whe n an individual is presented with the opportunity for ad-

v'%,nc.emnt anad/or the opportunity to ii improve his personal

i-: Is wi tlhin ;n orga ni zat 1n01l, and as a hygiene if one is

d'::.Joi'l tbio opporiturnit y for growth.









The third ambient, risk opportunity, may generate

oitier satisfaction or dissatisfaction depending on an in-

dividual's orientation. Kogan and Wallach (1964) claimed

tha.r. certain types of individuals are attracted to a job

bc.a..s of the financial safeguards the position offers.

'ir.ese peopple, according to Kogan and Wallach (1964), are

- :ierit,- with the material aspec-s of the environment,

a:.c prefer a job where hygiene components are high. Con-

ver'sel, there are other individual types who are attracted

to work situations in which opportunities for achievement,

recognition, and advancement are high, and who are less

con.e'-rned about job security (Hoy & Miskel, 1978).

Herzberg et al. (1959),following a review of 15 re-

search studies concerning the det terminancs of job satisfac-

tion, found that while supervision was the second most fre-

o.:ently n!'etion.tie source of worker satisfaction, it was

listed fourth as source of employee dissatisfaction.

Bec,,usee of this fact, Hoy and Miskcl (1978) classified the

factor, rel tionships to supdrordinates, as an ambient.

Status, the fifth ambient factor in Hoy's and Miskel's

claa ssficaticon scheme,was also found to act as both a sat-

isfier and as a dissatisfier depending or, whether the indi-

v dui feels he or she is being adequately compensated for

his.i or her work. Compensation in this case does not refer

to .salay, but includes such items as a company car, un-

lirirted expeiise account, or a larger office, e:c.










Job Satisfaction Research Among Non-Instructional
Administrators in 1{igbher Education

The final segmnen of this chapter presents research

which has been conducted in the area of job satisfaction

eong non-academic administrators in the field of higher ed-

uc.at;on.

In a study of 1,439 graduates at the University of

iiiois who were involved in administration, Knox (1953)

concluded that working ccnditjons are appreciated more by

the more satisfied worker as compared to the less satisfied

worker. Fators such as effective supervision, freedom of

teaching methods, and qualified administrators were rated

much higher by satisfied respondents.

CheaiLham (1964), in a study of student personnel ad-

ministrators, found that they derived their greatest job

sat isacr.ion frc involvement with students, exercising

.lead--rship, and working in a ream situation. As a group,

stuf.en- personnel administrators were much more concerned

about the intrinsic rewards of their positions. In a re-

lated study, Scoct (1965) foun(' evidence that deans of stu-

de nts derive their greatest job satisfaction from the na-

ture cf the posil.i.on aind from their involvement with stu-

dents. Di-sstisfactien, he found, was caused by the de-

mands of t.he position: irregular hours and the general .ack

of aopre cia.tion and support on th-- part of the faculty and

other university vdministrators.









In an investigation involving university administrators

not possessing academic rank, Elins (1971) found that in

moaters related to security and job satisfaction, adminis-

trators were greatly concerned with the fringe benefits and

administrative policies of the institution. Other factors

found to influence administrator job satisfaction included

salary, provisions for attending professional meetings and

crtferences, and the opportunity to become involved in bud-

getary matters. Positions sampled in the study included:

bur-ars, directors of physical] plant, directors of purchas-

ing, and directors of research.

Strickland (1973) surveyed 89 chief business officers

by means or a three-part questionnaire which was designed

to test Herzberg's Two-Fac-toor Theory. Each respondent was

asked to describe two incidents, one satisfying and one dis-

satisfying, regarding their present position. In each case

the individual w as to select one factor from Herzberg's list

of six motivators and eight hygienes which was the most in-

fluential factor in their present position. It was re-

ported that over two-thirds of the responses were supportive

of Herzberg's Two-Factor Theory. Three percent were found

clear3ly non-supportive, ard lhe remraindeT only partially

supportive. Motivators prov('d to be highly significant in

those incidents clas-ifieC d s satisfying whereas hygiene

wore found to be significant in incidents labeled dissatis-

Cying tb, tbhe respundenils.









Bowling (1973), in a study of 11 student affairs di-

visions located in the Southeast, found evidence that the

lea;eorship of chief student personnel administrators was

positively related to the job satisfaction of their de-

c rtment heads.

Utilizing a 36-item questionnaire, Ohanesian (1974) re-

sar.rchpe 402 student personnel workers employed in various

Pt' Jistrati-c levels throughout several western states.

3::- reported the following trends from her study: individ-

uS.J in the higher level positions seem to indicate a higher

satc factio le ve than those Ln lower level positions; in-

dividuals in lower salary level positions indicate a lower

degree of job satisfaction than individuals who earn more

monae7; and indivJdual..s who indicate high job satisfaction

fel that reloogniL .ion, status, advancement, input, and va-

rLTy of job opportunities are available to them. Converse-

!-r. persnss indicating low job satisfaction did not feel

th'.t s ch opportunities were available to them. Ohanesian

(1974) concluded that these findings give Herzberg's Two-

Fct;.or heo-ry credibility.

Jackson's (1!75) study of middle managers and vice

presidents is colleges and universities found evidence to

s;,ppolr Herezberg' s Two-Factor Theory. Each of the 442 in-

dividuals in the study was asked to select one factor from

48 pair.- which; provided the greatest satisfaction for them.

Th'e !ist of 48 pairs was the resulll of pairin ri Herzberg's

t al. ': (1J59) six motivators wilth each of his eight









hygiene factors. Jackson (1975) concluded that middle-

mrwnag'er, as well as their vice presidents, obtained a

higher degree of job satisfaction from motivators as com-

pared to hygiene factors.

A significant study was conducted by Haun (1975) con-

c-rning job satisfaction among women holding the title of

-'s.j or department head who ',i*,.-:i primarily administra-

r-e- duties. The results of her research indicated that

achie.ee-nt, content of work, interpersonal relations, job

control, and the possibility of growth were the primary

sat.:i sfirs. University policy and administration, inter-

person0al, relations, and contenL of work were the primary

sources of dissatisfaction. Factors which were related to

job content were reported to be much more significant in

both satisfying and dissatisfying situations than were



One of the most recent studies to support Herzberg's

Two-F-actcor Theory was conducted by Thomas (1977). Utiliz-

inC the critical incident technique, twelve chief academic,

st-ent, p-rsonnel, and business officers were surveyed from

wit-ijn Florida's Comnnu 'ity College System. Thomas reported

itha for each t-ype of administrative position, motivators

contributcd much more to role satisfaction than did hy-

gi nE-,. Hiygjenes, on tbh 01oher hc;nd, were found to con-

tribut. 't uch more to job dissatis action than did motiva-

to-. T most coLrnimn imonivLiator rwas achi ve'.me!nlt however,

wo'k it sei.f, r,.spcnsibili t.y, and recogni iLon were present









in considerably more positive than negative incidents. Com-

pany policy and interpersonal relations were by far the most

iprdoniJnnant bygienes present.

The most recent application of Herzberg's Two-Factor

Theory reported in the litera-.ure was conducted by Groseth

(1978) and focused on five student personnel adi(iinistra--

ti-re positions -n the Florida State University System: the

chief student personnel administrator; the director of finan-

cisA aid; the director of the student union; the director of

housing; and the director of counseling. The motivators,

recognition, achievement, and work itself were mentioned

more often in incidents classi-ted as satisfying in nature.

The most frequently mentioned hygienes were interpersonal

relaticeships, working conditions, and company policy and

admiJn it ratio J o
















CHAPTER III


PRESENTATION OF 'DATA


In this chapter the data presented were collected from

i:ervie-,s viith 25 administrative affairs staff in the

Florida Stare University System. Five administrators were

intervie-ved in each of the following positions: director of

purchasing, director of security and safety, director of per-

sonnel relations, director of physical plant, and university

controller. Each administrator was personally interviewed

by the researcher using one of five interview guides de-

veloped specifically for cx* ch position (see Appendices A, B,

C, 5, arcn E) Afie- having the opportunity to review the

list of major job responsibilities; associated with his/her

position and to make whatever change- considered necessary,

each administrator was asked co recall two experiences (one

s?.isfrying and one diss;,:.i slyirng) related to each of his/her

current major job responsibi lititjs. Each experience (criti-

cal incident) ,as ticn categorized into one or more of Hoy's

ad.ia 'iiskel.'s sixteen fa.ctcis: A chitevermnt, recognition,

vorck itself, responsibility, advancement (motivators); su-

pervi sion-tcchni crl relationship with suhbordi nates and

peers, c.*,nnpany pi ulcy and admini.station, working condi-

tio n personal life or job security (hygi enes); s ala ry,










status, growth possibility, risk opportunity, relationship

with superordinates (ambients). The researcher, using his

21 hypotheses as a guide, then proceeded to analyze the

data using Chi-square and a computer software program called

cho "Probable impact Exploration System" (P.I.E.S.) based

on the Bavesian Statistical Decision Process.

This !hapor Ji subdivided into six sections. The

it five sections present a separate data analysis for

,a-ch administrative position (director of purchasing, di-

rector of security and safety, director of personnel rela-

tions, director ol physical plant, university controller)

and the final section discusses data related to the entire

administrative group. The first section presents data re-

iated specifically to the position of director of pur-

choasing.


Director of Purchasing


Profile

Of the five directors of purchasing selected in the

sampJf, all but two were referred to by the title of "di-

rector of purchasing." The others were called "director

of university purchasing." The average length of time

serve~ in this capacity was 7.2 years with the range being

from 1 year to 14 years. With the exception of two di-

r-c Ltors, each had held a previous m administrative position

.t ihe same instit ution prior 'to being appointed director

of p.irchi.sii.. The oLher t.vo persons were recruited









directly from private etcerprise. Three of the directors

ha;d earned the equivalent of a Bachelor of Science or

Bachelor of Arts degree and two reported having no formal

college education. Salaries for the position ranged from

a low of $19,000 to a high of $24,500, the average being

$2)0,970, The mean age of the group was 47,6 years with the

renfe being 38 to 56 years of age. Two of the five direc-

-crs were females (recently appointed).

The major 3ob responsibilities identified in the

Florida Srate University System Administrative and Profes-

sional Job Description #9325 (1975) and selected by the re-

searche- as the mosi imporLant tasks associated with the

position proved to be accurate. Two directors mentioned

having addi;iona3 responsibilities to those listed on the

Interview Guide (see Appe'dcix A). One reported coordinating

he cCamp-us insurance program, while the other named coordi-

rn~rrint and' directing the campus mail service and slipervis-

ing a central receiving aid storage facility.


Satisfying Experj.ences

In discussion of tihe n.ne major job responsibilities

with the researcher, the five directors of purchasing des-

ciibred a to1al of 45 satisfying experiences. In eight

car.-s the researcher found it necessary to assign more than

onr factor to the incident; however, no more than two fac--

tur,. 'e re signed to any given incident. Of the 53 fac-

tor'-: used to cl~ss:i fy i.he satisfying experiences









(critical incidents), 35 were motivators (06%), 6 were am-

bienti (11%), and 12 were hygienes (23%). Considerably more

motivators were used by the. directors of purchasing in des-

cribing satisfying experiences than ambients or hygienes.

(X- (2) = 25.53, p .001). The classification of satisfy-

irg ,xperiSences, according to not .vators, ambients, and hy-

tg-nes for directors of purchasing is shown in Table 1.

Fouz of HoE'.s and Miskel's five motivators were pres-

e~ irn the 35 satisfying incidetlts described by the direc-

tors of purchasing, representing 66 percent of the total.

The most frequently occurring motivators were achievement

(28%) an.d responsibility (19%), There were few ambient or

hygiene factors, associLatd with the satisfying experiences

criticala l incidents). Tn the ambient classification, three

oui. of The five factors were present resulting in 11 per-

cc:- of the oraot. The situation was similar for hygienes

i:n c:hat Chree our of six factors were present. Interper-

sonal remla.tions (13%) was the third most frequently indi-

cat--d factor. Motivators outnumbered ambients and hygiene:

co.rbined by a mIargin of nearly 2 to 1.

in an effort to further examine the extent to which mo-

ti-ators, Rambients, :tnd hycgieuns were related to the nine

maj.r job respjonsribi Lities associated with the position of

director of purcias:ing, the researcher employed a computer

software program' called the "Prohba.Il I;mpact Exploration

S.stlen," better known as P.I.E.S. This technique was util-

Ji-ed in au a:t em 't to prc'llc(. the probability that the









Table 1
Classification of Factors in Satisfying
Incidents for Directors of Purchasing



% of Total
Factor Classification Number (N=53)





-chievement .5 28

eccognitioT1 4 8

Work Itself 6 11

Responsibility o10 19

Total ?,otivators 35 66


Am"bien Lts

Growth Possibilit !y 4

Risk Opport uity 2

Relationship With
Superordinates 3 6

'total Ambients 6 11




Supervision-Technical 4 8

interparsonal Relations 7 13

Company Policy and
Administration 1 2

Total Hygienes 12 23









three fartors (motivators, ambients, and hygienes) would re-

cur in other directors of purchasing positions with similar

types of job responsbiliti os. According to Nickens (1977),

there are two advantages to using this technique. First,

it enables the researcher to estimate the probability of oc-

cu'-':ence of 1a gsveri fr'ctor when range limits have not been

r.-i ily 7-tabiib'd, Second in situations where the

s;:.' \, size i relatively small, the P.I.E.S. technique per-

mit-s hi G.t;L' to be analyzed statistically. Without the

bnrnpit of this technique, little meaningful analysis, if

any, c iou i -rdertaken.

Thc! r ,-oai cher wnas prohibited from utilizing Chi-square

bec.usc theri;' .ere few-. than five frequencies for many of

tih ft;ct('r According to Seigel (1956), Chi-square should

nor be adm.injstcred in situations where 20 percent of the

fre,:c;cy cells contain less than five responses and also

i;: c.ass were no frequencies are recorded in a cell. Table

2 pres;e's data in which the probability of motivators, am-

bients, and hygienes (as individual groups) contributes to

satis'ying experiences for directors of purchasing.

The data presented in Table 2 illustrate that for those

indiri'idua; fiuncotioning in the capacity of a director of

purchasin;s and whose job responsibilities are similar in

description to the nine major tasks commonly associated with

the position, the probability of a1 mcntivator contributing to

ai i irdividu'..l's job sa tisfaction was 09.2. The probability

o.! an :rinbinl or hygiene factor contribute ag to a person's









Table 2

The Probability of Motivators, Ambients,
and Hygienes (As Individual Groups)
Contributing to Satisfying Experiences
for Directors of Purchasing



Factor Classification
Motivators Ambients Hygienes



.-::ar of Possible
Occurrences 45 45 45

*Exchangeability 15 15 15

Expected Outcoma 17 17 17

Observed OuCl come 35 6 12

Probability of Out-
come Being < (35) 99.2 (6) 6.7 (12) 24.2

Probability of Oub-
come rt ing > (35) 0.8 (6) 93.3 (12) 75.8


STandardc Deviation 7.5, 50% Probability Interval 12 to 22
"Excha'geabilicy Point one would consider giving equal odds
that the value would be less or greater than (



iob satisfaction was 6.7 and 24.2 respectively. The data in

the category of motivators, with a probability of occurrence

b.eig less than 99.2, strongly support Hoy's and Miskel's

eforriul at ed (Herzberg) Theory that motivators, as a group,

occur more frequently in incidents classified as satisfying

t-han eiiter ambients or hygin'-s.









Dissatisfying Experiences

Of the 45 dissatisfying experiences (critical incidents)

reported by the directors of purchasing, 23 were classified

as motivators (44%). 1 as an ambient (2%), and 28 as hy-

gienes (54%). It was necessary in seven situations for

the researcher to assign more than one factor to an inci-

dent; however, as in the case of satisfying experiences,

nlo more than two factors were assigned. Although there

were considerably more hygienes used to describe dissatis-

fying incidents than ambients, this was not the case when

compared to motivators (X2 (2) = 23.86, p (001). Dissat-

isfying experiences for directors of purchasing are classi-

fied in Table 3 according to motivators, ambients and hy-

gienes.

The data in Table 3 show that with the possible ex-

ception of company policy and administration (29%), there

was no dominant hygiene related to the dissatisfying inci-

dents for directors of purchasing. Interpersonal relations

was the second most frequently mentioned hygiene (15%).

Four of the six hygiene factors were represented, the ex-

ceptions being personal life and job security. It is note-

worthy that four out of five motivators were mentioned as

being sources of dissatisfaction. The motivators, achieve-

ment and work itself, were present in 33 percent of the dis-

satisfying experiences reported. One ambient, growth pos-

sibility, was idceLified as a source of dissatisfaction.









Table 3

Classification of Factors in Dissatisfying
Incidents for Directors of Purchasing


Factor Classification N




l'o:ivators

Achievement

Recognition

Work Itself

Responsibility

Total Motivators


Ambients

Growth Possibility

Total Ambients


Hygienes

Supervision-Technical

Interpersonal Relations

Company Policy and
Administration

Working Conditions

Totua. H!ygienes


umber


% of Total
(N=52)


In Table 4 the probability of motivators, ambients, and

hygie.ne (as individual groups) contributing to dissatisfying

experiences for directors of purchasing is illustrated,


~ ~~









The P.I.E.S. technique was used to analyze the data. This

procedure was also utilized in classifying the satisfying

incidents for the directors of purchasing.


Table 4
The Probability of Motivators, Ambients, and
Hygienes (As Individual Groups) Contributing to
the Dissatisfying Experiences
for Directors of Purchasing




Factor Classification
Motivators Ambients Hyg enes



Number of Poisible
Occurrences 45 45 45

*Exchage a bili ty 15 15 15

Expected Outcome 17 17 17

Observed Outcome 23 1 28

Probability i )f Out-
co:e Being < (23) 78.8 (1) 1.8 (28) 93.3

Probability of Out-
come Being > (23) 21.2 (1) 98.2 (28) 6.7


Standard Deviation 7.5, 50% Probability Interval 12 to 22
*Exchangeability Point one would consider giving equal odds
that the value would be less or greater than ( )



it is clear from the data in Table 4 that for those in-

dividuals functioning in the capacity of directors of pur-

ch:asing and whose job responsibil]ities art- similar in nature

to whe nine major tasks associated with the position, the

probability of a hygiene contributing to an individual's









dissatisfaction was 93.3. The probability of a motivator

or an ambient being the source of an individual's dissatis-

faction was 78.8 and 1.8 respectively. Thea.e data are not

contradictory to Ioy's and Miskel's Reformulated (IIerzberg)

Theory in that hygienes, as a group, were found to occur

more frequently in incidents classified as dissatisfying

fcr the directors of purchasing than either motivators or

a-bients. In should be noted that Hoy and Miskel did hy-

pothesize that a lack of adequate motivators could con-

ceivably contribute to job dissatisfaction; however, in

discussing their theory they failed to define the term

"adequate motivators."


Satisfying/Dissatisfying Experiences

Out of the 105 factors assigned the 90 critical inci-

dents reported by the directors of purchasing (45 satisfying

and 45 dissatisfying) 7 ambients were found to be present.

Table 5 is a breakdown of all critical incidents (satisfy-

ing and dissatisfying) according to motivators, ambients,

and hygienes for the position of director of purchasing.

The percentages of each row total are included in paren-

theses.

The data in Table 5 indicate the unequal representa-

tion of ambient factors in both satisfying and dissatisfy-

ing incidents. These findings appear to be contradictory

to Hoy's and Miskel's theory that ambients, as a group,

occur with eanal frequency in both satisfying and dissatis-

yving incidents. The fact that ambients, as a group,









Table 5
Distribution of all Critical Incidents
(Satisfying and Dissatisfying) by Factor
Classification for Directors of Purchasing




Factor Classification

Incident Type Motivators Ambients Hygienes Total



atisi'ying 35 6 12 53
(66%) (11%) (23%) (100%)

Dissatisfying 23 1 28 52
(44%) (2%) (54%) (100%)

Total Incidents 58 7 40 105
(55%) (7%) (38%) (]00%)




comprised 7 percent of the total raises some question, in the

opinion of the researcher, concerning the validity of this

classification in Hoy's and Miskel's theory.


Overall Job Satisfaction/Dissatisfaction

The final two questions -asked the directors of purchas-

ing in the interviews concerned their overall job satisfac-

tion and dissatisfaction (see Appendix A). Each director

was asked to describe the most overall satisfying single in-

cident in his/her position and conversely, an incident which

caused the most overall job dissatisfaction. Of the 7 fac-

tors used to classify the most overall satisfying job ex-

perience, 4 were motivators (FRS%), 1 was an ambient (14%),

and 2 were hygienes (29%.). Faru ors which contributed to

ove-rall job sa:ti..isnct oni are c' ssified in Table G.




University of Florida Home Page
© 2004 - 2010 University of Florida George A. Smathers Libraries.
All rights reserved.

Acceptable Use, Copyright, and Disclaimer Statement
Last updated October 10, 2010 - - mvs