• TABLE OF CONTENTS
HIDE
 Title Page
 Acknowledgement
 Table of Contents
 List of Tables
 Abstract
 Description of this study
 Review of related literature
 Methodology
 Presentation of data
 A recapitulation of this study
 Appendices
 Reference note
 References
 Biographical sketch














Title: Need fulfillment, satisfaction, and importance for chief business, instructional, and student affairs administrators in the Community College System in Florida /
CITATION PDF VIEWER THUMBNAILS PAGE IMAGE ZOOMABLE
Full Citation
STANDARD VIEW MARC VIEW
Permanent Link: http://ufdc.ufl.edu/UF00099082/00001
 Material Information
Title: Need fulfillment, satisfaction, and importance for chief business, instructional, and student affairs administrators in the Community College System in Florida /
Alternate Title: Need fulfillment, satisfaction, and importance ..
Physical Description: x, 184 leaves : ; 28 cm.
Language: English
Creator: Harres, Burton H., 1952-
Publication Date: 1982
Copyright Date: 1982
 Subjects
Subject: Need (Psychology)   ( lcsh )
Job satisfaction   ( lcsh )
College administrators -- Psychology   ( lcsh )
Community colleges -- 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 (Ph. D.)--University of Florida, 1982.
Bibliography: Bibliography: leaves 173-182.
Statement of Responsibility: by Burton H. Harres, Jr.
General Note: Typescript.
General Note: Vita.
 Record Information
Bibliographic ID: UF00099082
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 - 000318251
oclc - 08943716
notis - ABU5084

Downloads

This item has the following downloads:

PDF ( 6 MBs ) ( PDF )


Table of Contents
    Title Page
        Page i
        Page ii
    Acknowledgement
        Page iii
        Page iv
    Table of Contents
        Page v
        Page vi
    List of Tables
        Page vii
        Page viii
    Abstract
        Page ix
        Page x
    Description of this study
        Page 1
        Page 2
        Page 3
        Page 4
        Page 5
        Page 6
        Page 7
        Page 8
        Page 9
        Page 10
        Page 11
        Page 12
        Page 13
        Page 14
        Page 15
        Page 16
        Page 17
        Page 18
        Page 19
        Page 20
        Page 21
        Page 22
        Page 23
        Page 24
    Review of related literature
        Page 25
        Page 26
        Page 27
        Page 28
        Page 29
        Page 30
        Page 31
        Page 32
        Page 33
        Page 34
        Page 35
        Page 36
        Page 37
        Page 38
        Page 39
        Page 40
        Page 41
        Page 42
        Page 43
        Page 44
        Page 45
        Page 46
        Page 47
        Page 48
        Page 49
    Methodology
        Page 50
        Page 51
        Page 52
        Page 53
        Page 54
        Page 55
        Page 56
        Page 57
        Page 58
        Page 59
        Page 60
        Page 61
        Page 62
        Page 63
        Page 64
        Page 65
        Page 66
    Presentation of data
        Page 67
        Page 68
        Page 69
        Page 70
        Page 71
        Page 72
        Page 73
        Page 74
        Page 75
        Page 76
        Page 77
        Page 78
        Page 79
        Page 80
        Page 81
        Page 82
        Page 83
        Page 84
        Page 85
        Page 86
        Page 87
        Page 88
        Page 89
        Page 90
        Page 91
        Page 92
        Page 93
        Page 94
        Page 95
        Page 96
        Page 97
        Page 98
        Page 99
        Page 100
        Page 101
        Page 102
        Page 103
        Page 104
        Page 105
        Page 106
        Page 107
        Page 108
        Page 109
        Page 110
        Page 111
        Page 112
        Page 113
        Page 114
        Page 115
        Page 116
        Page 117
        Page 118
        Page 119
        Page 120
        Page 121
        Page 122
        Page 123
        Page 124
        Page 125
    A recapitulation of this study
        Page 126
        Page 127
        Page 128
        Page 129
        Page 130
        Page 131
        Page 132
        Page 133
        Page 134
        Page 135
        Page 136
        Page 137
        Page 138
        Page 139
        Page 140
        Page 141
        Page 142
        Page 143
    Appendices
        Page 144
        Page 145
        Page 146
        Page 147
        Page 148
        Page 149
        Page 150
        Page 151
        Page 152
        Page 153
        Page 154
        Page 155
        Page 156
        Page 157
        Page 158
        Page 159
        Page 160
        Page 161
        Page 162
        Page 163
        Page 164
        Page 165
        Page 166
        Page 167
        Page 168
        Page 169
        Page 170
        Page 171
    Reference note
        Page 172
    References
        Page 173
        Page 174
        Page 175
        Page 176
        Page 177
        Page 178
        Page 179
        Page 180
        Page 181
        Page 182
    Biographical sketch
        Page 183
        Page 184
        Page 185
        Page 186
Full Text












NEED FULFILLMENT, SATISFACTION, AND IMPORTANCE
FOR CHIEF BUSINESS, INSTRUCTIONAL, AND
STUDENT AFFAIRS ADMINISTRATORS IN THE
COMMUNITY COLLEGE SYSTEM IN FLORIDA









By

BURTON H. HARRES, JR.


A DISSERTATION 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


1982



































Copyright 1982

by

Burton H. Harres, Jr.















ACKNOWLEDGMENTS


A sincere appreciation is extended to many people

who have helped me in successfully obtaining an important

personal and professional goal of earning a doctoral degree.

Family members and friends throughout this country have pro-

vided me with ongoing encouragement and support.

A note of thanks goes to Mr. Richard Middaugh and

Dr. Terry Williams for their excellent technical assistance.

Mrs. Nina Schiro deserves my appreciation for her outstanding

work in typing this dissertation.

Special gratitude is expressed to a group of friends

and professional colleagues for their encouragement and

assistance. Dr. Joe Busta, Mr. Jim Crouch, Dr. Leo Diaz,

Dr. Ambrose Garner, Dr. Charles Hewitt, Mr. and Mrs. Randy

Hyman, Mr. Ray King, Ms. Donna Miller, Dr. David Persky,

Dr. Theresa Vernetson, and Mr. Dan Walbolt have all played

instrumental roles throughout the course of this study. I

sincerely appreciate their friendship and support.

To my committee members, Dr. James Wattenbarger and

Dr. Harold Riker, I extend my sincere thanks for the insights,

suggestions, and consideration they provided me during the

execution of this study.











To my major professor and mentor, Dr. Arthur Sandeen,

I extend a sincere expression of appreciation and gratitude.

Without his personal and professional support and leadership,

this dissertation would not have become a reality. His

insights and high expectations for academic excellence have

left a profound effect on me.

A special note of thanks goes to Roy and Pat Nurse

for their love, encouragement, and advice.

A sincere expression of gratitude is extended to my

father, Burton H. Harres, Sr., for his love and support. He

has always stood by me and never let me down when I needed

his help.

My love and respect will always go to my wife, Louise.

Her love, humor, enthusiasm, and strength have helped carry us

through difficult times. Her encouragement and constant sup-

port provided me with the impetus to complete this study.
















TABLE OF CONTENTS


Page

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS . . . . . . . . . iii

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

ABSTRACT . . . . . . . . . . . ix


Chapter

I. DESCRIPTION OF THIS STUDY . . . . . 1

Statement of the Problem . . . . . 1
Significance of the Problem. . . . .. 1
Conceptual Framework . . . . . .. 10
Research Objectives. . . . . . .. 18
Assumptions. . . . . . . . ... 19
Definitions. . . . . . . . .. 20
Limitations . . . . . . . . 23
Organization of Subsequent Chapters. . ... 24

II. REVIEW OF RELATED LITERATURE. . . . .. 25

Job Satisfaction Research. . . . .. 25
Need Satisfaction Research . . . .. 32
Satisfaction Research Utilizing
Administrators in Higher Education . 38
Chapter Summary. . . . . . . .. 49

III. METHODOLOGY . . . . . . . ... 50

Research Populations . . . . . .. 50
Instrument Development . . . . .. 54
Endorsement of This Study. . . . .. 59
Data Collection. . . . . . . .. 60
Analysis of Data . . . . . ... 62
Chapter Summary. . . . . . . .. 66

IV. PRESENTATION OF DATA. . . . . . .. 67

Description of Respondents . . . .. 68
Need Fulfillment Data. . . . . .. 72












Chapter

IV. (continued)

Need Satisfaction Data . . . . . .
Need Importance Data . . . . . .
The Effect of Demographic Characteristics. .
Statistical Comparisons Among
Administrator Groups . . . . . .
Comparisons with Groups in Other Studies .
Chapter Summary . . . . . . .

V. A RECAPITUATION OF THIS STUDY . . . . .

A Recapitulation . . . . . . .
Conclusions . . . . . . . .
Implications . . . . . . . .
Recommendations for Further Study. . . .

APPENDICES

A. FLORIDA COMMUNITY/JUNIOR COLLEGES INCLUDED
IN THIS STUDY . . . . . . . .


Page



77
81
86

116
120
125

126

126
137
140
142




146


B. SURVEY INSTRUMENT . . . . . . . .. 148

C. LETTER AUTHORIZING USE OF PORTER'S NEED
FULFILLMENT QUESTIONNAIRE FOR
MANAGEMENT . . . . . . . ... 155

D. LETTER OF ENDORSEMENT . . . . . . .. .157

E. INITIAL COVER LETTER. . . . . . . .. .159

F. FOLLOW-UP COVER LETTER. . . . . . .. .161

G. TABLES LISTING NEED FULFILLMENT,
SATISFACTION, AND IMPORTANCE MEAN
SCORES BY NEED ITEM. . . . . . .. .163

REFERENCE NOTE . . . . . . . . ... .. . 172

REFERENCES . . . . . . . . ... . . 173

BIOGRAPHICAL SKETCH. . . . . . . . . .. .183
















LIST OF TABLES


Table Page

1. DEMOGRAPHIC CHARACTERISTICS FOR CHIEF BUSINESS,
INSTRUCTIONAL, AND STUDENT AFFAIRS RESPONDENTS 69

2. MEAN SCORES FOR NEED FULFILLMENT LEVEL BY
NEED CATEGORY FOR GROUPS OF RESPONDENTS. ... . 74

3. MEAN SCORES BY NEED SATISFACTION LEVEL BY
NEED CATEGORY FOR GROUPS OF RESPONDENTS. ... . 78

4. MEAN SCORES FOR NEED IMPORTANCE LEVEL BY
NEED CATEGORY FOR GROUPS OF RESPONDENTS. ... . 83

5. NEED FULFILLMENT MEAN SCORES BY DEMOGRAPHIC
CHARACTERISTICS AND RESULTS OF STATISTICAL
TESTS OF SIGNIFICANCE FOR CHIEF BUSINESS
AFFAIRS ADMINISTRATORS . . . . . . .. 88

6. NEED FULFILLMENT MEAN SCORES BY DEMOGRAPHIC
CHARACTERISTICS AND RESULTS OF STATISTICAL
TESTS OF SIGNIFICANCE FOR CHIEF INSTRUCTIONAL
AFFAIRS ADMINISTRATORS . . . . . . .. 92

7. NEED FULFILLMENT MEAN SCORES BY DEMOGRAPHIC
CHARACTERISTICS AND RESULTS OF STATISTICAL
TESTS OF SIGNIFICANCE FOR CHIEF STUDENT
AFFAIRS ADMINISTRATORS . . . . . . .. 95

8. NEED SATISFACTION MEAN SCORES BY DEMOGRAPHIC
CHARACTERISTICS AND RESULTS OF STATISTICAL
TESTS OF SIGNIFICANCE FOR CHIEF BUSINESS
AFFAIRS ADMINISTRATORS . . . . . ... 98

9. NEED SATISFACTION MEAN SCORES BY DEMOGRAPHIC
CHARACTERISTICS AND RESULTS OF STATISTICAL
TESTS OF SIGNIFICANCE FOR CHIEF INSTRUCTIONAL
AFFAIRS ADMINISTRATORS . . . . . . .. .102

10. NEED SATISFACTION MEAN SCORES BY DEMOGRAPHIC
CHARACTERISTICS AND RESULTS OF STATISTICAL
TESTS OF SIGNIFICANCE FOR CHIEF STUDENT
AFFAIRS ADMINISTRATORS . . . . . . .. .106










Table Page

11. NEED IMPORTANCE MEAN SCORES BY DEMOGRAPHIC
CHARACTERISTICS AND RESULTS OF STATISTICAL
TESTS OF SIGNIFICANCE FOR CHIEF BUSINESS
AFFAIRS ADMINISTRATORS . . . . . ... 109

12. NEED IMPORTANCE MEAN SCORES BY DEMOGRAPHIC
CHARACTERISTICS AND RESULTS OF STATISTICAL
TESTS OF SIGNIFICANCE FOR CHIEF INSTRUCTIONAL
AFFAIRS ADMINISTRATORS . . . . . ... 110

13. NEED IMPORTANCE MEAN SCORES BY DEMOGRAPHIC
CHARACTERISTICS AND RESULTS OF STATISTICAL
TESTS OF SIGNIFICANCE FOR CHIEF STUDENT
AFFAIRS ADMINISTRATORS . . . . . ... 117

14. AREAS OF STATISTICAL SIGNIFICANCE INDICATED
BY ONE-WAY ANALYSIS OF VARIANCE TESTS FOR
NEED FULFILLMENT, SATISFACTION, AND IMPORTANCE
AMONG CHIEF BUSINESS, INSTRUCTIONAL, AND
STUDENT AFFAIRS ADMINISTRATORS . . . .. 121

15. SUMMARY OF NEED SATISFACTION MEAN SCORES OF
ADMINISTRATOR GROUPS WITH RESULTS OF RANK
ORDERING OF SCORES . . . . . . .. 123

16. MEAN SCORES FOR FULFILLMENT BY NEED ITEM FOR
CHIEF BUSINESS AFFAIRS ADMINISTRATORS. ... . 163

17. MEAN SCORES FOR FULFILLMENT BY NEED ITEM FOR
CHIEF INSTRUCTIONAL AFFAIRS ADMINISTRATORS . 164

18. MEAN SCORES FOR FULFILLMENT BY NEED ITEM FOR
CHIEF STUDENT AFFAIRS ADMINISTRATORS . . .. 165

19. MEAN SCORES FOR SATISFACTION BY NEED ITEM FOR
CHIEF BUSINESS AFFAIRS ADMINISTRATORS. ... . 166

20. MEAN SCORES FOR SATISFACTION BY NEED ITEM FOR
CHIEF INSTRUCTIONAL AFFAIRS ADMINISTRATORS . 167

21. MEAN SCORES FOR SATISFACTION BY NEED ITEM FOR
CHIEF STUDENT AFFAIRS ADMINISTRATORS . . .. 168

22. MEAN SCORES FOR IMPORTANCE BY NEED ITEM FOR
CHIEF BUSINESS AFFAIRS ADMINISTRATORS. ... . 169

23. MEAN SCORES FOR IMPORTANCE BY NEED ITEM FOR
CHIEF INSTRUCTIONAL AFFAIRS ADMINISTRATORS 170

24. MEAN SCORES FOR IMPORTANCE BY NEED ITEM FOR
CHIEF STUDENT AFFAIRS ADMINISTRATORS . . .. 171


viii















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


NEED FULFILLMENT, SATISFACTION, AND IMPORTANCE
FOR CHIEF BUSINESS, INSTRUCTIONAL, AND
STUDENT AFFAIRS ADMINISTRATORS IN THE
COMMUNITY COLLEGE SYSTEM IN FLORIDA

By

Burton H. Harres, Jr.

May, 1982

Chairman: C. Arthur Sandeen
Major Department: Educational Administration and Supervision

The primary purpose of this study was to determine

the perceived level of need fulfillment, satisfaction, and

importance that chief business, instructional, and student

affairs administrators employed in the Community College Sys-

tem in Florida received from their professional positions.

Statistically significant differences among the demographic

responses of these administrators regarding need fulfillment,

satisfaction, and importance were also determined.

Abraham Maslow's theory of human motivation served as

the theoretical base for this study. Three populations con-

sisting of 28 chief business affairs administrators, 44 chief

instructional affairs administrators, and 39 chief student

affairs administrators employed in the Community College

System in Florida were identified. A two-part survey instru-

ment, adapted from a need satisfaction questionnaire developed

ix











by Lyman W. Porter, was distributed. A response rate of

96.4% of chief business affairs administrators, 93.1% of

chief instructional affairs administrators, and 92.3% of

chief student affairs administrators in Florida's Community

College System was achieved.

Chief business affairs administrators revealed most

fulfillment with security needs and least fulfillment with

self-realization needs. These respondents indicated they

were most satisfied with esteem needs and least satisfied

with self-realization needs. They attached greatest impor-

tance to self-realization needs and least importance to

esteem needs.

Chief instructional affairs administrators revealed

most fulfillment with autonomy needs and least fulfillment

with social needs. These respondents indicated they were

most satisfied with security needs and least satisfied with

self-realization needs. They attached greatest importance

to self-realization needs and least importance to esteem

needs.

Chief student affairs administrators revealed most

fulfillment with social needs and least fulfillment with

security needs. These respondents were most satisfied with

social needs and least satisfied with self-realization.

They attached greatest importance to self-realization needs

and least importance to esteem needs.















CHAPTER I
DESCRIPTION OF THIS STUDY


The description of this study is presented in the

following sections: (a) statement of the problem; (b) sig-

nificance of the problem; (c) conceptual framework;

(d) research objectives; (e) assumptions; (f) definitions;

(g) limitations; and (h) organization of subsequent chapters.


Statement of the Problem

The problem addressed in this study was the deter-

mination of the perceived level of need fulfillment, need

satisfaction, and need importance that chief business,

instructional, and student affairs administrators employed in

the Community College System in Florida receive from their

professional positions. Statistically significant differ-

ences among the demographic responses of the administrators

regarding need fulfillment, need satisfaction, and need

importance were also determined.


Significance of the Problem

Numerous researchers (Kanter, 1978, 1979; Katz, 1964;

Katz & Kahn, 1966; March & Simon, 1958; Steers & Porter, 1975)

investigating organizational issues have directed increased

attention toward the behavioral needs of organizations. The







2



literature on organizational behavior and human performance

is constantly growing due to the increased interest in social-

psychological variables that affect an organization's per-

sonnel (Geering, 1980). Unfortunately, many organizational

leaders fail to acknowledge that personnel, financial, and

material resources are equally important in order for their

enterprises to function successfully. In many instances, the

importance of addressing personnel needs is overlooked

(Williams, 1979).

Katz (1964) noted that the major input into organiza-

tions consists of people. However, many labor economists

concentrate on the inputs of capital, raw materials, and

technology when studying organizational effectiveness. The

extent to which an organization's personnel are recognized

as contributing to the success of the enterprise is usually

neglected or assumed to be a constant in the total equation.

Katz (1964) stated that

at the practical level, however, as well as
for a more precise theoretical accounting, we
need to cope with such organizational realities
as the attracting of people into organizations,
holding them within the system, insuring reliable
role performance, and . stimulating actions
which are generally facilitative of organizational
accomplishments. The material and psychic returns
to organizational members thus constitute major
determinants, not only in the level of effective-
ness of organizational functioning, but of the
very existence of the organization. (p. 131)

According to Katz and Kahn (1966), organizations must

elicit at least three forms of behavior from their personnel











in order to survive. The three basic personnel-related

requirements that must be addressed are (a) attracting

employees to join and continue employment within an organi-

zation; (b) ensuring employees are dependable in their

behavior and in the performance of the task for which they

were selected; and (c) evoking innovative behavior beyond

their dependable role performance which will enhance personal

and organizational aspirations. Different motivational pat-

terns are required in order to produce these desired behav-

iors.

Argyris (1957, 1962, 1964), Blake and Mouton (1964,

1965), Likert (1961, 1967), and McGregor (1960, 1966) were

concerned with how human resources were utilized in the devel-

opment of effective and cohesive organizations. In general,

they concluded that

it is the function of an organization's leader-
ship to modify the organization to provide
freedom for the individual to realize his own
motivational potential for fulfillment of his
own needs and at the same time contribute toward
the accomplishments of organizational goals.
(Stogdill, 1974, pp. 21-22)

March and Simon (1958) concluded that in order for

valuable human resources to be used in an efficient manner,

certain motivational issues for stimulating group members to

participate, produce, and exercise creativity must be identi-

fied and understood. Steers and Porter (1975) concluded that

before the leadership of an organization can clearly understand

the motivational problems of its workers, a careful analysis of











the relationship between basic human needs and motivation

is required.

Employees come to their work environments with unique

patterns of needs and goals. They usually have a strong per-

sonal stake in their employment. The nature of this personal

stake can powerfully affect the quality of their behavior on

the job (Steers & Porter, 1975). Within an organizational

context, employees may actively seek opportunities to satisfy

their own personal needs and goals (Williams, 1979).

Depending upon the work arrangement or design,
jobs can provide various kinds of opportunities
and incentives for employees to satisfy important
needs. For example, some jobs may offer oppor-
tunities for workers to satisfy social needs;
others may offer personal growth needs; and still
others, material needs. In fact, job responsi-
bilities and working conditions can be designed
so that employees are better able to obtain
satisfaction of their needs by engaging in
behaviors which also facilitate organizational
effectiveness. (Williams, 1979, pp. 2-3)

Thus, the possibility exists for developing means of simul-

taneously satisfying both employee needs and organizational

needs through job design (Steers & Porter, 1975).

Andrisani (1978) observed that many workers' aspira-

tions and expectations for meaningful employment are blocked

because of recent, extensive divisions of work, centralization

of decision-making, and organizational bureaucratization.

Consequently, job frustration has allegedly generated a sub-

stantial amount of overall dissatisfaction which is encroach-

ing the non-working lives of America's workforce.







5



Apparently the dissatisfaction phenomenon reported by

Andrisani (1978) exists across the entire occupational struc-

ture in America. Hersey and Blanchard (1969) found that the

average employee in an organization works at only 20 to 30

percent of his or her ability. Highly motivated employees

will work at 80 to 90 percent of their abilities. Andrisani

(1978) cited a Gallup poll conducted from 1969 to 1972 that

measured a ten-point drop in job satisfaction among American

workers during that period. The Gallup poll also contained

data which suggested that decreased output per work hour, an

increased incidence of industrial accidents, employment

absenteeism and turnover, and work stoppages attributable

to nonwage aspects of employment were plaguing American

industries. A 1973 Gallup poll found that 70 percent of a

sample of managers and professional employees reported that

they could produce more each day if they really tried (United

States Department of Health, Education, & Welfare, 1973).

Kanter (1978) critiqued labor research conducted by

Yankelovich (1978) and concluded that a high level of frustra-

tion may develop among those who desire meaningful employment

but cannot find it. This type of frustration exemplifies one

of many concerns associated with the underemployment problem

in America. An increasing number of highly educated Americans

are competing for fewer prestigious and "socially significant"

jobs. According to Kanter (1978), the frustration may be

expressed by the psychological "dropping out" of work











involvement or by self-induced pressure to enjoy jobs that

cannot, by their nature, provide meaning and self-expression.

Kanter (1978) also indicated in her report that a

growing emphasis on psycho-social, rather than economic,

incentives is being expressed by American workers when they

discuss their job-related activities. "A growing proportion

of the [American] labor force reports that they work for

self-fulfillment in addition to economic necessity, including

63% of women in a national survey" (Kanter, 1978, p. 11).

Yankelovich (1978) stated that "quality-of-life" moti-

vations are not completely understood by employers. Even when

"quality-of-life" motivations are identified, large corporations

do not know how to balance them with their own requirements for

efficiency and productivity. According to Yankelovich (1978),

quality-of-life on the job means that workers do not wish to

subordinate themselves to their work role. Instead, employees

want recognition of their worth as human beings as well as for

the work they perform.

Faculty, administrators, and staff at colleges and

universities throughout the United States are also concerned

with the quality-of-life on their jobs. However, like their

counterparts in business and industry, academicians often feel

that their professional endeavors are not fully recognized

and appreciated. Williams (1979) stated that

in American higher education, colleges and uni-
versities traditionally view themselves as one
of society's most powerful instruments for











assisting individuals in the development and
improvement of their intellectual, technical,
and social skills. This commitment to indi-
vidualized development is commendable but unfor-
tunately [it] is generally directed toward
enrolled students. Faculty and staff at insti-
tutions of higher education also have a variety
of personal, educational, and professional
development needs which require nurturing and
growth. Top institutional leaders responsible
for the advancement of educational institutions
must not fail to realize that faculty and staff
are also a vital human resource which contri-
butes daily to the advancement of the institu-
tion. For this reason, institutional efforts in
faculty and staff development should receive high
priority and commitment. (pp. 4-5)

The State University System (SUS) of Florida recently

completed a comprehensive planning study which revealed that

many administrators across the SUS specifically expressed a

need for more and improved career and management development

programs. The report said that the area of career and manage-

ment development was sadly lacking in the SUS and predicted

that unless the leadership of the SUS was proactive, unions

would take the initiative and force the system into doing what

it should have been doing all along (State University System,

1978). An SUS administrator reported, "It is ironic that we

are in the business of higher education, but we are not edu-

cating and developing our own employees" (State University

System, 1978, p. 29). The final recommendation of the 1978

SUS planning study stated that the Florida Board of Regents

should assume an active role in the area of staff development

by facilitating and coordinating university efforts in identi-

fying qualified individuals who can provide appropriate











training, such as seminars and workshops, for potential, new,

and experienced administrators.

To date, the Community College System in Florida has

not conducted a comprehensive planning study to determine the

need for career and management development for community/junior

college faculty, administrators, and staff (Thompson, Note).

However, Florida State Board of Education Rules 6A-14.29 and

6A-14.913 outline how community/junior colleges in Florida

should spend staff and program funds and provide guidelines

for staff and program development activities. Staff develop-

ment is defined as "the improvement of staff performance

through activities which update or upgrade competence speci-

fied for present or planned positions" (Florida State Board

of Education, 1978, p. 216A). All personnel employed by

Florida's community/junior colleges should be included in

staff development programs (Florida State Board of Education,

1978).

Each community[/junior] college shall allocate
from its resources available for current opera-
tions during the fiscal year an amount equal to
not less than two percent (2%) of the previous
year's allocation from the state community
[/junior] college program fund for the purpose
of funding staff program and development activi-
ties. (Florida State Board of Education, 1978,
p. 182)

Therefore, the Community College System in Florida, like its

State University System counterpart, has recognized the impor-

tance of initiating and improving career and management devel-

opment programs among its faculty, administrators, and staff.











Kanter (1978) stated that the role of higher educa-

tion as an employer is as important as its role of educator.

She indicated that

unless colleges and universities as employers
put their own houses in order, their ability to
operate effectively as educators may be seriously
impaired. Thus, quality of life issues (both in
and out of the work environment) should not be
studied only as an academic matter by those in
higher education in order to respond to students.
It should be the object of active experimentation,
via organizational innovations and improvements
so as to respond to those who derive their liveli-
hood from the academy. Higher education supplies
not only education, it also supplies jobs.
(Kanter, 1978, pp. 15-16)

As previously stated, this research study of chief

business, instructional, and student affairs administrators

employed in the Community College System in Florida determined

perceived levels of need fulfillment, need satisfaction and

need importance that these administrators receive from their

professional positions. This research study also provided

data which reflected statistically significant differences

among the demographic responses of the three groups of admin-

istrators regarding need fulfillment, need satisfaction, and

need importance. The findings of this study furnish signifi-

cant data reflecting needs which are perceived as not being

particularly well fulfilled or satisfied by the chief adminis-

trators in the Community College System in Florida. These data,

once carefully analyzed, could provide relevant and timely

information to system-wide and institutional leaders in the

Community College System in Florida. The results of this











research study could assist Florida's community/junior college

leaders in determining which policies, working conditions, job

responsibilities, and staff development activities should be

reviewed and modified in order to address employee job and

need satisfaction.


Conceptual Framework

The literature, both theoretical and empirical, on

motivating people in various walks of life is growing rapidly

in volume and slowly in agreement (Geering, 1980). Leaders

in all types of organizations are continuously faced with the

problem of addressing vast differences in the performance

levels of employees. Researchers in the fields of psychology,

sociology, management, education, religion, and consumerism

are interested in how motivation affects job performance and

satisfaction (Geering, 1980).

Davis (1972) stated that

human behavior is almost always motivated by
a person's desire to satisfy one or more basic
needs. These needs, which may be physical or
psychological, create varying degrees of tension
in a person which then cause the individual to
identify certain "wants." These "wants" are
next transformed into specific types of action
or behavior. (p. 43)

Various researchers (Alderfer, 1969; Herzberg, Mausner,

& Snyderman, 1959; Hoy & Miskel, 1978; Hulin & Smith, 1967;

McGregor, 1969, 1966; Vroom, 1964) have attempted to classify

needs and relate them to job satisfaction. A unique classi-

fication system, which this investigator believes is especially











germane to this study, was advanced by Maslow in "A Theory

of Human Motivation" (1943, 1954, 1968, 1970).

Maslow (1943) classified five types of human needs:

(a) physiological needs; (b) safety needs; (c) belongingness

and love needs; (d) esteem needs; and (e) self-actualization

needs. Maslow's (1943) classification identified these needs

in order of importance to the individual.


Physiological Needs

Physiological needs are basic human needs required

for physical survival and considered essential to the existence

of the organism. Examples of physiological needs include

oxygen, food, water, sex, and shelter. Maslow (1970) believed

physiological needs are relatively independent of each other.

He contended that

undoubtedly these physiological needs are the
most prepotent of all needs. What this means
specifically is that in the human being who is
missing everything in life in an extreme fashion,
it is most likely that the major motivation would
be the physiological needs rather than any others.
A person who is lacking food, safety, love, and
esteem would most probably hunger for food more
strongly than for anything else. (pp. 36-37)

As physiological needs are satisfied, safety needs

emerge.


Safety Needs

Security, stability, dependency, freedom from fear

and anxiety, and protection exemplify safety needs. "All

that has been said to the physiological needs is equally true,











although in less degree, of these desires" (Maslow, 1970,

p. 39). Maslow (1970) also stated that "the healthy and

fortunate adult in our culture is largely satisfied in his

safety needs" (p. 41).

As the safety needs are addressed, the social needs

for belongingness and love emerge.


Belongingness and Love Needs

Affection is characteristic of belongingness and love

needs. Humans hunger for affectionate relations with people

in general and a place in their group or family in particular.

Maslow (1970) stressed that the needs for love and sex are

not synonymous. "Sex should be studied as a purely physio-

logical need. . Also not to be confused, is the fact that

the love needs involve both giving and receiving love"

(Maslow, 1970, p. 45).

As love needs are addressed, the esteem needs begin

to evolve.


Esteem Needs

Maslow (1970) indicated that "all people in our

society (with a few pathological exceptions) have a need or

desire for a stable, firmly based, usually high evaluation

of themselves, for self-respect, or self-esteem, and for the

esteem of others" (p. 45). Esteem needs fall into two cate-

gories. The first category, "self-esteem," consists of a

desire for personal strength, achievement, and confidence.











The second category, "respect from others," entails the desire

for prestige, recognition, and appreciation. According to

Maslow (1970), when esteem needs are satisfied, feelings of

self-confidence, strength, and usefulness to others emerge.

The thwarting of these needs produces feelings of negative

self-concept, inferiority, and helplessness.

People whose needs for esteem are satisfied seek ful-

fillment of self-actualization needs.


Self-actualization Needs

Self-actualization needs are the apex of Maslow's

(1943) hierarchy of needs and refer to an individual's desire

for self-fulfillment. Even with the satisfaction of the four

previously mentioned needs, an individual may still be dis-

contented unless his or her personal and professional poten-

tials are realized. Maslow (1970) explained that "the clear

emergence of these [self-actualization] needs usually rests

upon some prior satisfaction of the physiological, safety,

love and esteem needs" (p. 47). Maslow (1970) believed that

self-actualized persons are more creative and productive than

persons who were not self-actualized. Maslow (1970) also

added that the specific form which self-actualization needs

take will vary greatly among individuals because there is a

wide variation from one person to another in the expression

of these needs.











Insights to Maslow's Theory

Maslow's (1943) theory may give the impression that

complete fulfillment of a lower order need must occur before

the next higher order need emerges and that human needs are

unveiled in a fixed order. However, Maslow (1970) contended

that

in actual fact, most members of our society who
are normal are partially satisfied in all their
basic needs and partially unsatisfied in all
their basic needs at the same time. A more
realistic description of the hierarchy would be
in terms of decreasing percentages of satis-
faction as we go up the hierarchy of prepotency.
For instance, . it is as if the average
citizen is satisfied perhaps 85 percent in his
physiological needs, 70 percent in his safety
needs, 50 percent in his love needs, 40 percent
in his self-esteem needs, and 10 percent in his
self-actualization needs. (pp. 53-54)

Maslow (1970) stated that one single act of an indi-

vidual could be an expression of all five types of basic needs.

In addressing the aspect of multiple motivation of behavior,

Maslow (1970) pointed out that

it would be possible (theoretically if not
practically) to analyze a single act of an
individual and see in it an expression of his
physiological needs, his safety needs, his
love needs, his esteem needs and self-
actualization. For example, one may make
love not only for pure sexual release, but
also to convince oneself of one's masculin-
ity, or to make a conquest, to feel powerful,
to win more basic affection. [The concept of
multiple motivations of behavior] contrasts
sharply with the more naive brand of trait
psychology in which one trait or motive
accounts for a certain kind of act, i.e.,
an aggressive act is traced solely to a
trait of aggressiveness. (p. 55)











Exceptions or reversals of Maslow's (1943) hierarchy

of needs include the following:

1. For some people, self-esteem needs are more
important than love needs as they believe
that the individual most likely to be loved
is the strong, self-confident, and inspiring
person.

2. In some innately creative individuals, the
drive to creativeness is more important than
any other need. The creativeness appears
not as self-actualization due to basic satis-
faction, but in spite of basic satisfaction.

3. Individuals who experience life at a very
low level may have little or no aspiration,
and may never experience middle-order or
higher-order needs.

4. For others, a need which has been satisfied
over a long period of time may be undervalued.
For example, people who have never experienced
chronic hunger are apt to underestimate this
need.

5. Individuals with high ideals, high social
standards, and high values may minimize cer-
tain basic needs for the sake of a particular
ideal or value. (Lowry, 1973, pp. 165-166)

A number of issues and criticisms have been raised

about Maslow's (1943) theory. Studies by Lawler and Suttle

(1972) found little support for the existence of a hierarchy

of needs. Davis (1967) criticized the five-way classification

because in reality all needs are interconnected. Locke (1976)

argued that individuals' needs should not be viewed as being

static, but in a dynamic context. Needs must be continually

and repeatedly fulfilled if an individual is to perform satis-

factorily. Schneider and Alderfer (1973) were critical of











Maslow's theory because its concepts have been difficult to

validate empirically.

Despite its criticism, Maslow's (1943) theory has

gained wide acceptance because it is easy to understand and

has relevance to motivation problems in various kinds of

organizations (Geering, 1980). Three factors led this inves-

tigator, after careful deliberation, to utilize Maslow's

(1943) theory of human motivation as an appropriate theoreti-

cal foundation upon which to conduct this study.

1. Maslow's pioneering research into the area

of physical and psychological needs is impres-

sive. "Maslow's theory of human motivation is

clearly the best known of the need hierarchy

theories and has enjoyed widespread acceptance,

particularly in the writings of many prominent

organizational theorists" (Steers & Porter,

1975, p. 39). His theory "predicts a dynamic,

step by step, causal process of human motivation

in which behavior is governed by a continuously

changing (though predictable) set of 'important'

needs" (Lawler, 1973, p. 28). Maslow's theory

concerning the interrelationships between human

needs and behavior is considered to be as rele-

vant today as it was three decades ago (Williams,

1979).











2. Porter's (1962) Need Fulfillment Questionnaire

for Management can be used to measure the levels

of need fulfillment, need satisfaction, and need

importance of selected Florida community/junior

college administrators in relation to Maslow's

(1943) theory of motivation. According to Waters

and Roach (1973), items used in Porter's (1962)

questionnaire represented Maslow's need categories

and did not cluster as a priori according to the

Maslow system. Porter's items can be used to dif-

ferentiate higher-order and lower-order need

satisfaction. Dore and Meachem (1973) conducted

a reliability study on Porter's questionnaire and

arrived at a test-retest reliability coefficient

of .83 using the Pearson r product moment correla-

tion. Dore and Meachem (1973) also determined

that Porter's questionnaire is a valid instrument.

Thus, a valid and reliable instrument, carefully

designed to assure that each of Maslow's cate-

gories of needs was accurately represented, was

available for this study.

3. A great number of studies have been conducted to

ascertain the validity of Maslow's (1943) theory

and to make application of its concepts to various

organizational settings. For example, Roberts

(1972) compiled a bibliography which listed over











200 periodicals, dissertations, books, research

papers, and essay citations of work published

between 1948 and 1972 which utilized Maslow's

(1943) theory. Researchers utilizing his theory

have been associated with business, education,

industry, and the military (Argyris, 1964; Dye,

1975; Haire, 1956; McGregor, 1966; Mitchell,

1970; Nichols, 1978; Porter, 1961, 1962, 1963a,

1963b, 1963c; Schein, 1965; Strickland, 1973;

Slocum & Topichak, 1972; Trusty & Sergiovanni,

1966; Wahba, 1978; Williams, 1979; Wolf, 1970).


Research Objectives

The following five research objectives provided direc-

tion to this study:

1. To determine the level of perceived need ful-

fillment for each of five psychological need

categories that chief business, instructional,

and student affairs administrators employed in

the Community College System in Florida receive

from their professional positions.

2. To determine the level of perceived need satis-

faction for each of five psychological need

categories that chief business, instructional

and student affairs administrators employed in

the Community College System in Florida receive

from their professional positions.











3. To determine the level of perceived need

importance for each of five psychological need

categories that chief business, instructional,

and student affairs administrators employed in

the Community College System in Florida receive

from their professional positions.

4. To determine if statistically significant levels

exist among individual or institutional demo-

graphic characteristics and levels of obtained

need fulfillment, satisfaction, and importance

for chief business, instructional, and student

affairs administrators employed in the Community

College System in Florida.

5. To determine if statistically significant differ-

ences exist among the obtained need fulfillment,

satisfaction, and importance responses given by

the group of chief business affairs administra-

tors, the group of chief instructional affairs

administrators, and the group of chief student

affairs administrators employed in the Community

College System in Florida.


Assumptions

For purposes of this study, it was assumed that:

1. The perceptions of the respondents when completing

the research instrument were honestly and accu-


rately given.











2. The fulfillment, satisfaction, and importance

of the psychological needs as perceived by the

chief business, instructional, and student

affairs administrators employed in the Community

College System in Florida have a direct relation-

ship to their effectiveness in their professional

positions.

3. The respondents to this study's survey instru-

ment are the chief business affairs, chief

instructional affairs, or chief student affairs

administrators at the community/junior college

where they are employed.

4. The slight modification to the Porter Need Ful-

fillment Questionnaire for Management did not

affect the instrument's reliability or validity.


Definitions

Certain terms, basic to this study, are defined in

this section.


Chief Business Affairs Administrator

The principal officer at a community/junior college

whose primary duties and responsibilities usually include,

but are not limited to, the efficient and effective manage-

ment and general administration in the areas of budget,

finance, bursar, accounting, purchasing, and auxiliary

services (Hillsborough Community College, 1980).












Chief Instructional Affairs Administrator

The principal officer at a community/junior college

whose primary duties and responsibilities usually include,

but are not limited to, the efficient and effective manage-

ment, general operation, and administration of campus and

outreach centers; programs in academic education parallel to

the first and second years of universities, continuing edu-

cation, occupational education, and academic support services;

and the selection, allocation, utilization, and disposition

of assigned personnel, funds, materials and facilities

(Hillsborough Community College, 1980).


Chief Student Affairs Administrator

The principal officer at a community/junior college

whose primary duties and responsibilities include, but are

not limited to, planning, managing, and implementing a quality

student services program which usually includes counseling,

advising, testing, job placement, career exploration, finan-

cial aid, student government, admissions, registration, and

records (Hillsborough Community College, 1980).


Community College System in Florida

The community/junior colleges which comprise the

Community College System in Florida have been designed as com-

prehensive institutions. The 28 community/junior colleges in

Florida's system provide education in the three major areas












of adult continuing education are community instructional

services, occupational education, and general education

parallel to that of the first and second years of Florida's

State University System. Over 200,000 students were enrolled

in Florida's community/junior colleges during the 1979-80

academic year (Division of Community Colleges, 1981).


Job Satisfaction

"The extent to which rewards actually received in a

job meet or exceed the amount of rewards that a person feels

is fair, given his performance on job tasks" (Porter & Lawler,

1968, p. 30).


Motivation

"The recognition by a person of a situation that he

feels stimulated to complete or which stimulates him to con-

tribute to its stability or modification. Motivation is a

general term used to refer to any arousal of an individual to

goal-directed behavior" (Theodorson & Theodorson, 1969, p. 266).


Need

"An internal state of disequilibrium which causes

individuals to pursue certain courses of action in an effort

to regain internal equilibrium" (Steers & Porter, 1975, pp.

22-23).











Need Fulfillment

"The gratification of a psychological condition

essential to the maintenance of internal equilibrium"

(Williams, 1979, p. 16).


Need Importance

The degree to which an individual indicates a level

of concern or consequence to a type of need (Williams, 1979).


Need Satisfaction

"An individual's contentment with the difference

between the amount of need fulfillment received and the

amount of fulfillment the individual believes should be

received" (Williams, 1979, p. 16).


Limitations

The following limitations were present in this

study:

1. The term "need" was limited to psychological

needs.

2. This study was limited to need fulfillment,

need satisfaction, and need importance as measured

by an adaption of Porter's (1962) Need Fulfillment

Questionnaire for Management.

3. This study was limited to responses received

from chief business, instructional, and student

affairs administrators employed in the Community











College System in Florida. Therefore, it is not

advisable to generalize from the findings of this

study to populations of chief business, instruc-

tional, and student affairs administrators

employed outside the Community College System

in Florida.

4. This study was limited because "the measurement

of attitudes is both difficult and controversial

. . The relationship between 'what the person

says' [when responding to Porter's (1962) Need

Fulfillment Questionnaire for Management] and

'what he does,' as well as the relationship

between publicly and privately expressed atti-

tudes, [were] recognized as special instances of

validity" (Anastasi, 1968, p. 481).


Organization of Subsequent Chapters

Chapter II contains a review of related literature

representative of job and need satisfaction research. The

methodology used in this study is described in Chapter III.

The data collected and analyzed for this study are presented

in Chapter IV. Chapter V includes a recapitulation of this

study.















CHAPTER II
REVIEW OF RELATED LITERATURE


The review of literature related to this study is

presented in three units: (a) job satisfaction research;

(b) need satisfaction research; and (c) satisfaction research

utilizing faculty and administrators in higher education. A

chapter summary follows the review of related literature.


Job Satisfaction Research

Although human relationships have existed
since the beginning of time, the art and science
of trying to deal with them in complex organiza-
tions is relatively new. In the early days
people worked alone or in such small groups that
their work relationships were easily handled.
It has been popular to assume that under these
conditions people worked in a Utopia . but
this assumption is largely a nostalgic reinter-
pretation of history. (Davis, 1977, p. 7)

Early empirical studies involving people at work were con-

ducted by Taylor (1911) in the United States during the early

1900s. Taylor is frequently referred to as the father of the

scientific management movement (Kimbrough & Nunnery, 1976).

The changes Taylor brought to management paved the way for

subsequent development of organizational behavior. He was the

first person to call attention to people in the work situation

as important factors in the quest for efficiency in production

(Davis, 1977).











In the 1920s and 1930s, Mayo (1933) and Roethlisberger

and Dickson (1939) gave academic stature to the study of human

behavior at work. Their sociological backgrounds to indus-

trial experiments at the Western Electric Company's Hawthorne

Plant resulted in the notion that an organization is a social

system and the worker is the most important element in it.

Research specifically pertaining to job satisfaction

had it genesis when Hoppock (1935) interviewed the working

population of an entire community using a standardized set of

questions and attitude scales. Although surveys of job satis-

faction have been undertaken by numerous researchers since the

Hoppock studies, there are few who have made significant sub-

stantive or methodological contributions to his approach.

The refinements made to Hoppock's techniques have resulted in

little change to his findings on job satisfaction (Robinson,

Connors, & Whitacre, 1966).

Research on job attitudes and satisfaction by occupa-

tional sociologists and industrial psychologists was minimal

from the mid-1930s to the mid-1940s. Robinson, Athanasion,

and Head (1978) attributed this phenomena to the economic

upheaval and social conflict prevalent during that period of

time. "Apparently, under chaotic conditions, the more refined

problems to which job attitudes and satisfaction can be related,

such as increasing output or reducing marginality, are super-

ceded by the more basic concerns of the problem-solver and

those who employ him" (Robinson, Athanasion, & Head, 1978,

pp. 19-20).











Following World War II, various approaches to study-

ing work and job satisfaction began to emerge. Coch and

French (1948) demonstrated that worker participation in deci-

sion-making is an effective means of promoting greater pro-

ductivity and lower rates of personnel turnover. Katz (1951)

studied the impact of group cohesion and supervisory styles

on organizational effectiveness. Lewin (1951) utilized his

theoretical insights to critique research which studied com-

parisons of satisfied and dissatisfied and productive and

non-productive workers. Walker and Guest (1951), Friedman

and Havighurst (1954), and Chinoy (1955) tested hypotheses

about worker alienation by directly interviewing samples of

workers. These examples of worker satisfaction research

typified the movement from an introspective and ideological

orientation to a more systematic and disinterested approach

to occupational sociology (Robinson, 1978).

Throughout most of the 1950s, the study of job satis-

faction and its effect on worker performance became the vogue

concern of social science researchers. Human relations

experts were convinced that the panacea to employers' prob-

lems was increasing the job satisfaction of their employees.

Ferguson (1958) critiqued the human relations era by saying

that few and far between were studies which suggested that

morale, happiness, and job satisfaction were worthy ends in

and of themselves. The passion of the day was to prove that

high morale increased productivity.











The research of Herzberg, Mausner, and Snyderman

(1959) took a radical departure from previous job satisfac-

tion studies. These researchers interviewed industrial

accountants and engineers in an effort to identify factors

which the interviewees felt were exceptionally good or bad

about their jobs. The researchers found that the interviewees

named different conditions for good and bad feelings. For

example, if a feeling of recognition led to a good feeling,

the lack of recognition was rarely given as a cause for bad

feelings. As a result of their research, Herzberg et al.

(1959) defined two types of job-related factors associated

with job satisfaction and dissatisfaction. One type, labeled

hygiene or maintenance factors, consisted of job conditions

which operated primarily to dissatisfy employees when these

conditions were absent from the work environment. Herzberg

et al. (1959) also found that "when hygiene factors were

present in the work situation, they did not serve to motivate

employees" (p. 113). Conversely, motivational factors were

defined by Herzberg et al. to be job conditions which operated

primarily to build strong motivation and high levels of job

satisfaction. Herzberg et al. also discovered that "the

absence of these motivational factors in the work environment

rarely proved dissatisfying to employees" (1959, p. 114).

According to Robinson et al. (1978), three major job

satisfaction studies in the 1960s were conducted by Blauner

(1960), Gurin, Veroff,and Feld (1960), and Kilpatrick,











Cummings, and Jennings (1964). Blauner (1960) identified

three important factors that led to differential job satis-

faction across occupational lines. The factors identified

by Blauner were prestige, control over work conditions, and

cohesiveness of the work group. Gurin, Veroff, and Feld

(1960) investigated the mental health of a national cross-

section of Americans and asked six sets of open-ended ques-

tions regarding different components of job satisfaction.

Research conducted by Gurin et al. (1960) concluded that

people in higher status jobs, when compared to blue-collar

workers, sought and received more ego gratification in their

work, and experienced greater frustration when these ego grati-

fication needs were not satisfied. Kilpatrick, Cummings, and

Jennings (1964) studied the attitudes and values of federal

and non-federal employees regarding their job attitudes.

Their study concluded that men stressed career-related values

such as security, self-advancement, and wages as important

factors in job satisfaction. Women emphasized personal rela-

tionships, understanding supervision, and worthwhile work as

primary elements to their job satisfaction.

Wernimont, Toren, and Kapell (1970) aimed their study

at determining the difference between the personal job satis-

faction and worker motivation of approximately 775 scientists.

Their respondents ranked factors including personal accomplish-

ment, praise for effective work, getting along with fellow

workers, and receiving credit for ideas as giving greater











personal satisfaction. Factors that were effective in moti-

vating the scientists included clearly understanding job

expectations, having a capable supervisor, undertaking chal-

lenging work, and participating in decision-making. As a

result of their research, Wernimont et al. (1970) warned

others not to use the terms "motivation" and "job satisfaction"

interchangeably. Wolf (1970) also made a similar distinction

between these terms in an unrelated study.

Wanous and Lawler (1972) determined that different

measures of job satisfaction may not measure the same vari-

ables. They also believed that a distinction could be drawn

between overall job satisfaction and satisfaction with indi-

vidual aspects of a job. Wanous and Lawler (1972) concluded

that most job satisfaction studies measured the concept in

terms of one or more of nine operational definitions which

were theoretically based on need fulfillment, equity, or

work/values.

The Survey Research Center of the University of

Michigan, under contract with the Employment Standards Admin-

istration, United States Department of Labor, conducted a

national survey in 1973 of workers in various occupations.

The major findings of the study were reported in a comprehen-

sive federal report on job satisfaction and contained the

following information:

1. Job satisfaction among minority groups has
been consistently lower than that of whites.

2. Younger workers are less satisfied with
their jobs than older workers.












3. Among occupational categories, profes-
sional-technical workers, managers, and
proprietors register the highest level
of job satisfaction, while operatives
and nonfarm laborers register the lowest.

4. Female workers are as satisfied with
their jobs as are males.

5. Among workers without a college degree,
little relationship exists between edu-
cational level and job satisfaction.
Those workers with college degrees,
however, have high levels of job satis-
faction. Low levels of satisfaction
are registered by workers with some
college education but no degree.

6. Availability of resources needed to per-
form well in a job and challenging work
responsibilities are two job factors
perceived to be the most important to
workers. Lower importance ratings were
given to financial rewards and job com-
fort factors.

7. No convincing evidence exists that a
direct cause-effect relationship occurs
between job satisfaction and productivity.
(United States Department of Labor, 1974,
pp. 1-2)

Recent investigations have been conducted specifically

concerning the relationship of overall job satisfaction to

longevity in the same position. Most jobs can seem interest-

ing at first, but then a dilemma of competing values emerges

(Kanter, 1979). "Organizations want stability" (Argyris,

1972, p. 7) while "incumbents want to use their skills fully

in challenging new experiences and in positions of higher

status" (Bisconti & Solmon, 1977, p. 26). However, stability

requires that tasks become routine and routine tasks can result











in repetitive, boring work. For someone in a middle level

job with little hope of achieving the American expectation

of advancement, the potentiality of boredom and lack of job

satisfaction is increasing (Cooper, Morgan, Foley, & Kaplan,

1979).

Research involving job satisfaction has dramatically

evolved since Hoppock's (1935) pioneering study. Many of the

studies previously mentioned are among the 3,350 articles,

books, and dissertations which Dunnette (1976) identified

during a recent literature search on the subject of job

satisfaction.


Need Satisfaction Research

Until the 1950s, studies of jobs in industry and busi-

ness tended to concentrate on technical aspects of work, such

as lists of duties, responsibilities, activities performed,

and personality traits. Relatively few studies were concerned

with the psychological characteristics of jobs (Porter, 1961).

Schaffer's (1953) research departed from the tradi-

tional approach of studying work by not analyzing technical

aspects of jobs. Instead, Schaffer surveyed 113 men employed

in business institutions and vocational guidance agencies and

concluded that "work is seen as simply a special area of human

behavior and whatever psychological mechanisms operate to make

people satisfied or dissatisfied in general also make them

satisfied or dissatisfied in their work" (1953, p. 2).











Schaffer's (1953) findings revealed that "the strongest

worker needs were related to (a) creativity and challenge;

(b) mastery and achievement; and (c) social welfare (helping

others). Needs which were weakest were related to both

dependence and independence and socioeconomic status" (p. 19).

He indicated that "the most accurate prediction of overall

job satisfaction can be made from the measure of the extent

to which each person's two or three strongest needs are satis-

fied" (Schaffer, 1953, p. 18).

Haire (1959) pointed out that one of the major prob-

lems researchers faced when studying motivation in organiza-

tions was how to name and classify various needs. In an

attempt to alleviate this enigma, numerous writers (Argyris,

1957; Davis, 1957; Haire, 1956, 1959; Leavitt, 1958; Smith,

1955; Viteles, 1953; Walker & Guest, 1952) utilized in one

form or another, Maslow's (1943) conceptualization of a

hierarchy of need satisfaction. In general, these researchers

reported that organizations tend to "pay" their workers in

physical or security need satisfaction areas rather than in

higher-order areas, such as social, esteem, or self-

actualization satisfaction (Porter, 1961).

Porter, (1961, 1962, 1963a, 1963b, 1963c) and Porter

and Henry (1964a, 1964b) conducted a series of studies to

ascertain the existence of and differences in perceived psy-

chological needs of employees in industrial organizations.

These efforts provided a solid foundation for much of the need

satisfaction research since 1961 (Williams, 1979).











Porter (1961) utilized a modified categorization of

Maslow's (1943) hierarchy of human needs and developed a Need

Satisfaction Questionnaire based on Maslow's (1943) theory of

human motivation. Using 139 subjects drawn from the lowest

levels of management in three different organizations, Porter

(1961) concluded that

1. The vertical location of management posi-
tions appears to be an important variable
in determining the extent to which psy-
chological needs are fulfilled.

2. The greatest differences in the frequency
of need-fulfillment deficiencies between
bottom- and middle-management positions
occur in the esteem, security, and autonomy
need areas. These needs are significantly
more often satisfied in middle than in
bottom management.

3. Higher-order psychological needs are rela-
tively the least satisfied needs in both
bottom and middle management.

4. Self-actualization and security are seen
as more important areas of need satis-
faction than the areas of social, esteem,
and autonomy, by individuals in both
bottom- and middle-management positions.

5. The highest-order need of self-actualization
is the most critical need area of those
studied, in terms of both perceived defi-
ciency in fulfillment and perceived impor-
tance to the individual, in both bottom and
middle management. The need is not per-
ceived as significantly more satisfied at
the middle-management level than at the
bottom-management level. (pp. 9-10)

In 1962, Porter extended the scope of his previous

1961 study. He studied differences in perceived deficiencies

in need fulfillment at levels of management ranging from

entry-level supervisors to presidents. His Need Fulfillment











Questionnaire for Management was sent to 6,000 managers and

executives located throughout the United States. In general,

the results of Porter's 1962 study supported the conclusions

of his 1961 work. Porter (1962) found that lower- and middle-

level management had greater need deficiencies than upper-

level management personnel.

Porter (1963c) determined that lower-level management

personnel in small companies had relatively smaller need defi-

ciencies than managers of large companies. However, higher

levels of management at large companies had relatively smaller

need deficiencies than managers of small companies. Porter

(1963b) concluded that line managers had relatively less per-

ceived need fulfillment deficiencies than staff managers,

especially in the esteem and self-realization areas.

Trusty and Sergiovanni (1966) administered Porter's

(1961) Need Satisfaction Questionnaire to 310 teachers and

administrators in a school district that contained grades

K-12. They found that the educators in the school district

had perceived psychological needs which varied according to

professional position and sex. Administrators reported they

were less satisfied with their opportunities for self-

realization than were teachers. However, administrators

indicated greater satisfaction in esteem items than did

teachers. Teaching as an occupation appeared to have more

potential for need fulfillment for women than for men. A

further interpretation revealed that teaching as an occupation











appeared to have more potential for providing need fulfill-

ment for women (Trusty & Sergiovanni, 1966, p. 176).

Ivancevich (1969) studied the perceived need satis-

faction of domestic versus overseas managers. Ivancevich

determined that managers working abroad were more satisfied

with autonomy opportunities than were their counterparts in

the United States.

In his study of need satisfaction and job satisfac-

tion, Blai (1970) studied 470 employees of the federal govern-

ment who held various jobs ranging from laborers to high-level

professionals. Among the professionals, Blai found that the

strongest needs were self-actualization, interesting duties,

and opportunity for advancement.

Davis (1977) postulated that a dramatic shift in the

need structure of the labor force in the United States will

have occurred by 1985. He illustrated (see Figure 1) the

possible change in distribution of dominant needs in the

labor force from 1935 to 1985 by utilizing Maslow's (1943)

hierarchy of needs. Davis believed that the distribution of

the five Maslow needs in 1935 was as shown in the left side

of the figure. Security needs dominated, followed by basic

physiological needs. Very few people were at a level where

self-actualization was their dominant need. "Since 1935,

need distribution has been shifting upward, and by 1985 we

may assume that social and esteem needs will dominate, fol-

lowed by the need for self-actualization. Dominant
























Need Levels Percentage of Labor Force
Self-
actualization 3
Esteem 7

Social 10
Security 45
o" ss.'.:P:.;is 35
Physiological 35

1935


Need Levels Percentage of Labor Force
Self-
dctuallzatlon 20
Esteem 30

Social 30

Securllty i 16
Physiological j6

19895


Figure 1. Possible Change in Distribution of Dominant
Needs in the Labor Force, 1935-1985.











physiological needs among employees should be rather rare by

that date" (Davis, 1977, p. 46).

The basic premise of need satisfaction was stated by

Zytowski (1968) as one in which job satisfaction was defined

as being "proportionate to the degree that the elements of

the job satisfy the particular needs which the person feels

most strongly" (p. 399). The previous statement, coupled with

Maslow's theory, may tend to indicate that "in jobs which

satisfy lower level needs, satisfaction based on need grati-

fication may be followed by dissatisfaction or lack of satis-

faction based on the emergence of new needs" (Groseth, 1978,

p. 22).


Satisfaction Research Utilizing Administrators
in Higher Education

Many researchers have studied job and need satisfaction

as it pertained to administrators in higher education. For

example, an early study by Knox (1953) involved the collection

of data from 1,439graduates from the University of Illinois

who were engaged in teaching or educational administration.

The results obtained from the questionnaires returned to Knox

indicated that working conditions and salary were the primary

factors which contributed the most to dissatisfaction. Con-

versely, salary was an unimportant variable to the most

satisfied respondents.

Cheatham (1964) studied the characteristics of members

of the American College Personnel Association (ACPA). Cheatham











noted that most student affairs administrators felt their

greatest job satisfaction came from helping students, working

as team members, and exercising leadership. Cheatham con-

cluded that student affairs administrators prized the

intrinsic rewards of their jobs.

Scott (1965) found that the greatest satisfaction of

student affairs administrators came from their opportunity to

work with college students and help address their problems.

According to Scott, the student affairs administrators in the

study were most dissatisfied with long and irregular work

hours, heavy workloads, and the lack of appreciation by

faculty and other administrators.

Hargrove (1969) measured job satisfaction by asking

the chief student affairs administrators at Southern Associa-

tion of Colleges and Schools (SACS) institutions their impres-

sions of the advantages and disadvantages of their jobs.

Hargrove revealed that the chief student affairs administra-

tors at SACS institutions felt working with young people,

performing a variety of tasks, developing good personal and

professional associations, and providing meaningful services

were advantages of their positions. The respondents felt

that disadvantages to being the chief student affairs admin-

istrator included long and irregular hours, being caught in

the middle of conflicting points of view, being considered

as strictly a disciplinarian, and not being understood or

accepted by members of the faculty.











Bess and Lodahl (1969) conducted a study involving

university administrators in middle-management positions.

Administrators in admissions, student affairs, university

relations, student records, institutional research, and

financial aid were studied to determine their career patterns

and job satisfaction. Bess and Lodahl revealed that a high

percentage of administrators had positive perceptions about

their jobs. Salary and maximum salary issues emerged as areas

with the least satisfaction. Satisfaction with the adminis-

trator's institution of employment and relationships with

peers and supervisors was high. Less than half of the sample

reported satisfaction with opportunities for personal growth,

autonomy, learning, and exercising special abilities. Thus,

"in spite of the study's reflection of high satisfaction with

social needs, subsistence and growth needs were apparently

not being met" (Bess & Lodahl, 1969, p. 227).

Ferrari's (1972) study strongly suggested that a

future oversupply of student affairs candidates for employment

is inevitable. Undoubtedly this growing imbalance will create

a strain for persons trained in student affairs areas who are

seeking employment. The employment outlook for student

affairs administrators is not bright. According to Ferrari,

staff cutbacks and reduced inter- and intra-institutional

mobility could lead to increased job dissatisfaction and

frustration for student affairs administrators.











Strickland (1973) conducted a need satisfaction study

by surveying chief business affairs administrators at 89

institutions that belonged to the National Association of

State Universities and Land Grant Colleges. Strickland

adapted Porter's (1962) Need Fulfillment Questionnaire for

Management and utilized it to obtain results from 66 chief

business affairs administrators throughout the nation.

Strickland's major findings included the following:

1. Chief business officers in institutions
of higher education generally experience
a high degree of satisfaction in their
work when considered both alone and in
comparison with counterpart groups in
other fields.

2. Business officers are most satisfied with
their perceived level of job security.
However, they view this need as being the
least important.

3. Business officers perceive their positions
as receiving a higher level of prestige
from persons outside the institution than
from those inside the institution.

4. Business officers are least satisfied with
the feeling of worthwhile accomplishment
obtained from their work (self-realization)
and attach the highest level of importance
to this need. (1973, pp. 90-91)

Bowling (1973) investigated the relationship between

leadership behavior of chief student affairs administrators

in 11 southeastern universities and the morale and job satis-

faction of their department heads. Intrinsic and extrinsic

factors of job satisfaction were measured by the Minnesota

Satisfaction Questionnaire. Bowling's (1973) findings











revealed that instrinsic job factors included compensation,

advancement, supervision, implementation of university poli-

cies, ability of supervisors to work with staff, and compe-

tence of supervisors in making decisions. The findings

indicated that leadership of the chief student affairs

administrator directly related to the morale of the student

affairs division and to the job satisfaction of student

affairs department heads.

Dye (1975) utilized Porter's (1962) Need Fulfillment

Questionnaire for Management and surveyed a national sample

of 218 student affairs administrators employed at public

colleges and universities. Dye's findings revealed that

these administrators received the highest level of fulfill-

ment in security needs and the lowest amount of fulfillment

in social needs. The degree of need fulfillment perceived

in all five need categories was above average, ranking from

most fulfilled to least fulfilled as follows: (a) security;

(b) autonomy; (c) self-realization; (d) esteem; and

(e) social (Dye, 1975, p. 49).

Dye's (1975) findings regarding need fulfillment were

similar to the results of Porter (1962) and Strickland (1973).

Respondents to the studies of Dye, Porter, and Strickland

indicated that their social needs were least fulfilled.

Porter and Strickland found autonomy to be the most fulfilled

need in their studies; whereas Dye's study indicated that


security needs were most fulfilled.











Jackson (1975) asked 442 middle managers and vice-

presidents from five Illinois universities to choose from 48

pairs of job factors in order to determine the factors which

contributed most to their job satisfaction. Jackson's find-

ings showed that middle managers identified with Herzberg,

Mausner and Snyderman's (1959) motivation factors as relating

to job satisfaction. In Jackson's study, the vice-presidents

accurately predicted that motivation factors would relate to

the job satisfaction among their middle managers.

Nichols (1978) studied job satisfaction levels of

college and university presidents and academic deans from

150 randomly sampled member institutions of the Southern

Association of Colleges and Schools (SACS). Porter's (1961)

Need Satisfaction Questionnaire was used in the collection

of data process. Nichols found that academic deans perceived

greater need deficiencies in areas of autonomy and self-

realization than did presidents. Minority administrators

revealed greater need deficiencies than their white counter-

parts. The age of an administrator was not found to be a

significant factor in differentially perceived need defi-

ciencies.

Groseth (1978) interviewed selected student affairs

administrators in the State University System (SUS) of Florida

in order to determine specific contributors of job satisfac-

tion and dissatisfaction. He also tested Herzberg, Mausner,

and Snyderman's (1959) motivator-hygiene theory of job











satisfaction. "The data showed that for the 196 satisfying

incidents in the study, 134 or 68.3 percent were classified

with motivators as Herzberg's theory would predict. For the

181 dissatisfying incidents in the study, 147 or 81.3 percent

were classified with hygienes as Herzberg's theory would

predict" (Groseth, 1978, p. vii).

Schmitz (1978) conducted a study involving 184 aca-

demic deans employed in Big Eight Conference universities to

determine factors affecting their job satisfaction and dis-

satisfaction. In this study, academic deans reported satis-

faction with their jobs when

1. Their work was challenging and varied;

2. Their work effort was noticed and praised;

3. They were given responsibility;

4. They had good interpersonal relations with
superiors, colleagues, and members of the
faculty; and

5. Their job provided opportunity for growth.
(Schmitz, 1978)

Conversely, academic deans reported dissatisfaction

with their jobs when

1. They felt uncomfortable towards university
policy and administration;

2. They lacked respect for supervisors or had
poor interpersonal relations with superiors;

3. Their working conditions were unfavorable;

4. Their work efforts were unnoticed or criticized;











5. They failed to handle responsibilities of
their job or could not see results of their
work; and

6. They had poor relations with colleagues
and members of the faculty. (Schmitz, 1978)

Wahba (1978) determined that college and university

library administrators were dissatisfied with such job-related

factors as salary, promotions, and other security-related

items. Females expressed higher need deficiencies than males

in security, esteem, autonomy, and self-realization need

areas. Female librarians also indicated more dissatisfaction

than males with their work activity, salary, promotions, and

supervision.

Buxton's (1978) research regarding the job satisfac-

tion of college and university presidents revealed that

presidents were moderately satisfied with their work. Presi-

dents of private institutions were significantly more satis-

fied with their jobs than presidents of public institutions.

Presidents whose institutions were part of a system were less

satisfied than presidents in other organizational settings.

College and university presidents who were satisfied

with their jobs

1. Experienced positive relationships with
fellow administrators;

2. Actively participated in the formation of
institutional policies;

3. Maintained positive relationships with
governing bodies;











4. Attained their desired professional goals;
and

5. Received appropriate recognition from
business and industrial leaders. (Buxton, 1978)

College and university presidents who were not satis-

fied with their jobs

1. Felt a lack of available time to fulfill
job responsibilities;

2. Desired increased teaching and research
opportunities;

3. Were frustrated in addressing contemporary
aims and objectives of higher education;

4. Were unhappy with current procedures for
evaluating their performance; and

5. Desired provisions for employment upon
their termination. (Buxton, 1978)

Williams (1979) utilized a two-part survey instrument

in which an adapted version of Porter's (1961) Need Satis-

faction Questionnaire was distributed to 270 academic affairs

and 180 student affairs administrators. The administrators

were located throughout the United States and worked at

institutions belonging to the National Association of State

Universities and Land Grant Colleges (NASULGC). A secondary

sample of 100 similar administrators employed throughout the

nine-campus State University System in Florida was also sur-

veyed.

After receiving response rates of 82.2 percent

nationally and 91.0 percent in Florida, the results of the

study revealed that











1. Academic administrators nationally reveal
most fulfillment with autonomy needs and
least fulfillment with social needs. When
need satisfaction is calculated, these
officers appear highly satisfied with
security and least satisfied with self-
realization needs. Academic officers
assign greatest importance to self-
realization needs and least importance
to security needs.

2. Student affairs officers nationally reveal
most fulfillment with autonomy and least
fulfillment with security, esteem, and
social needs. When need satisfaction is
determined, these officers are highly
satisfied with social and security needs
and reveal least satisfaction with self-
realization needs. They attach most
importance to self-realization and least
importance to security needs.

3. Florida academic administrators reveal most
fulfillment with esteem and autonomy needs
and least fulfillment with security needs.
These officers indicate most satisfaction
with esteem needs and least satisfaction
with self-realization needs. They also
consider self-realization needs most
important and security needs least impor-
tant.

4. Florida student affairs officers reveal most
fulfillment with social needs and least ful-
fillment with esteem and security needs.
When considering satisfaction levels, these
administrators are most satisfied with social
needs and least satisfied with self-realization
needs. They place most importance on self-
realization needs and least importance on
social needs. (Williams, 1979, pp. iii-iv)

Hokom (1979) surveyed administrators and faculty at

ten public community colleges in Idaho, Montana, and Wyoming

to determine if there was a relationship between faculty job

satisfaction and the difference in the perceptions of faculty











and administrators toward faculty roles. No relationship

was found between job satisfaction and the difference in

faculty and administrator perceptions of faculty roles.

Studer (1980) mailed a 55-item questionnaire to a

stratified random sample of 25 percent of the 1,361 chief

student affairs administrators in four-year institutions in

the United States. His study provided data on the perceived

satisfaction of the chief student affairs administrators.

Based on the findings of Studor's (1980) study, the following

conclusions were reached:

1. College student affairs administrators

tended to be very satisfied with all

aspects of their positions except their

compensation.

2. Professionally prepared and non-professionally

prepared college student affairs administra-

tors generally did not differ from each other

in terms of basic characteristics and job

satisfaction.

Tiboah-Godred (1980) conducted a comparative study of

academic department chairmen and chairwomen at Michigan State

University in order to determine their job satisfaction.

Tiboah-Godred concluded that no difference in factors of job

satisfaction existed between Michigan State University depart-

ment chairmen and chairwomen. The chairpersons valued the







49



quality of work, "psychic compensation," and intrinsic

rewards of their job more than financial compensation.


Chapter Summary

This chapter contained a review of literature related

to the measurement of human needs in work environments. Rele-

vant studies, representative of job satisfaction research,

need satisfaction research, and satisfaction research uti-

lizing faculty and administrators in higher education, were

described.

The next chapter describes the methodology developed

and utilized in implementing this study.















CHAPTER III
METHODOLOGY


The procedures developed and utilized in collecting

data for this study are described and summarized in this

chapter. The research methodology for this study consisted

of the following elements: (a) research populations;

(b) instrument development; (c) endorsement of this study;

(d) data collection; and (e) analysis of data.


Research Populations

The research populations for this study consisted of

the chief business, instructional, and student affairs admin-

istrators employed in the Community College System in Florida.

In order to correctly identify these chief administrators,

this investigator utilized the September, 1981 rosters of the

Council of Business Affairs, Council on Instructional Affairs,

and Council of Student Affairs. The rosters were obtained

from the State of Florida, Division of Community Colleges.

Revisions to the September, 1981 rosters were provided by

the chairperson of each council prior to the initial distri-

bution of the survey instrument.

The membership of the previously mentioned councils

represents the 28 public community/junior colleges in Florida

and serves in an advisory capacity to the Council of

50











Presidents. The Council of Presidents is comprised of the

presidents from each of Florida's public community/junior

colleges. The Council of Presidents transmits recommenda-

tions to the Division of Community Colleges, the State Com-

munity College Coordinating Board, and other appropriate

bodies (Division of Community Colleges, 1981).

The community/junior college administrators who com-

prise the Council of Business Affairs, Council on Instructional

Affairs, and Council of Student Affairs were specifically

selected by this investigator: (a) because of their respec-

tive community/junior college president designated them as

their institution's chief business, instructional, or student

affairs officer; (b) in order to obtain research data from

administrators employed in similar capacities at institutions

which are relatively homogeneous in character and purpose and

which share similar objectives and concerns; and (c) in order

to compare the results of this study with previous need and

job satisfaction research utilizing similar populations of

administrators employed at community/junior colleges and

universities located throughout the United States.


Council of Business Affairs

The Council of Business Affairs consists
of the chief business officer, as designated
by the president of each community[/junior]
college, and the Chief of the Bureau of
Financial and Business Services of the Division
of Community Colleges, who serves as the Chair-
man of the Council. The Council serves in an











advisory capacity to the Council of Presidents
and develops recommendations relating to finan-
cial and business matters and submits them to
the Council of Presidents for appropriate
action. (Divisicn of Community Colleges, 1981,
p. 15)

During the 1981-82 academic year, the Council of

Business Affairs had 28 members who served as their institu-

tion's chief business affairs administrator. The official

roster of the Council of Business Affairs was obtained from

the Division of Community Colleges, Bureau of Financial and

Business Services. The 28 Florida public community/junior

colleges with representatives on the Council of Business

Affairs are listed in Appendix A.


Council on Instructional Affairs

The Council on Instructional Affairs
consists of the chief instructional officers)
as designated by the president of each com-
munity[/junior] college. Under the Chief of
the Bureau of Program and Support Services
[of the Division of Community Colleges], the
Bureau staff works with the Council and serves
as a liaison between the Council and the Divi-
sion. The Council studies and acts on instruc-
tional matters of statewide concern and serves
in an advisory capacity to the Council of
Presidents. (Division of Community Colleges,
1981, p. 14)

During the 1981-32 academic year, the Council on

Instructional Affairs had 44 members who served as their

institution's chief instructional affairs administrators.

Of the 44 chief instructional affairs administrators on the

Council on Instructional Affairs, 26 chief instructional

affairs administrators represented individual campuses of











multi-campus community/junior colleges. The official roster

of the Council on Instructional Affairs was obtained from

the Division of Community Colleges, Bureau of Program Support

and Services. The 28 Florida public community/junior col-

leges with representatives on the Council on Instructional

Affairs are listed in Appendix A.


Council of Student Affairs

The Council of Student Affairs consists
of the chief student affairs officers) as.
designated by the president of each community
[/junior] college. Under the Chief of the
Bureau of Program Support and Services of the
Division of Community Colleges, the Bureau
staff works with the Council and serves as the
liaison between the Council and the Division.
The Council serves in an advisory capacity to
the Council of Presidents. It develops recom-
mendations of statewide concern relating to
all student affairs matters and transmits
these recommendations to the Council of Presi-
dents. (Division of Community Colleges, 1981,
p. 15)

During the 1981-82 academic year, the Council of

Student Affairs had 39 members who served as their institu-

tion's chief student affairs administrators. Of the 39 chief

student affairs administrators on the Council of Student

Affairs, 20 chief student affairs administrators represented

individual campuses of multi-campus community/junior colleges.

The official roster of the Council of Student Affairs was

obtained from the Division of Community Colleges, Bureau of

Program Support and Services. The 28 Florida public community/

junior colleges with representatives on the Council of Student

Affairs are listed in Appendix A.











Instrument Development

Data for this study were collected by means of a two-

part survey instrument. The first part of the instrument

questioned the selected administrators on the level of per-

ceived need fulfillment, satisfaction, and importance they

experience in their professional positions. The second part

of the instrument sought demographic data pertaining to the

selected administrators. The two parts of the survey instru-

ment are discussed in detail below. A copy of the complete

survey instrument may be found in Appendix B.


Part I. Survey of Need Fulfillment,
Satisfaction, and Importance

Porter (1962) developed a research instrument, the

Need Fulfillment Questionnaire for Management, capable of

quantifying the degree to which certain psychological needs

of managers can be satisfied as a result of their work situa-

tion. Porter's instrument utilized a modified Maslow-type

categorization of needs in order to ascertain perceived levels

of need fulfillment, need satisfaction, and need importance

(Porter, 1962). Porter's 1962 Need Fulfillment Questionnaire

for Management and his 1961 Need Satisfaction Questionnaire

contain identical sets of questions (Porter, 1962).

Porter's (1962) research instrument measures five

basic need categories which slightly varies from Maslow's

(1943) hierarchy of needs in three ways. First, Porter's

instrument did not contain items related to the physiological











needs identified by Maslow. Items pertaining to physiological

needs were excluded from the instrument because it was assumed

that these needs were adequately satisfied for a person in a

managerial position. Second, Maslow's "safety," "love," and

"self-actualization" need categories were renamed by Porter

to "security," "social," and "self-realization," respectively.

Thirdly, Porter modified Maslow's hierarchy of needs by adding

a category identified as "autonomy." Porter's "autonomy"

category is comparable to Maslow's need for "esteem." In

Porter's instrument, "autonomy" items were separated from

other items more commonly associated with the term "esteem."

Therefore, Porter's modification of Maslow's hierarchy of

needs contains: security needs; social needs; esteem needs;

autonomy needs; and self-realization needs (Williams, 1979).

Porter's instrument contained 13 items classified

into a Maslow-type hierarchy of needs system. For purposes

of this study, a minor adaption was made to Porter's instru-

ment by substituting the term "community/junior college" for

the term "company." The 13 items are listed below according

to their respective category of need. However, the first

part of the instrument utilized in this study had Porter's

13 items presented in the order in which he arranged them

for his 1962 Need Fulfillment Questionnaire for Management.

The five Maslow (1943) categories of needs and the

13 items utilized in Porter's (1962) instrument were:











I. Security needs
1. The feeling of security in my management
position

II. Social needs
1. The opportunity, in my management posi-
tion, to give help to other people
2. The opportunity to develop close friend-
ships in my management position

III. Esteem needs
1. The feeling of self-esteem a person gets
from being in my management position
2. The prestige of my management position
inside the company (that is, the regard
received from others in the company)
3. The prestige of my management position
outside the company (that is, the regard
received from others not in the company)

IV. Autonomy needs
1. The authority connected with my management
position
2. The opportunity for independent thought
and action in my management position
3. The opportunity, in my management position,
for participation in the setting of goals
4. The opportunity, in my management position,
for the participation in the determination
of methods and procedures

V. Self-actualization needs
1. The opportunity for personal growth and
development in my management position
2. The feeling of self-fulfillment a person
gets from being in my management position
(that is, the feeling of being able to use
one's own unique capabilities, realizing
one's potentialities)
3. The feeling of worthwhile accomplishment
in my management position. (Porter, 1962,
p. 376)

For each of the previous 13 need items, chief business,

instructional, and student affairs administrators in Florida's

public community/junior colleges were asked the following


three questions:











(a) How much is there now?

(min) 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 (max)

(b) How much should there be?

(min) 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 (max)

(c) How important is this to me?

(min) 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 (max)

(Porter, 1962, p. 376)

For each question, the respondent was asked to circle

a number on a scale from 1 to 7, in which low numbers, 1-3,

represented minimum amounts and high numbers, 5-7, represented

maximum amounts. The midpoint of the scale was numbered 4 and

represented an average situation, not outstanding in either

direction (Williams, 1979).

Robinson, Athanasion, and Head (1978) pointed out

that

since the respondent to Porter's [1962] instru-
ment will not be asked about satisfaction, per se,
[one can assume that] the method of scaling used
in this questionnaire reduces the probability that
any simple response set determines the expression
of satisfaction. An a priori assumption [was]
made that the less the difference between "How much
x is there," and "How much x should there be," the
greater the satisfaction with the characteristics
in question. (p. 149)

This method takes into consideration the idea of "expectation"

which may reasonably be expected to vary among management

levels. The question readily asked of the respondent is, "How

satisfied are you in terms of what you expected from this par-

ticular management position?" (Robinson et al., 1978, p. 149).











Although Porter's (1962) questionnaire has been used

in numerous studies (Porter, 1961, 1962, 1963a, 1963b, 1963c,

1964a, 1964b; Slocum & Topichah, 1972; Trusty & Sergiovanni,

1966), until 1973, no one, including Porter, conducted a

study to determine the questionnaire's test-retest reliability.

In order to address this oversight, Dore and Meachem (1973)

conducted a reliability study and concluded that Porter's

(1962) questionnaire had a Pearson r product moment correla-

tion of .83.

According to Anastasi (1968)

the measurement of attitudes is both difficult
and controversial. . Attitude scales . .
may be validated against a number of criteria,
such as membership in contrasted groups, ratings
by close acquaintances, and biographical data
secured through intensive interview or case
studies. Because of the practical difficulties
in obtaining such criterion, however, investi-
gators have frequently relied on the familiar
makeshifts involving validation by internal con-
sistency or by correlation with another attitude
scale. (pp. 481-482)

In an attempt to demonstrate that Porter's (1962) question-

naire is a valid instrument, Dore and Meachem (1973) admin-

istered it with Meachem's Self-Concept Scale, Meachem's Ideal

Self-Concept Scale, Dore and Meachem's Required Self-Concept

Scale, and Nash's Strong Vocational Interest Blank, Form T399.

Dore and Meachem (1973) found that Porter's (1962) Need Ful-

fillment Questionnaire for Management "has shown validity by

being able to measure the effects of several variables, such

as type of organization, and level within the organization,

on job satisfaction" (p. 42).











Permission to use Porter's (1962) questionnaire for

this study was requested and granted. A copy of Porter's

letter of authorization to use his questionnaire appears in

Appendix C.


Part II. Demographic Information

The demographic information requested from each of

the respondents included: sex; age; race; highest academic

degree earned; primary administrative responsibility; years

in current position; annual salary before taxes; and the

number of non-clerical staff directly supervised. Additional

demographic information regarding the Fall, 1981 unduplicated

enrollment (head count) at each respondent's institution of

employment was also requested.


Endorsement of This Study

The research objectives of this study included the

determination of perceived levels of need fulfillment, satis-

faction, and importance of chief business, instructional, and

student affairs administrators employed in the Community Col-

lege System in Florida. This investigator believes that the

results of this study can be of interest and value to the

respondents and provide relevant and timely information to

system-wide and institutional leaders in the Community College

System in Florida. Therefore, this investigator contacted the

Director of the Institute of Higher Education at the University

of Florida and solicited the Institute's support and endorsement











of this study. A letter of endorsement from the Director

of the Institute of Higher Education at the University of

Florida was requested. The letter of endorsement expressed

recognition and support of this study and encouraged the

respondents to promptly complete and return the survey

instrument. A copy of the letter of endorsement appears

in Appendix D.


Data Collection

Initial Distribution

The initial distribution of the survey instrument

occurred at the meetings of the Council of Business Affairs,

Council on Instructional Affairs, and Council of Student

Affairs in St. Petersburg, Florida on December 3, 1981.

The respondents received a six-page survey booklet

containing a cover letter, the letter of endorsement from

the Institute of Higher Education at the University of Florida,

and the two-part survey instrument. The survey booklet was

specifically designed to enhance readership and encourage a

high rate of return. The survey booklets were numbered from

1 to 111 for follow-up purposes. The cover letter was repro-

duced on the official stationery of the Institute of Higher

Education at the University of Florida in order to lend addi-

tional credibility to this study. The cover letter described

the primary focus of this study and assured the respondents

that no personal or institutional data would be used in any











way that could personally identify them. This promise of

confidentiality was reiterated on the survey instrument. A

copy of the initial cover letter is contained in Appendix E.

Replies from 19 chief business affairs administra-

tors, 22 chief instructional affairs administrators, and 14

chief student affairs administrators were received at the

conclusion of the councils' meetings.


First Follow-up Procedure

The first follow-up procedure began the day after

the meetings of the Council of Business Affairs, Council on

Instructional Affairs, and Council of Student Affairs

adjourned. Administrators who did not respond to the initial

distribution of the survey instrument were sent a follow-up

request consisting of a new cover letter and an identical,

pre-addressed, stamped survey booklet. A copy of the follow-up

cover letter appears in Appendix F.

The first follow-up procedure resulted in six replies

from chief business affairs administrators, 14 responses from

chief instructional affairs administrators, and 18 returns

from chief student affairs administrators.


Second Follow-up Procedure

The second follow-up procedure was initiated the day

after the deadline date of the first follow-up procedure.

This investigator telephoned each administrator who had not

previously completed a survey instrument. This investigator











read the first cover letter and asked the administrator if

he or she would answer the survey instrument over the tele-

phone. The investigator read each item of the survey instru-

ment to the respondent and recorded the response that was

provided.

The second follow-up procedure produced two replies

from chief business affairs administrators, five responses

from chief instructional affairs administrators, and four

returns from chief student affairs administrators.


Total Numbers and Percentages of Responses

The total numbers and percentages of responses to

this study's survey instrument were: 27 of 28 (96.4%) of

chief business affairs administrators; 41 of 44 (93.1%) of

chief instructional affairs administrators; and 36 of 39

(92.3%) of chief student affairs administrators. The pre-

viously indicated rates of return were high enough to assure

the validity of this study's results (Florida Department of

Education, 1980).


Analysis of Data

Responses to the 13 need items in the first part of

the survey instrument yielded a need fulfillment score, a

need satisfaction score, and a need importance score for

each item.











Need Fulfillment Score

Responses to question "a", "How much (of a specific

need item) is there now?", provided a measure of how much

need fulfillment respondents perceived they were actually

receiving from their professional positions at the time they

completed the survey instrument (Williams, 1979).


Need Satisfaction Score

Responses to question "b", "How much (of a specific

need item) should there be?", provided a measure of how much

need fulfillment respondents felt they should receive from

their professional positions at the time they completed the

survey instrument. The difference between the score to this

question and the preceding question, "b-a", indicated how

satisfied respondents were with the need fulfillment they

were receiving from their professional positions at the time

they completed the survey instrument (Williams, 1979). The

smaller the difference of "b-a", the greater the level of

need satisfaction. Therefore, the level of need satisfaction

was indicated by the difference between expected need fulfill-

ment, "b", and actual need fulfillment, "a".


Need Importance Score

The third part of each need item asked respondents to

answer the question, "How important is (the specific need

item) to me?" By answering this question, respondents indi-

cated the level of importance they attached to, or were con-

cerned with, each type of need (Williams, 1979).











Statistical Packaging for the
Social Sciences (SPSS)

In analyzing the data collected from respondents in

this study, the Statistical Package for the Social Sciences

(SPSS) was used. "SPSS is an integrated system of computer

programs designed for the analysis of social science data.

The system provides a unified and comprehensive package that

enables the user to perform many different types of data

analysis in a simple and convenient manner" (Nie, Null,

Jenkins, Steinbrenner, & Bent, 1975, p. 1).

In analyzing the data collected for this study, three

SPSS procedures were used. A frequencies procedure, a t-test

procedure, and a one-way analysis of variance (ANOVA) proce-

dure (F test) were utilized when appropriate.

Assumptions of statistical tests. The most powerful

statistical tests are those having the strongest or most

extensive assumptions. Parametric tests, such as t or F

tests, have a variety of strong assumptions underlying their

use (Siegel, 1956). Five assumptions that must be considered

are

1. Observations must be independent.
2. Observations must be drawn from normally
distributed populations.
3. Populations must have the same variance.
4. Variables must have been measured in at
least an interval scale.
5. The means of these normal populations
must be linear combinations of effects
due to columns and/or rows. (Siegel, 1956, p. 19)











Frequencies procedure. The frequencies procedure was

used to compute and present one-way frequency distribution

tables for responses to the variables in the study. Fre-

quency tables were obtained for the following groups of

respondents: (a) chief business affairs administrators;

(b) chief instructional affairs administrators; and (c) chief

student affairs administrators.

T-test procedure. The t-test procedure was used to

compute Student's t. The probability level for testing was

set at p< .05. T-tests of significance were conducted on

dichotomous variables.

One-way analysis of variance (ANOVA) procedure. One-

way analysis of variance (ANOVA) was used with variables which

were not dichotomous. This procedure provided a standard

analysis of variance summary table showing sums of squares,

degrees of freedom, mean squares, and the F ratio formed by

dividing the between-group mean square by the within-group

mean square. The summary tables also reported the probability

level of the obtained F ratio.

Scheff6's test was used as an a posteriori contrast

after each analysis was computed. "Scheff4 uses a single

range value for all comparisons, which is appropriate for

examining all possible linear combinations of group means,

not just pairwise comparisons. Thus, it is stricter than the

other [a posteriori] tests. Scheff4 is exact, even for











unequal group sizes" (Nie et al., 1975, p. 428). For this

test, an alpha level of significance was set at .05.


Chapter Summary

The manner in which the survey of chief business,

instructional, and student affairs administrators employed

in the Community College System in Florida was administered

has been described in this chapter. The major aspects of

the research methodology described in this chapter consisted

of the following elements: (a) research populations;

(b) instrument development; (c) endorsement of this study;

(d) data collection; and (e) analysis of data.

A detailed description of the research data obtained

for this study is presented in Chapter IV.















CHAPTER IV
PRESENTATION OF DATA


The data collected for this study are presented in

this chapter. The primary purpose of this study was to deter-

mine the perceived level of need fulfillment, need satisfaction,

and need importance that chief business, instructional, and

student affairs administrators employed in the Community Col-

lege System in Florida receive from their professional posi-

tions. Of the 111 chief business, instructional, and student

affairs administrators in the Community College System in

Florida, 104 administrators responded to this study's survey

instrument. A breakdown of the rate of return indicated that

27 of 28 (96.4%) chief business affairs administrators, 41 of

44 (93.1%) chief instructional affairs administrators, and

36 of 39 (92.3%) chief student affairs administrators returned

usable survey instruments.

The data presented in this chapter are reported in

accordance with the five research objectives established for

this study. This chapter is organized around the following

groups of data: (a) description of respondents; (b) need

fulfillment data; (c) need satisfaction data; (d) need impor-

tance data; (e) the effect of demographic characteristics;

(f) statistical comparisons among administrator groups;











(g) comparisons with groups in other studies; and (h) a

chapter summary.


Description of Respondents

The research populations for this study consisted of

the chief business, instructional, and student affairs admin-

istrators employed in the Community College System in Florida.


Chief Business Affairs Administrators

Table 1 provides demographic characteristics for 27

respondents who indicated their professional status as chief

business affairs administrator. In summary, this group is

predominantly white (100.0%), male (96.3%), over 40 years of

age (74.0%), and holders of bachelor's degrees (40.7%) and

earned doctorates (40.7%).

A majority (51.9%) of the chief business affairs

administrators earn an annual salary of over $35,000 and

almost half (48.1%) supervise four to six professional staff

members. The largest percentage of respondents (59.3%) is

employed at community/junior colleges with unduplicated

enrollments under 10,000 students. One-third (33.3%) of these

administrators have served in their current position for one

to four years. An equal amount of respondents have been chief

business affairs administrators for five to nine years (25.9%)

or ten to fourteen years (25.9%).














TABLE 1

DEMOGRAPHIC CHARACTERISTICS FOR CHIEF BUSINESS, INSTRUCTIONAL,
AND STUDENT AFFAIRS RESPONDENTS




Business Affairs Instructional Affairs Student Affairs
Chdiacteri stl Respondents Respondents Respolndents


Sex
Female
Male

Aye
20-29
30-39
40-49
50-59
60 or over

Race
American Indian
Asian
Black, Non-llispanic
Hispanic
White, NonI-llispanlic
Other

Iighiest D)~cree Earnied
aclieT-or's Dujgrce
MaHslr's Utyree
Specialist Degree
Doctoral IlJi ee
Other

Years iII (:ulreitL Iis tLioI1
~ess tfia~iFI year
1 to 4 years
5 Lo 9 yedia
10 to 14 years
15 or nlure years


II Percelnta


1 3.7
26 96.3


n Percenta


11 26.8
30 73.2


n Percmint"


7 19.4
29 80.6


0 ---- 0
12 29.3 10
18 43.9 12
9 22.0 13
2 4.9 1


27.8
33.3
36.1
2.8


u ---- 0 ---- 0
0 ---- 0 ---- 0
0 --- 0 ---- 5
0 ---- 1 2.4 1
27 100.0 40 97.6 30
0 ---- 0 ---- 0


0 --
9 25.0
1 2.8
25 69.4
1 2.8


----- --


--------~~---



















TABLE 1--Continued


Business Affairs
Characteristic Respondents


!I Percenta
Annual Salary
esstha ,999 1 3.7
$25,000 to $29,999 2 7.4
$30,000 to $34,999 10 37.0
$35,000 or more 14 51.9


profess onal Staff Supervised
I Sp e members
4 to 6 staff members
7 to 9 staff members
10 to 12 staff members
13 or more staff members

Institutional Unduplicated
En rollment
I.ess than 9,999
10,000 to 19,999
20,000 to 29,999
30,000 to 39,999
40,000 and above


InsrutioalAffir


Instructional Affairs
Responldents

n Percenta


Student Affairs
Respondents

n Percent


6 22.2 5 12.2 2
13 40.1 11 26.8 17
2 7.4 9 22.0 9
1 3.7 10 24.4 2
5 18.5 6 14.6 6



16 59.3 15 36.6 18
6 22.2 13 31.7 10
0 ---- 5 12.2 1
2 7.4 1 2.4 2
3 11.1 7 17.1 5


5.6
16.7
30.6
47.2


5.6
47.2
25.0
5.6
16.7


aPercentages may not equal 100 due to SPSS rounding errors.











Chief Instructional Affairs Administrators

Table 1 also provides demographic characteristics for

41 respondents who indicated their professional status as

chief instructional affairs administrator. In summary, this

group is predominantly white (97.6%), male (73.2%), between

the ages of 40 to 49 (43.9%), and holders of earned doctorates

(95.1%).

Although most of the chief instructional affairs

administrators have served in their current position for less

than four years (65.9%), the vast majority (80.5%) earn an

annual salary of over $35,000. Over two-thirds (68.3%) of

these administrators work at institutions with unduplicated

enrollments under 20,000 students. These administrators are

fairly divided on the number of professional staff supervised.

Chief instructional affairs administrators frequently super-

vise four to six (26.8%), seven to nine (22.0%), or ten to

twelve (24.4%) professional staff members.


Cheif Student Affairs Administrators

Table 1 also includes demographic characteristics for

36 respondents who indicated their professional status as

chief student affairs administrator. In summary, this group

is predominantly white (83.3%), male (80.6%), between the

ages of 40 and 59 (69.4%), and holders of earned doctorates

(69.4%).

Approximately one-third (30.6%) of the chief student

affairs administrators earn between $30,000 and $34,999 per











year while 47.2% have an annual salary of over $35,000. Over

one-third (33.4%) of these administrators have served in their

current position for less than five years. Most (72.2%) chief

student affairs administrators supervise a professional staff

of four to nine members. Exactly half (50.0%) of these admin-

instrators work at community/junior colleges with unduplicated

enrollments of less than 10,000 students.


Need Fulfillment Data

The data reported in this section satisfy the require-

ments of the first objective of this study.


Research Objective 1

To determine the level of perceived need ful-

fillment for each of five psychological need

categories which chief business, instructional,

and student affairs administrators employed in

the Community College System in Florida

receive from their professional positions.

This study's survey instrument contained 13 need-related items.

After each item, three questions were asked. Need fulfillment

scores were obtained from answers to the first question, "a",

for each item. This question asked administrators, "How much

(of a specific need item) is there now?" Respondents rated

their perceptions on a seven-point interval scale with lower

numbers representing lesser amounts of need fulfillment and











higher numbers representing greater amounts of need fulfill-

ment.

Chief business affairs administrators. Table 2

reports need fulfillment mean scores for chief business

affairs administrators in five separate need categories.

Findings reveal that the highest level of need fulfillment

occurs in the security need category (5.704). The lowest

level of need fulfillment occurs in the self-realization need

category (5.160). These findings differ from the research

results reported by Strickland (1973) for a national sample

of chief business affairs administrators in public colleges

and universities. Strickland's (1973) study indicated that

chief business affairs administrators were most fulfilled

with autonomy needs and least fulfilled with social needs.

Table 16 in Appendix G provides individual mean scores

for fulfillment for each of 13 need-related items on this

study's survey instrument. In the security need category,

chief business affairs administrators are most fulfilled with

the feeling of security in their management positions (I-A).

In the self-realization need category, chief business affairs

administrators are least fulfilled with the opportunity for

personal growth and development in their management positions

(V-A).

Chief instructional affairs administrators. Table 2

reports need fulfillment mean scores for chief instructional

affairs administrators in five separate need categories.




















TABLE 2


MEAN SCORES FOR NEED FULFILLMENT LEVEL BY NEED CATEGORY
FOR GROUPS OF RESPONDENTS



Administrator Need Category
Group n Security Social Esteem Autonomy Self-Realization


Business Affairs 27 5.704 5.685 5.395 5.648 5.160

Instructional Affairs 41 5.220 5.171 5.569 5.720 5.650

Student Affairs 36 5.417 5.708 5.500 5.514 5.574


Note. The mean need fulfillment score was calculated by utilizing a seven-point interval scale.
(1 = lowest level, 4 = average level, 7 highest level)











Findings reveal that the highest level of need fulfillment

occurs in the autonomy need category (5.720). The lowest

level of need fulfillment occurs in the social need category

(5.171). These findings are similar to the results provided

by Williams (1979) from a national sample of academic affairs

administrators located in all 50 states at 119 member insti-

tutions of the National Association of State Universities and

Land-Grant Colleges (NASULGC). The academic administrators

who comprised Williams' (1979) national sample were most ful-

filled with autonomy needs and least fulfilled with social

needs.

Table 17 in Appendix G provides individual mean scores

for fulfillment for each of 13 need-related items on this

study's survey instrument. In the autonomy need category,

chief instructional affairs administrators are most fulfilled

with the opportunity, in their management positions, for par-

ticipation in the setting of goals (IV-C). In the social need

category, chief instructional affairs administrators are least

fulfilled with the opportunity to develop close friendships

in their management positions (II-B).

Chief student affairs administrators. Table 2 reports

need fulfillment mean scores for chief student affairs admin-

istrators in five separate need categories. Findings reveal

that the highest level of need fulfillment occurs in the

social need category (5.708). The lowest level of need ful-

fillment occurs in the security need category (5.417). These











findings do not support the results obtained by Dye (1975).

Dye (1975) surveyed a national sample of 218 student affairs

administrators employed in public colleges and universities.

The results of Dye's (1975) study revealed that the respond-

ents were most fulfilled with security needs and least ful-

filled with social needs.

Table 18 in Appendix G provides individual mean

scores for fulfillment for each of 13 need-related items on

this study's survey instrument. In the social need category,

chief student affairs administrators are most fulfilled with

the opportunity, in their management positions, to give help

to other people (II-A). In the security need category, chief

student affairs administrators are least fulfilled with the

feeling of security in their management positions (I-A).


Need Fulfillment Data Summary

In reviewing the data revealed in Table 2 concerning

need fulfillment for chief business, instructional, and stu-

dent affairs administrators employed in the Community College

System in Florida, two patterns emerge. First, security needs

or social needs are either the most or least fulfilled needs

for each group of administrators. Second, all need fulfill-

ment mean scores are above 5.000. A need fulfillment mean

score of 4.000 is average. Therefore, the data reflect above

average perceptions of need fulfillment in all five need

categories for each group of respondents.











Need Satisfaction Data

The data reported in this section satisfy the require-

ments of the second objective of this study.


Research Objective 2

To determine the level of perceived need satis-

faction for each of five psychological need

categories which chief business, instructional,

and student affairs administrators employed in

the Community College System in Florida receive

from their professional positions.

This study's survey instrument contained 13 need-related items.

After each item, three questions were asked. Responses to

question "b", "How much (of a specific need item) should there

be?" provided a measure of how much need fulfillment respond-

ents felt they should receive from their professional posi-

tions. Respondents rated their perceptions on a seven-point

interval scale. Need satisfaction scores were indirectly

obtained by calculating the numerical difference between the

score to this question, "b", and the preceding question, "a".

Thus, a simple subtraction procedure, "b-a", was used in order

to obtain need satisfaction scores. The smaller the differ-

ence between need fulfillment expected and need fulfillment

received, "b-a", the higher the level of need satisfaction.

Chief business affairs administrators. Table 3 reports

need satisfaction mean scores for chief business affairs




















TABLE 3


MEAN SCORES FOR NEED SATISFACTION LEVEL BY NEED CATEGORY
FOR GROUPS OF RESPONDENTS


Administrator Need Category_
Group n Security Social Esteem Autonomy Self-Realization

Business Affairs 27 .481 .444 .383 .630 2.531

Instructional Affairs 41 .220 .829 .415 .525 1.846

Student Affairs 36 .611 .306 .593 .625 1.889


Note. Scores approaching .000 indicate a higher level of need satisfaction.











administrators in five separate need categories. Findings

reveal that chief business affairs administrators are most

satisfied with esteem needs (.383) and least satisfied with

self-realization needs (2.531). These findings are only in

partial agreement with the research results reported by

Strickland (1973). Strickland's (1973) national sample of

public college and university chief business affairs admin-

istrators found that these respondents were most satisfied

with security needs and least satisfied with self-realization

needs.

Table 19 in Appendix G provides individual mean

scores for satisfaction for each of 13 need-related items

on this study's research instrument. The data reveal that

chief business affairs administrators are most satisfied with

the prestige of their management positions inside their com-

munity/junior colleges (III-B). Chief business affairs admin-

istrators are least satisfied with the opportunity for personal

growth and development in their management positions (V-A).

Chief instructional affairs administrators. Table 3

reports need satisfaction mean scores for chief instructional

affairs administrators in five separate need categories. Find-

ings reveal that chief instructional affairs administrators

are most satisfied with security needs (.220) and least satis-

fied with self-realization needs (1.846). These findings

support the results reported by Williams (1979) based on a

national sample of academic administrators employed at 119











member institutions of NASULGC. The sample of NASULGC aca-

demic administrators were most satisfied with security needs

and least satisfied with self-realization needs.

Table 20 in Appendix G provides individual mean

scores for satisfaction for each of 13 need-related items

on this study's research instrument. The data reveal that

chief instructional affairs administrators are most satisfied

with the feeling of security in their management positions

(I-A). Chief instructional affairs administrators were least

satisfied with the feeling of self-fulfillment experienced

in their management positions (V-B).

Chief student affairs administrators. Table 3 reports

need satisfaction mean scores for chief student affairs admin-

istrators in five separate need categories. Findings reveal

that chief student affairs administrators are most satisfied

with social needs (.306) and least satisfied with self-

realization needs (1.889). These findings support the results

reported by Williams (1979) based on a national sample of

student affairs administrators employed at 119 member insti-

tutions of NASULGC and a statewide sample of Florida's State

University System's (SUS) student affairs administrators.

Williams' study reported that student affairs administrators

at NASULGC and SUS institutions were most satisfied with

social needs and least satisfied with self-realization needs.

Table 21 in Appendix G provides individual mean scores

for satisfaction for each of 13 need-related items on this











study's research instrument. The data reveal that chief stu-

dent affairs administrators are most satisfied with the

opportunity, in their management positions, to give help to

other people (II-A). Chief student affairs administrators

were least satisfied with the opportunity for personal growth

and development in their management positions (V-A).


Need Satisfaction Data Summary

In reviewing the data revealed in Table 3 concerning

need satisfaction for chief business, instructional, and stu-

dent affairs administrators employed in the Community College

System in Florida, two patterns emerge. First, there is no

agreement among administrative groups regarding the need

category that contains the most need satisfaction. Second,

all three administrative groups identified self-realization

as the least satisfied need category.


Need Importance Data

The data reported in this section satisfy the require-

ments of the third objective of this study.


Research Objective 3

To determine the level of perceived need

importance for each of five psychological

need categories which chief business, instruc-

tional, and student affairs administrators

employed in the Community College System in

Florida receive from their professional positions.











This study's survey instrument contained 13 need-related items.

After each item, three questions were asked. Responses to the

third question, "c", "How important is (the specific need

item) to me?" indicated the level of need importance respond-

ents attached to each need item. Need importance scores are

calculated using the same seven-point interval scale used in

determining need fulfillment scores.

Chief business affairs administrators. Table 4 reports

need importance mean scores for chief business affairs admin-

istrators in five separate need categories. Findings reveal

that the highest level of need importance occurs in the self-

realization need category (6.247). The lowest level of need

importance occurs in the esteem need category (5.568). These

findings differ from the research results reported by Strick-

land (1973) for a national sample of chief business affairs

administrators in public colleges and universities. In 1973,

Strickland revealed that chief business affairs administrators

placed most importance on self-realization needs and least

importance on security needs.

Table 22 in Appendix G provides individual mean scores

for importance for each of 13 need-related items on this study's

survey instrument. In the self-realization need category,

chief business affairs administrators identified the feeling

of worthwhile accomplishment in their management positions

(V-C) as the most important need item. In the esteem need




















TABLE 4


MEAN SCORES FOR NEED IMPORTANCE LEVEL BY NEED CATEGORY
FOR GROUPS OF RESPONDENTS


Administrator Need Category
Group n Security Social Esteem Autonomy Self-Realization


Business Affairs 27 5.667 5.870 5.568 6.065 6.247

Instructional Affairs 41 5.537 5.720 5.455 6.110 6.341

Student Affairs 36 5.722 5.958 5.583 6.076 6.278



Note. The mean need importance score was calculated by utilizing a seven-point interval scale.
(1 = lowest level, 4 = average level, 7 = highest level)











category, chief business affairs administrators attached low

importance to the prestige of their management positions out-

side of their community/junior colleges (III-C).

Chief instructional affairs administrators. Table 4

reports need importance mean scores for chief instructional

affairs administrators in five separate need categories.

Findings reveal that the highest level of need importance

occurs in the self-realization need category (6.341). The

lowest level of need importance occurs in the esteem need

category (5.455). These findings are in partial agreement

with the results reported by Williams (1979) based on a

national sample of academic affairs administrators employed

at 119 member institutions of NASULGC. Williams' study

reported that academic affairs administrators at NASULGC

institutions placed most importance on self-realization needs

and least importance on security needs.

Table 23 in Appendix G provides individual mean scores

for importance for each of 13 need-related items on this

study's survey instrument. In the self-realization need cate-

gory, chief instructional affairs administrators identified

the feeling of self-fulfillment in their management positions

(V-B) as the most important need item. In the esteem need

category, chief instructional affairs administrators attached

low importance to the prestige of their management positions

outside their community/junior colleges (III-C).











Chief student affairs administrators. Table 4 reports

need importance mean scores for chief student affairs admin-

istrators in five separate need categories. Findings reveal

that the highest level of need importance occurs in the self-

realization need category (6.278). The lowest level of need

importance occurs in the esteem need category (5.583). These

findings fully support the results obtained by Dye (1975).

Dye (1975) surveyed a national sample of 218 student affairs

administrators employed in public colleges and universities.

The results of Dye's study revealed that the respondents

placed the highest degree of need importance on self-realiza-

tion needs and the lowest degree of need importance on esteem

needs. These findings are in partial agreement with the

results reported by Williams (1979). Williams indicated that

a national sample of student affairs administrators at NASULGC

institutions identified self-realization as their most impor-

tant need category and security as their least important need

category.

Table 24 of Appendix G provides individual mean scores

for importance for each of 13 need-related items on this

study's survey instrument. In the self-realization need cate-

gory, chief student affairs administrators identified the

feeling of worthwhile accomplishment in the management posi-

tions (V-C) as the most important need item. In the esteem

need category, chief student affairs administrators attached











low importance to the prestige of their management positions

outside their community/junior colleges (III-C).


Need Importance Data Summary

In reviewing the data revealed in Table 4 concerning

need importance for chief business, instructional, and student

affairs administrators employed in the Community College Sys-

tem in Florida, two patterns emerge. First, each administrator

group assigned the highest level of need importance to the

self-realization need category. Second, each administrator

group assigned the least amount of need importance to the

esteem need category.


The Effect of Demographic Characteristics

The data reported in this section satisfy the require-

ments of the fourth objective of this study.


Research Objective 4

To determine if statistically significant levels

exist between individual or institutional demo-

graphic characteristics and levels of obtained

need fulfillment, satisfaction, and importance

for chief business, instructional, and student

affairs administrators employed in the Community

College System in Florida.

Respondents to this study's survey instrument provided demo-

graphic information regarding sex, age, race, highest academic











degree earned, years in current position, annual salary,

professional staff supervised, and institutional unduplicated

enrollment. For the dichotomous demographic variable, sex,

tests for statistical significance were conducted by using a

t-test procedure on mean scores for each of the 15 need-related

variables. For the seven nondichotomous demographic variables,

tests for statistical significance were conducted by utilizing

a one-way analysis of variance (ANOVA) procedure on mean

scores for each of the 15 need-related variables. All tests

for statistical significance were conducted at p< .05.

Need fulfillment findings (business affairs). Table 5

summarizes need fulfillment mean scores for eight demographic

variables for chief business affairs administrators. Appro-

priate tests for statistical significance were conducted at

p< .05 to determine the relationships of the demographic

variables with need fulfillment mean scores. One area of

statistical significance at p< .05 was found on one demo-

graphic variable.

Years in current position is associated with statis-

tically significant security need fulfillment mean scores.

Chief business affairs administrators with 10 to 14 years of

experience in their current position indicated a significantly

higher level of security need fulfillment than their counter-

parts with more or less years of experience in their current

position.













TABLE 5


NEED FULFILLMENT MEAN SCORES BY DEMOGRAPHIC
STATISTICAL TESTS OF SIGNIFICANCE FOR CHIEF


CHARACTERISTICS AND RESULTS OF
BUSINESS AFFAIRS ADMINISTRATORS


Need Cateaorv


n Security Social Esteem Autonomy Self-Realization


Characteristic


Sex
Female
Male
F gatio
df = 26

A e
2'_29
30-39
40-49
50-59
60 or over
I Ratiod
df = 26

Race
American Indian
Asian
Black, Non-llispanic
Ilispinic
White, Non-llispanic
Other
F Ratiod
at = 26

li jiiesL Deijree earnedd
Bachelor's Degree
Master's Degree
Specialist Degree
Doctoral Degree
Other
F Ratiod
af = 26


1 4.000
26 5.769
1.768
N.S.c


6.000
5.673
.184
N.S.


4.667
5.423
.831
N.S.


4.750
5.683
.753
N.S.


5.333
5.154
.020
N.S.


0 ----- --- ---- ---- ----
7 6.000 5.643 5.476 5.714 5.286
7 5.857 6.000 5.667 5.964 5.429
12 5.333 5.542 5.250 5.313 4.861
1 7.000 5.500 4.667 7.000 6.000
.758 .579 .654 1.211 .499
N.S. N.S. N.S. N.S. N.S.


0 ----- ----- ---- -- -- ---
0 ----- ----- --- ----- -----
0 --- ----- ---- ---- ----
0 ----- ----- ----- ----- -----
27 5.704 5.685 5.395 5.648 5.160
0 ----- ----- --------
+ + +


6.000
6.000
7.000
5.182

1.159
N.S.


5.546
6.250
7.000
5.500

2.632
H.S.


5.546
5.333
6.667
5.512

1.332
1H.S.


6.068
5.563
7.000
5.136

2.330
N.S.


5.727
5.083
6.000
4.546

2.099
N.S.
















TABLE 5--continued




Need Ca teory__
Characteristic n Secuirty Socfai Esteem Autonomy Sel1T-ealfzalou

Years In Current Position
Less tian year 2 4.500 5.500 5.500 5.625 4.500
I to 4 years 9 6.111 5.833 5.296 5.444 5.296
5 to 9 years 7 5.143 5.857 5.191 5.500 4.571
10 to 14 years 7 6.571 5.429 5.571 6.143 5.571
IS or mor, yesre 2 4.000 5.500 5.833 5.375 5.833
F Ratio 3.476 .422 .343 .501 .908
at = 26 N.S. N.S. N.S. N.S.


Annual Salary
Legs tlian24,999
$25,000 to $29,999
$30,000 to $34,999
$35,000 o more
F latio
at = 26

Professalonal Stsfl

I Eo F3 sEff members
4 to 6 staff members
7 to 9 staff members
10 to 12 staff members
II or morq staff members
F Ratio
af = 26


1 5.000 5.500 5.333 6.000
2 5.000 5.750 4.500 4.125
10 5.700 5.850 5.467 5.600
14 5.857 5.571 5.476 5.875
.318 .280 .873 1.824
N.S. N.S. N.S. N.S.



6 5.833 6.083 5.889 6.000
13 5.846 5.500 5.000 5.481
2 5.000 5.750 5.667 5.375
1 4.000 6.000 4.667 4.750
5 5.800 5.600 5.867 5.950
.573 .676 2.454 .530
N.S. N.S. N.S. N.S.


5.667
4.667
5.200
5.167 c0
.152 WD
H.S.



5.722
5.103
4.500
5.333
4.867
.501
N.S.




















TABLE 5--continued


Characteristic


Need Category__
n Security Social Esteem Autonomy Self-Realization


Institutional Undupllcated
Enrollment
Less than 9,999
10,000 to 19,999
20,000 to 29,999
30,000 to 39,999
40,000 anl above
F Ratio
af = 26


16 5.500
6 6.167
0 ----
2 5.500
3 6.000
.406
N.S.


'0
Note. The mean need fulfillment score was calculated by utilizing a seven-point inLerval scale.
(1 = lowest level, 4 = average level, 7 = highest level)

aF Ratio determined by t tests

1df = degree

cN.S. means Not Significant at .05 alpha level

dF Ratio determined by one-way analysis of variance (ANOVA)

I Calculations of one-way ANOVA were not performed. All respondents are members of one
characteristic.

< .05


5.656
5.917

5.250
5.667
.410
N.S.


5.417
5.389

5.667
5.111
.182
N.S.


5.703
5.167

5.500
6.417
.982
N.S.


5.188
5.056

5.500
5.000
.076
N.S.




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