Group Title: comparison of personality traits and job satisfaction between non-managing professionals and managerial personnel /
Title: A Comparison of personality traits and job satisfaction between non-managing professionals and managerial personnel
CITATION PDF VIEWER THUMBNAILS PAGE IMAGE ZOOMABLE
Full Citation
STANDARD VIEW MARC VIEW
Permanent Link: http://ufdc.ufl.edu/UF00099500/00001
 Material Information
Title: A Comparison of personality traits and job satisfaction between non-managing professionals and managerial personnel
Physical Description: vii, 88 leaves : ; 28 cm.
Language: English
Creator: Walker, Lynn Artie, 1954-
Publication Date: 1983
Copyright Date: 1983
 Subjects
Subject: Job satisfaction   ( lcsh )
Counselor Education thesis Ph. D
Dissertations, Academic -- Counselor Education -- UF
Genre: bibliography   ( marcgt )
non-fiction   ( marcgt )
 Notes
Thesis: Thesis (Ph. D.)--University of Florida, 1983.
Bibliography: Bibliography: leaves 84-87.
Statement of Responsibility: by Lynn Artie Walker.
General Note: Typescript.
General Note: Vita.
 Record Information
Bibliographic ID: UF00099500
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 - 000483072
oclc - 11826927
notis - ACQ0880

Downloads

This item has the following downloads:

PDF ( 4 MBs ) ( PDF )


Full Text











A COMPARISON OF PERSONALITY TAI:TS AND JOB SATISFACTION
BETWEEN NON-MANAGING PROFESSIOiALF AND MANAGERIAL PERSONNEL








BY


LYNN ARTIE N T"KER


A DISSERTATION P ISENTED TO THE GRADUATE COUNCIL
OF THE UNIVERSITY OF FLORIDA IN
PARTIAL FULFILLMENT OF THE RE'UIR-EME:'TTS
FOR TF'- DEGREE CF DOCTOR OF FHIGOSOPHY


UNIVERSITY OF FLORIDA


1993















A C KNOWLLDGEYEEN!' S


Thanks tc

Dr. Larry C. Loesch for his encouragement, realistic

direction and tactful critiques.

Dr. Robert 0. Stripling for his counsel, compassion

and belief in mre and my family.

Dr. Richard A.derson for his suggestions and energetic

curiosity.

My wife's family for their love and support.

Rick, my brother-in-law, for his enthusiastic help and

friendship.

Dawn, my sister, for her understanding, love and erncour-

agement when I needed it most.

Andy, my brother, for his concern and brotherly love.

-.y Xom, for her unquestioning support, belief in what

I could do, and help whenever needed.

My Dad, who cheered me on to greater heights and was

not surprised by what I accomplished, and for the

love he gave me that can not be taken away.

Debbie, my wife, whose trust and steady support kept me

going when tines were difficult, and whose patience,

willingness to risk new opportunities and enduring

love have made life enjoyable.








Nolan and Whitney, my children, for being here to share

life with me, and providing constant pride and

enjoyment.















TABLE OF CONTENTS
Page

ACKNOW;LEDG-LyMENTS . . . . . .

ABSTRACT . . . vi

CHAPTER I INTRODUCTION . . . . . . . 1

Introduction . . . . * . 1
Background of the Problem . . . . 3
Need for Study .. . * * *
Purpose of the Study ...... 9
Null Hypotheses 3. . . . . *
Definition of Terms . . . . .. ... 10

CHAPTER II REVIEW OF THE RELATED LITERATURE ... . 12

Need f:)r Managers . .. . .... . 12
Murray's Personality Theory . . . . .. 13
The Definition of NMPs . . . . . . 16
NMPs and Their Relationship to Management . 17
Management, Leadership and Personality ... . 21

CHAPTER III METHODOLOGY . . . . . . .. 25

Overview . . . ... * * .. 25
Selection of Subjects ... . . . . 26
Instrumentation . . . . * * * * 8
Data Collection .... . . . . . 33
Data Analyses . . . ........... * * 33
Limitations . . . . ... .... . .. 34

CHAPTER IV RESULTS OF THIS STUDY . .. . .. 36

Results of Data Analyses . . . . . . 36
Hypotheses Tested . . . . . * * 69

CHAPTER V DISCUSSION, IMPLICATIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS 73

Discussion . . . . . . . * * 73
Implications .... . . * * 75
Recommendations . . . * * . 77










TABLE OF CONTENTS (continued)
Page

APPENDIX A DEFINI'IONS OF PLRSO::LIY NEEDS . . 79

APPENDIX B INTRODUCTOPY LET5R . . . . El

PE:;NDIX C SIOG.APHICAL Q'TST;ICN:AIR . . ..

BLIO Y . . * E4

BIOGRl FICAL SKETCH . . . . . S















Abstract of Dissertation Presented to the Graduate Council
of t.e University of Florida in Partias Fulfillment of the
Requirements for the Degree of Doctor of Philosophy


A CO C.ARISON OF PERSONALITY TRAITS AND JOB SATISFACTION
BETWEEN NON-LANAGING PROFESSIONALS AND .ANAGERIAL PERSONNEL

by

Lynn Artie Walker

August 1983

Chairman: L.C. Loesch
Major Departzient: Counselor Education



The purpose of this study was to compare the person-

ality traits and job satisfaction of non-managing profes-

sionals and managerial personnel. The study proposed to

answer the following questions:

1. Are there differences in job satisfaction between

managerial personnel and non-canaging professionals?

2. Are there relationships arong job satisfaction

and personality needs for either non-managing professionals

and managerial personnel?

Five paired groups of 10 managerial personnel subjects

and 20 non-managing professional subjects were studied:

lawyers, engineers, scientists, financial accountants and

data processors. Each subject included in the study had

had at least five years of appropriate professional exper-

ience.








Discriminant function analyses were run on person-

ality and job satisfaction data for professional group

and its corresponding managerial personnel group, and all

managerial personnel groups combined. Each of the 10

functions yielded significant results. Significant re-

lationships were found among job satisfaction scores and

the personality needs for each of the groups. However,

there was little consistency across relationships. Both

managerial personnel and non-managing professionals were

satisfied with their jobs, although managerial personnel

somewhat more so. Both managerial personnel and non-

managing professionals also were characterized by higher

needs levels than normal populations in Achievement,

Endurance, Harmavoidance, Nurturance, Order, and Understand-

ing. Conversely, they had lower needs levels in Aggression,

Autonomy, Impulsivity, Play, and Social Recognition. They

were about average in Exhibition and Affiliation. The

managerial personnel had above average needs levels in

Dominance while the non-managing personnel were average.

No factors consistently discriminated among all groups.

It appears therefore that relationships among job satisfac-

tion and personality traits are unique for each of the five

career fields studied. Accordingly, general statements

about job satisfaction and personality traits cannot be

made, nor can general statements be made about these fac-

tors in regard to differentiating among managerial per-

sonnel and non-managing professionals.















CHAPTER I
INTRODUCTION



The two essentials of power are motive
and resource. The two are interrelated.
Lacking resource, c-tive lies idle.
Lacking either one, power collapses.
Because both resource and motive are
needed, and because both .ay be in
short supply, power is an elusive and
limited thing. (Burns, 1978, p. 12)



Power and responsibilities in any business organiza-

tion lie with its managers. Managers are responsible for

finding workable solutions to labor problems, production

fluctuations, financial burdens and increasing demands of

society. Their authority gives them control of the re-

sources of their organizations. These resources include

people, physical objects (e.g. machines) and money. Man-

agers, by definition, axe charged to direct these resources

to solve the problems that confront their organizations.

Influence, power and responsibility in a company are

determined by position held in the management hierarchy.

The higher a manager's position, the broader the authority

over company resources. Also, the higher a manager's

position, the more the manager directs organizational de-

cisions. For example, the head (e.g. president) of a









company is responsible for its overall organizational

goals and direction, which in turn influence all segments

of the organization. Those at the other extreme are the

production line employees. They are responsible for cnly

small parts of products and have little control over com-

pany matters beyond their own behaviors.

Power and responsibility often serve to fulfill indi-

vidual needs, especially in the cases of management per-

sonnel. In fact, the need for these two qualities is

characteristic of managers (Burns, 1978). Individual needs

of recognition, achievement and self-esteem are fulfilled

often by virtue of being a manager (Rotondi, 1976). Fur-

ther, an individual's need to guide and direct can also be

fulfilled by being a manager.

Fulfilling individual needs, in turn, usually meets

the organization's needs. Some organizational needs met

by managers are 1) finding solutions to organizational

problems, 2) directing personnel, 3) using equipment effi-

ciently and 4) effective use of finances. The company has

"direction" for its resources as !on= as managers are

there to provide effective guidance. However, problems

develop when there are too few effective managers to ful-

fill the needs of the organization.

In the future many more business leaders will be

needed because businesses are becoming more complex. This

complexity usually results from the fluctuating and









unpredictable economy on which businesses rely. Complexity

also occurs because businesses must cope with personnel

and public problems such as those created by unions and

consumers' rights organizations. Businesses are also

having to learn to integrate technological advances at

faster rates. Thus one solution to the growing complexi-

ties of businesses is to employ more managers to monitor

and solve increasing problems.

Although businesses will have to recruit more managers,

the traditional sources (usually business college gradu-

ates, or employees just below "first line" supervisors)

are in limited supply. That is, there is a finite supply

of traditional sources from which to select (Rawls and

Rawls, 1971). To help fill this growth in organizations'

managerial needs, recruits from other sources such as

scientists, engineers and lawyers will have to become

managers.



Background of the Problem


Professionals' Need to Manage

One of the less-traditional sources of managers is

non-managing professionals (NMP). NMPs are professionals

such as scientists, engineers and lawyers within a com-

pany. In some ways, functioning as a scientist, engineer

or lawyer is incompatible with being a manager. For

example, NMPs desire autonomy to pursue independently the








objectives of their jobs. This autonomy is in fact a ma-

jor portion of the basis for their career choices (Ritti,

1968). However, autonomy is significantly reduced if a

management position is taken. Becoming a manager means

accepting more of the goals and directions of the organi-

zation, thereby reducing individual autonomy. Thus,

NMPs seeking autonomy, as demonstrated by their career

choices, typically do not seek management positions

(Greenwald, 1978).

The maximum organizational status an N;;P can most

often reach is below that of manager. For example,

status position can be equated with rank in one of several

categories. The categories are positions in organiza-

tional hierarchy, level of salary and task responsibili-

ties. Currently managers usually reach higher ranks in

each of these categories than do NMPs.

An '7.P also has a more limited hierarchy through

which to be promoted than does a manager. There are usu-

ally only few rewards, achievements and positions that an

NMP car, obtain beyond those inherent in the position.

Conversely, a manager has a hierarchy which ends only at

the top position of his or her organization. An NMP can,

for example, become the "top research scientist" while a

manager can be come the Chief Executive Officer (CEO) or

the Chairman of the Board. The CEO or Board Chairman re-

ceives the highest salary and has the broadest and most









important task responsibilities in the company. Neither

of these positions is traditionally part of an KMP's

career path.

Although salary and task responsibility may function

as "status" categories for managers, they tend not to be

status categories for NMPs. Salary and task responsibil-

ities for NMPs are usually not openly co.Tmunicated to the

rest of the company or to the public. In fact the more

prestigious the task for NMPs, the more likely that their

information is confidential.

NMPs who have risen to the apex of their professional

hierarchies often want to become managers since they have

which status needs. Becoming managers allows them to con-

tinue to fulfill their status needs.

The acquisition of a management position may provide

further benefit to an NMP. The loss of autonomy is

replaced by control. This control typically covers goal

setting and resource usage. As Greenwald (1978) states:

Professionals frequently require managerial
positions to assure themselves decision-making
latitude in their research, enabling them to
decide the direction in which their project
will go and to formulate low to middle-level
technical policy. They often feel that they
will not receive credit for their achieve-
ments unless they occupy sufficiently high
managerial positions. Moreover, the impor-
tance of extensive resources in some fields
of science may also motivate pure profession-
als to seek supervisory roles. Scientists
hoping to make outstanding contributions in
their fields often require large staffs, gen-
erous budgets, and costly hardware. (p. 166)









Although NMPs may want to manage, they often have few

chances to learn, see or experience effective manager

leadership, and their educations have not provided them

nith management skills. Instead, their careers have

focused on highly technical information and their super-

visory responsibilities are marginally managerial in

nature. Instead of being managed, they have tended to

work on collegial bases. Although this is acceptable

fcr an NMP's work role, it provides little training for

management leadership.


Needed Research in Personality Characteristics of Leaders

Traditionally, leadership studies have evaluated de-

grees of manager effectiveness by identifying traits or

styles associated with effective manager performance. As

Finder and Pinto (1974) state:

Since the turn of the century, two themes
have been recurrent in management research.
One approach is represented by the early
work of Kurt Lewin and his associates which
focused attention on the personal character-
istics of leaders. As pointed out by
Campbell, et al. (1970), the net result of
this "trait" research is a list of attributes
characterizing the effective manager which
includes almost the entire spectrum of
human virtue.
The other theme has developed from the
Ohio State research on the behavioral styles
of managers. Managerial effectiveness is a
matter of outputs rather than inputs such as
traits and so a more meaningful approach to
the study of effective management should in-
volve an emphasis on managerial behavior.
(p. 257)









Most research on leadership has concentrated on one

approach or the other, with current studies focusing pri-

marily on leadership styles. This emphasis has dominated

and diminished trait and personality studies of leadership.

Durand and Nord (1976, p. 427) state that "the strength

of the reaction against 'trait approach' appears to have

suppressed the study c- personality factors even though

they are part of an interaction in leadership." However,

Palmer (1974) notes that future research should continue

to identify personality dimensions which determine manage-

ment effectiveness. The study of personality variables

therefore has a valid place in leadership and management

research.

Brousseau (1978, p. 235) states that "an individual's

affective and b-havior responses to his work depend not

only on the characteristics of his job, but also on certain

aspects of his personality, such as his need for growth."

Therefore, there needs to be a "fit" between personality

and job characteristics (Peters and Champaux, 1978) since

personality is a major influence on career satisfaction

and job effectiveness.



Need for Study


If NMPs have the desire to assume management positions

in order to fulfill their needs (e.g. achievement, self

esteem) a basis for training must be found to assure that









NMPs develop management effectiveness. Management skills,

as mentioned previously, are not typically a part of an

1:MP's background knowledge. Therefore, one of the prob-

lems of developing a training program for N:Ps is what to

do for N:MPs who want to become managers. Personality

traits have been shown to be important for functioning

well in job positions, and many personality traits have

been identified that assist managers in becoming more

effective. However, those traits which NMPs possess or

lack in comparison to managers are not evident. If

!MPs differing characteristics can be identified,

programs can be developed to help them become effective

managers.

If NMPs have unique needs in becoming managers,

consultants or business career counselors should determine

those needs so that they can facilitate NMPs' career

developments. More importantly, consultants or career

counselors must know individuals' needs before they can

be of maximum use to those individuals. Further, if

needs are identified, consultants or career counselors can

learn to provide ways to help develop NMPs into managers.

When NMPs are made more aware of goals and characteris-

tics expected, they are more likely to achieve them. Pro-

viding counseling and consultation to NMPs can help this

transformation. NMPs will gain greater understandings of

themselves, and that is the first step in their self-

developments (Tannebaum, Weschler, and Llassariah, 1961).









NMPs can become more effective managers by increasing

their self-developments.

If NMPs are tc take more expanded roles in business,

clearer understandings of their population characteristics

are necessary. This enlarged understanding should help

the selection and identification of NMPs with the greatest

potentials ct be effective managers. If effective mana-

aers are selected from NMPs and assigned to areas in

which they excell, companies should benefit from their

involvements.



Purpose of the Study


The two purposes of this study were 1) to investigate

the differences in personality needs and job satisfaction

between nor-anaging professional and managerial personnel

and 2) to determine how job satisfaction scores correlate

with personality scores. Detecting these personality

differences serves two goals. First, NMPs' unique needs,

and how these needs are related to job satisfaction, are

identified. Once this is accomplished, specific training

programs can be developed to facilitate NMPs' acquisition

of managerial roles. Also, career counselors and consul-

tants will be more effective in their interactions with

NMPs. Secondly, there will be a greater understanding of

NMPs in general. With greater understanding, business

leaders car nake more productive uses of NMPs as managers.









NMPs can be selected and placed in managerial positions

for which they would be most effective.



Null Hypotheses


This study will test the following hypotheses:

1) There are no differences in personality

needs and job satisfaction between non-

managing professionals and managerial

personnel.


2) There are no differences in personality

needs and job satisfaction among subgroups

non-managing professionals and their

corresponding managerial personnel groups.


3) There are no relationships between job

satisfaction and personality needs for

either non-managing professionals or

managerial personnel.



Definition of Terms


Non-Managing Professionals

Non-managing professionals (NMPs) are defined as sci-

entists, engineers, lawyers, financial accountants and data

processing personnel who have been with their respective

companies five years or longer and who do not supervise

other employees.








Managerial Personnel

4{anagerial personnel (MP) are defined as employees who

oversee first line, or higher, supervisors in the organiza-

tion.


Scientists

Scientists are employees who have college degrees in

physics, biology and/or chemistry and are conducting

research in one of these areas.


Engineers

Engineers are employees who have college degrees in

engineering science and who are involved primarily in the

application of engineering science.


Lawyers

Lawyers are employees who have degrees in law and

who are involved primarily with legal matters.


Financial Accountants

Financial accountants are employees who have degrees

in accounting and who are involved primarily with summnari-

zing and recording business transactions.


Data Processing Personnel

Data processing personnel are employees who have

degrees in computer science and who are involved primarily

in computer science activities.















CHAPTER II
REVIEW OF THE RELATED LITERATURE



Need for Manacers


Several authors support the increasing need for

managers in business. Rawls and Rawls (1971) state:

The dwindling supply of managers is one
of the major outcomes of the rapid indus-
trial expansion in the United States.
The need for able managers now far ex-
ceeds the supply, and the deficit appears
to be growing. (p. 24)

McClelland and Burnham (1975) asserted the same point.

They indicated that there is a shortage of managers, and

in response to this shortage some companies will have to

take less qualified managers.

Two other trends have been noted that are increasing

the need for more managers. First, Howard (1978) states

that one out of three managers is turning down promotions,

which is reducing the reservoir of managerial talent. Second,

companies fail to develop the managerial talent they current-

ly have. This failure to develop managers can extend to

the top of an organization. For example, Costello (1977)

felt that many companies are failing to groom successors

for chief executives.









The base of the management hierarchy is shrinking as

the need for managers is increasing, Many managers are

unwilling to move upward in the organization and thus are

not being developed to their potentials. If the need for

more managers is to be met, new sources will have to be

found from which to recruit managers.



Murray's Personality Theory


The Personality Research Form (PRF) was the inventory

used to examine the personality differences between the

NMPs and MPs. The personality theory from which the PRF

was formulated was developed by E.A. Murray (1938), and

described in his book, Exploration in Personality. Further

examination of this theory for its completeness and use-

fulness to this study was needed.

In general, Murray's personality theory is concerned

with the subconscious of the human personality (Ewen, 1980).

The emphasis of the theory on the subconscious processes

is indicative of the influence Freud had on Murray (Stagner,

1974). Other aspects of the theory are also aligned with

Freudian theory. An example is the importance of needs as

motivational forces and how these forces determine the

personality.

Murray's theory postulates that people are motivated

to maximize instinctual gratification, while also minimiz-

ing punishment and guilt (Maddi, 1972). This motivation










represents the central issue of personality theory.

Humans have a desire to satisfy tension producing drives.

These drives are the needs. More specifically, needs can

be defined as a "construct standing for a force in the brain

region which energizes and organizes our perceptions,

thoughts, and actions thereby transforming an existing

unsatisfying situation in the direction of a particular

goal" (Ewen, 1980)

Murray (1938) states that a need is a "hypothetical

process the occurrence of which is imagined in order to

account for certain objective and subjective facts" (p. 54).

Ewen (1980) observed that Murray inferred the existence

of needs from overt sources. Some of these overt sources

would be frequent and intense patterns of behavior, the

results of the behavior and the expression of satisfaction

or dissatisfaction with the results. Murray (1938) also

specified that these needs not only have a qualitative or

directional aspect which differentiates one need from another,

but also an energetic or qualitative force that varies in

strength.

There are two forms of needs, biological and mental.

Ewen (1980) identified some biological needs: hunger,

thirst, sex, oxygen, deprivation, elimination of bodily

wastes and avoidance of painful external conditions. The

mental needs are subsequently derived from these biological

ones.








In evaluating Murray's theory, Stagner (1974)

concluded that it is probably futile to either try to

corpile a comprehensive list of all categories of needs

important to hum-an beings, or to try to reduce all goal

seeking to a single category. What we need, he said, is

a working list of needs. This will enable research on

personality to progress. Maddi (1972) supports the credi-

bility of u;urray's theory. He states that Murray "pio-

neered themodern emphasis upon the empirical measurement

and validation of concrete peripheral characteristics

present in the peripheral theory of personality" (p. 447).

Maddi also emphasizes the huge amount of data relating to

Murray's list of needs that Murray and his staff col-

lected.

Murray's theory is broad in applicability. The

population used as a base was normal, not pathological

(Maddi, 1972). Murray placed great importance on vali-

dating and measuring his theory. Three prominent inven-

tories have been developed from Murray's theory: Person-

ality Research Form, Edwards Personal Preference Schedule

and the Adjective Check List. This theory was an adequate

and useful base to use in this study for comparing person-

alities of NMPs and management personnel.









The Definition of NMPs


The term professional has such a diverse number of

meanings that it is pointless to cite the numerous ways

that the concept has been operationalized. It is suffi-

cient to list characteristics of ideal professionals

which have been commonly and consistently used in research

literature.

Kerr, Von Glinow and Schriesheim (1977) identified

six characteristics used most often and generally acknow-

ledced to be of theoretical importance:

1) Expertise, normally stemming from pro-
longed specialized training in a body
of abstract knowledge.
2) Autonomy, a perceived right to make
choices which concern both means and
ends.
3) Commitment to the work and the pro-
fession.
4) Identification with the profession
and fellow professionals.
5) Ethics, a felt obligation to render
services without concern for self-
interest and without becoming emo-
tionally involved with the client.
6) Collegial maintenance of standards,
a perceived commitment to help police
the conduct of fellow professionals. (p. 332)

This consensual definition appears to describe the

five groups for the study. However, a qualification must

be made for the subsemples of engineers. Kerr et al.

(1977) in their review state:

Most engineers lack autonomy, commitment
to technical specialty, collegial mainten-
ance of standard and identification with
profession associated with professionals.
They also lack an effectively neutral and









altruistic ethic of services. Finally,
although the occupation does contain a
"body of abstract knowledge" as required
by the consensual definition, a high
percentage of practicing engineers have
undergcne little or no graduate training.
(p. 339, 340)

However, engineers with advanced graduate degrees do

fit the consensual definition much better. Greenwald

(1978) established that engineers with advanced degrees

have career orientations which are as strongly profes-

sional as pure scientists'. Peter (1957) determined that

engineers with Ph.D.s are interested primarily in scien-

tific and technical achievement as opposed to promotion

which is often the goal of engineers with only bachelor's

degrees.

The consensual definition of professionals describes

scientists and lawyers, financial accountants and data

processing personnel. The definition is also descriptive

of engineers with advanced degrees. These five groups

were therefore included in the population of NMPs.



NMPs and Their Relationship to Management


NMPs' Desire to Manage

Business organizations put great emphasis on their

employees taking managerial roles. Levinson (1980) ob-

serves that in the United States, with its great social

mobility and competitive economy, intense competition for

position in the organizational hierarchy is stimulated










and fostered by higher management. He states that "people

in many specialties must shift from these specialties

into managerial ranks to attain success within the c[rgan-

ization] structure" (p. 50, Kerr et al. (1977) empha-

sized that companies reward, and promotional structures

support, the managerial role.

If NMPs can be shown to have a need to achieve, it can

be concluded that there is sn:e personal "pressure" for

them to be managers. Hall a-d Glascow (1979) concluded that

the direction people take to fulfill their achievement

needs may differ, but the desire to achieve is a basic

part of every person's pschological makeup. Hines (1973)

stated:

While it has not been established if high
achievers are over or under-represented
in the professions, it seems reasonable
to suggest that high standards, clearly
defined goals and opportunities for
recognition would attract at least the
normal need for achievement distribution.
(p. 313)

NMPs would include at least some members who have high

achievement needs. To fulfill these needs in a business

organization, NMPs will most likely desire management

position.

NMPs often express the desire to manage. Greenwald

(1978) investigated professionals and determined that

NMPs value managerial functions. He used a questionnaire

survey mailed to one thousand scientists and engineers

in the San Francisco area. Approximately 72% of the sample









completed and returned the questionnaires. He found

that professionals in all career categories are rela-

tively likely to feel dissatisfied with their career

choices when they spend very little or no time at all

in management or administration. The strongest relation-

ship occurs among "pure professionals," those with high

professionalism and low careerism scores. "Pure profes-

sionals" who spend very little or no time managing are

more than twice as likely to feel dissatisfied (with their

career) as those who spend a moderate amount or a great

deal of time in this pursuit. Nineteen percent of the

"pure professionals" who spend any time at all in manage-

ment were dissatisfied, compared with 46.9 percent of

those who do not manage. This difference was significant

at the .02 level. Greenwald (1978) concluded that

Past investigators have overlooked the
possibility that while professionals dc
have some special needs, they also have
needs which they share with non-profes-
sionals. Dedicated professionals, for
example, may value professional recogni-
tion over entry into management but they
specifically seek managerial status as a
form of such recognition. (p. 166)

In a field study of advanced graduate engineers,

Harlow (1973) found similar results. She investigated

engineers' preferences for upward mobility. Her sample,

54 advanced graduate engineers, completed a job satis-

faction and promotional preference (desiring the imme-

diate supervisor's position) questionnaire. The








relationship was significant at the .05 level. Nearly

one half of the sample had an intense desire for a

management position.

NMPs will be, and are now, acquiring management posi-

tions. These positions fulfill some of their achievement

needs. These management positions are the mark of success

in an organization. The whole reward structure of a

business revolves around the managerial positions.


Differences between NMPs and Management Personnel

There appear to be some relatively established

differences between NMPs and management personnel. Hines

(1973) found, in comparing middle managers with engineers

and accountants on achievement motivation, that both

engineers and accountants expressed a higher need for

achievement. Although these groups also included some

managers, the study still lends support to the fact

there are differences between these groups.

Harrell and Harrell (1973) compared personality

scores of master's of business administration students

who were planning to be general managers or engineers.

General managers were higher on intensity and sincerity

than were engineers. Waters and Roach (1976) conducted

a study more applicable to NMPs. They compared higher and

lower level managers to technical specialty personnel.

The technical specialty personnel group consisted of

employees in data processing, underwriting and adjustment








of an insurance firm. Using a discrininant function

analysis the two levels of managers were differentiated

from technical/specialists on the basis of job satisfaction

with work and supervision.

Although none of these studies directly compare NMPs

and management personnel, they all suggest the possibility

that personality differences exist between NMPs and manage-

ment personnel. Personality is a potential field to find

differences between NMPs and management personnel.



Management, Leadership and Personality


The number of leadership theories have been more

detrimental than a help to managers (Hinrichs, 1970).

Managers are unable to take these theories and apply them

effectively to their work. There are too many theories

and controversial issues between theories to make an ef-

fective choice and learn to use a theory effectively.

Hall and Donnell (1976) state:

There is a gap between paying homage to
theorists and actually incorporating their
principles in management, the gap between
discovery and application--these may be
due to a third gap, credibility. The
nature of psychology and sociology run
counter to both intuition and motives
of managers. (p. 78)

Hinrichs (1970) concurs in an extensive review of indus-

trial psychology. He explains that the long standing

malaise of industrial psychology has been a plethora









of data and a paucity of generalized research, insights

and theory.

If research is to become more applicable, areas in

which research can be directly applied need to be dis-

covered. Determining the personality differences between

NMPs and MPs is one of these areas. The desire of NMPs

to manage was discussed in a previous section. The im-

portance of determining personality characteristics is

presented here.

In general, there is a need for renewed study in the

role of personality in leadership. Durand and Nord (1976)

report that the strength of the reaction against the

"trait approach" appears to have suppressed the study of

personality factors, even though personality is a determin-

ant of leadership. Leadership personality is net being

extensively studied. Sisson, Arthur, Fierro and Gazda

(1978) found in their review of research over a 15 year

period that there was a "paucity of existing literature

related to success factors (in leadership)" (p. 198).

Hinrichs (1970), in his review of the leadership research

in the field of industrial psychology from 1960 to 1970,

determined that few studies had been conducted which in-

vestigated ability and personality factors.

There is a growing interest in the role of person-

ality in the work environment. Brousseau (1978) stated:









Recently, several groups of researchers have
reported findings which indicate that an
individual's affective and behavioral re-
sponses to his work depend not only on
the characteristics of his job, but also
on certain aspects of his personality. . .
These [authors] illustrate the importance
of fit between a person's personality and
the job characteristics. (p. 235)

In respect to the role of personalities in managing,

Palmer (1974) proposes that "future research should con-

tinue to look for those personality dimensions that

determine management effectiveness" (p. 294). Person-

ality still has an important role in the exploration and

discovery of the field of leadership.

More specifically, personality has been found to

have an effect on work performance. Miller (1979) states

that the "most common cause of management stress is a mis-

match of personality and jobs" (p. 51). If one performs

poorly, this performance will most likely have a negative

effect on the individual. Maccoby (19:3) supports this by

stating:

Work stimulates feeling and attitudes that can
lead either in the direction of human develop-
ment or of psychopathology. If a job contributes
to an individual's development, it will strength-
en our society; if it does not, both the indi-
vidual and society will suffer. (p. 509)

Managers must be selected so that their personality

and behavior will match the position or managerial

situation. Tiffon and McCormick (1958) believed that

individual differences are important to businesses.

They are a direct determinant of work performance.

Steers (1975) found personality to represent a significant









moderating force on the relationship between task goals

and performance. If personality is related to, or is a

causal factor in work performance, personality is an

area worth researching. The investigation of how NMPs

differ on personality traits from management personnel

can provide useful information about NMiPs while adding

to the understanding of leadership.















CHAPTER III
METHODOLOGY



Overview


The purpose of this descriptive research study was

to investigate possible differences in personality needs

and job satisfaction among NMPs and MPs. In addition,

the relationship of job satisfaction to personality was

investigated. The causes of any personality or job

satisfaction differences were not investigated as a part

of this study.

The personality traits investigated were the 14 in-

cluded in the Personality Research Form (PRF): achieve-

ment, affiliation, aggression, autonomy, dominance, endur-

ance, exhibition, harmavoidance, impulsivity, nurturance,

order, play, social recognition and understanding. Defin-

itions and characteristics of these needs are elaborated

upon in Appendix A. Job satisfaction was measured by the

Minnesota Satisfaction Questionnaire (MSQ). There were

three satisfaction scales: Extrinsic, Intrinsic and

General Satisfaction.

There were five NMP groups: scientists, engineers,

lawyers, financial accountants and data processing.









personnel. Each group consisted of 20 subjects. There

were five MP groups: scientists, engineers, lawyers,

financial accountants and data processing personnel. These

five groups correspond to the five NMP groups. There were

10 subjects in each MP group. within these 10 groups, the

14 personality traits and the job satisfaction scores

were examined for significant correlations. The related

MP and NMP groups were compared for differences on the

personality traits and the measures of job satisfaction.

Each subject was given a packet containing the PRF, the

MSQ and a short biographical questionnaire (Appendix C).



Selection of Subjects


The subjects were selected from a large manufacturing

business in St. Louis, Missouri. Divisional managers of

the firm were asked to identify subordinates who had em-

ployees suitable to the classification of the NMP and

MP subject groups. These managers were provided descrip-

tions of the desired employees and encouraged to request

additional information about the purposes and procedures

of the study.

The managers provided a list of employees that could

be classified into the NMP or MP subject groups. If the

nomination process provided too few employees to fill the

sample groups, all managers previously contacted were

asked to identify more potential subjects.









After the list of candidates was completed, a semi-

random selection of subjects was made to determine who

was to be included in the study. The subjects for each

category were placed in a random ordered list. This list

was followed in selecting subjects until each group had

its full membership. If a group was unable to reach full

membership because some subjects were unable to partici-

pate, further nominations were sought from managers for

that group.

There was one criterion each subject had to meet to

be included in the study: five years at the same or similar

position. This requirement was to assure that only those

individuals who have "solidified" their careers were sel-

ected. For the NMPs, this requirement aided in the sel-

ection of the subjects who would be approaching the top

of their hierarchy. It was assumed that subjects with

at least this tenure were making decisions about whether

they wanted to enter a management position.

A special requirement was also placed on engineers.

Only engineers with graduate degrees were selected.

Engineers with graduate degrees are more likely to identify

themselves as professionals than are those with only

bachelor's degrees.





28


Instrumentation


The instrumentation consisted of three items: a

personality inventory, a job satisfaction questionnaire

and a biographical information sheet.


Personality Inventory

The Personality Research Form (PRF), 1965, Form A,

was selected to measure the 14 personality needs. It was

developed by Douglas N. Jackson (1974), and is published by

Research Psychologists Press, Inc.

The inventory scales of the PRF were developed from

Murray's need system. For each scale a definition was

prepared, based to a great extent on Murray's work. This

definition serves to orient item writing for each scale.

One important distinction between the PRF's needs and

Murray's needs is that the PRF's needs are bipolar, while

Murray's are directional. This explicit bipolarity in

the PRF scales had made some of Murray's variables super-

fluous. For example, there is no alienation scale in the

PRF. The negative pole of affiliation measures this need

(Jackson, 1974). Therefore, in interpreting the PRF

scales, both low and high scores signify characteristics

which serve to differentiate one subject from another. Of

the 22 original scales developed, those judged to be most

relevant to a wide variety of areas of human functioning

have been included in the standard shorter forms (Forms A

and B). The test manual defines each trait (Appendix A).









The responses for the statements in the inventory

are in a true-false format. Examinees respond to state-

ments as they apply to themselves. An example of a

question is "I never go near the edge of cliffs or steep

places." Half of the questions for each scale are ori-

ented to each extreme of the continuum being measured.

Using the Kuder-Richardson Formula 20, reliabilities

for the scales ranged from .66 (Understanding) to .85

(Dominance). Test-retest reliabilities, with one week

between assessments, ranged from .74 (Social Recognition)

to .90 (Harmavoidance) (Bentler, 1964).

Support for the validity of the PRF was obtained

by convergent and discriminant validity studies. In one

convergent validity study, the independent criteria were

peer ratings (Jackson, 1974). The validity coefficients

were .42 for achievement, .75 for affiliation, .73 for

aggression, .60 for autonomy, .75 for dominance, .35 for

endurance, .51 for exhibition, .40 for harmavoidance, .65

for impulsivity, .72 for nurturance, .68 for order, .53

for play, .57 for social recognition and .58 for under-

standing.

A multimethod factor analysis was used to provide

discriminate validity (Jackson and Guthrie, 1968). The

analysis used 202 subjects' self ratings, peer ratings

and PRF scores. The PFP scales loaded on 18 factor de-

fined relevant scales. Jackson described in the PRF









manual the reasoning for using this method to obtain

discriminant validity.

The demonstration of convergent and discrim-
inant validity represents a kind of acid
test for a personality inventory. Unfortun-
ately, rule of thumb methods were not consid-
ered entirely adequate for evaluating the
unique capacity of each PRF scale to relate
to suitable criteria. For a number of rea-
sons, classical linear factor analysis was
not considered entirely adequate either.
Therefore, a procedure was developed
(Jackson, 1966) which focuses entirely upon
variance common to two or more methods of
measurement. This procedure, termed multi-
method factor analysis, accomplishes this
by orthogonalizing those portions of the
multitrait-multimethod correlation matrix
common to a given method of measurement.
This results in a correlation matrix in
which only heteromethod validity coeffi-
cients appear, the monomethod values having
been replaced with zeros. Thus, method var-
iance common only to a single method of
measurement cannot intrude to determine
common factors. When a principle component
factor analysis and rotation of axes to sim-
ple structure is performed, resulting fac-
tors may be interpreted as being due pri-
marily to the correlation of traits across
different methods of measurement, rather
than to artifacts of the method of
measurement. (1974, p. 25)

Loesch and Weikel (1976) have stated that the PRF has

been subjected to extensive and sophisticated research

and has been found to be psychometrically sound.

Further, the PPF has shown itself to be an adequate

discriminator among different occupational groups. Skinner

and Jackson (1977) investigated the selection of military

applicants for 14 different positions with the use of the

PRF. They found four significant discriminant functions

that differentiated between these groups. These four









functions accounted for 74.24% of the dispersion between

the groups. Pihl and Spiers (1977) reported findings

using four professional groups: psychologists, physio-

therapists, social workers and occupational therapists.

Not only did these four groups significantly differ from

each other on their PRF scores, but the professionals

significantly differed from the normal population. Further,

the PRF constructs and the Strong Vocational Interest

Blank (SVIB) scales were factored into seven jointly de-

fined factors. Siess and Jackson (1970) stated that the

"SVID can be interpreted in terms of personalogical

constructs" (p. 34). The results indicate that need

patterns can be satisfied by certain occupational roles.

The PRF thus provides adequate reliability, validity,

and differentiation between occupations for the purposes

of this study.


Job Satisfaction Questionnaire

The questionnaire selected to measure job satisfac-

tion was the Minnesota Satisfaction Questionnaire (MSQ),

(University of Minnesota, 1977), short-form. This instru-

ment was developed by the Industrial Relations Center of

the University of Minnesota.

The short-form MSQ consists of 20 five-point Likert

format questions, ranging from very satisfied to very

dissatisfied. Tne questions were drawn from the 100

questions included in the long form MSQ. Items selected










for the short-form correlated highly with the 20 MSQ lona-

form scales. A factor analysis provided two subscales.

These were labeled Extrinsic and Intrinsic Satisfaction.

The questionnaire provides three scores: general, ex-

trinsic and intrinsic satisfaction.

In general, reliability for the MSQ has been high.

For internal consistency the coefficients range from .84

to .91, for intrinsic satisfaction; .77 to .82, for ex-

trinsic satisfaction and .87 to .92 for general satisfac-

tion. Using test-retest the general satisfaction scale

yielded .89 over a one-week period and .70 over a one

year period.

MSQ validity is supported by a comparison of seven

different occupational groups on job satisfaction. The

groups included assemblers, clerks, engineers, janitors,

machinists and salesmen. The occupational group differences

in mean satisfaction scores were statistically significant

for each of the three scales in the MSQ. Those indivi-

duals with high needs and having high reinforcement of

those needs were predicted to be the most satisfied.

Those individuals with high needs and low reinforcement

of those needs would be the least satisfied. The results

were in the predicted direction on seven of the scales for

the long-form MSQ. The MSQ, therefore, showed adequate re-

liability and validity to be used as a measure of job

satisfaction for this research.









Biographical Questionnaire

The third instrument subjects received was the

biographical questionnaire (BQ) (Appendix C). The BQ

collected general information about each subject.



Data Collection


An introductory letter was mailed to each subject

(Appendix B). The letter was followed by a telephone

call during which questions were answered and an indivi-

dual introduction session was scheduled. The introduc-

tion session consisted of delivering the assessment

packet and explaining the procedures and directions.

Each session was scheduled at the convenience of the

subject. If subjects wished not to participate they

were allowed to withdraw from the study.

Each item of the assessment packet was self admin-

istered. The packet consisted of the PRF, the :MSQ, the

BQ and a return envelope. Each subject returned the

items by mail after completing them.



Data Analyses


The 14 personality needs and three job satisfaction

scores for the separate NMP subgroup and their corres-

ponding MP group were tested for significant differences.

Significant differences were examined between the MP group








as a whole, and the separate NMP subgroups. Analyses

of variance were used to determine if significant dif-

ferences existed. If significant differences were found,

Tukey's Honestly Significant Difference (HSD) method was

used to determine where the differences occurred. The

14 personality traits were also tested for significant

correlation with the 3 job satisfaction scores within

each subgroup. An alpha level of .05 was used for all

statistical tests.



Limitations


As with most other studies of this nature, there

were some limitations which arose out of the conditions

under which the study was made. The size of the sample,

the nature of the data and the statistics used are all

factors to consider. In order that the data be under-

stood, it is proper that these limitations be stated.

1) The subjects are not randomly selected from

the population. A selection error may

occur because of the subjects selected.

The effects also may be inherent to the

specific company selected.

2) The effects may be due to the geographical

region selected. The differences may be

found only in the St. Louis region. Errors






35


may occur because of differences

other than being an NMP or MP.

3) There are many personality traits which

could be used in a study like this one. The

fact that only 14 traits were selected for

the study is a limitation to the findings.

4) There may be differences between NMPs and

MPs' personality traits by tenure in a posi-

tion or age. This study examined a re-

stricted section of the population, i.e.

only subjects with a tenure of five years

or more.
















CHAPTER IV
RESULTS OF THIS STUDY



.he purpose of this study was to investigate the

rel0 .onships among job satisfaction and personality

trai for MPs and NMPs in five career fields.

iscriminanz functions were computed for each of

the ~ comparisons to be made among :iPs and NMPs. These

sta' tics used the stepwise method. They were computed

to ect factors which differentiate between groups,

witf consideration of correlations with other factors.

Only -actors which added significantly to the differen-

tiai: -n beyond those basic factors selected were used.


Results of Data Analyses

able 1 shows the means and standard deviations for

bot. IP and NMP lawyers on the MSQ and the PRF. The MPs

sho.- greater satisfaction on each of the three MSQ

sca Further, their responses to each scale were

more homogeneous as evidenced by smaller standard devi-

ati s.









Table 1

Means and Standard Deviations for Lawyers


Managerial Non-Managing
Personnel Professional
n=10 n=20

X Std. Dev. X Std. Dev.


Jcb Satisfaction

General 81.30 9.25 75.25 10.65

Internal 51.50 3.44 48.50 4.31

External 21.90 5.55 19.45 6.02


Personality Traits

Achievement 15.00 2.67 15.15 2.25

Affiliation 14.10 2.38 16.10 1.41

Aggression 5.70 1.95 6.15 2.46

Autonomy 7.40 3.63 8.15 2.43

Dominance 15.30 3.09 13.50 3.12

Endurance 14.10 2.38 14.40 2.82

Exhibition 11.90 3.98 12.40 3.22

Harma,'oidance 10.90 4.12 10.35 4.80

Impulsivity 7.40 3.92 8.10 2.92

Nurturance 11.90 2.47 14.90 2.49

Order 11.50 2.92 12.35 4.82

Play 9.10 3.31 11.10 1.89

Social Recognition 10.50 3.27 11.65 2.85

Understanding 13.00 2.58 14.50 2.65









The PRF needs mean scores cf MPs ranged from 5.70 (Ag-

gression) to 15.30 (Dominance) while those for NMPs ranged

from 6.15 (Aggression) to 16.1C (Affiliation). The ItPs

had higher needs level on 12 of 14 scales, all but Domin-

ance and Harmavoidance. The greatest mean score differ-

ence was for the Nurturance scale (d=3.00) while the

smallest difference was for the Achievement scale (d=.15)

The patterns of dispersion were more balanced for this

instrument as the MPs had larger standard deviations for

eight of the scales while the reverse was true for the

other six scales.

Table 2 shows the MISQ anc 7P? means and standard

deviations for both MP and NMP engineers. The MPs

showed greater satisfaction on all scales, although the

external job satisfaction scores differed by only .10.

The MPs' responses had less dispersion on the general

and internal scale as shown by the smaller deviations.

The opposite was found on the external scale.

The PRF needs mean scores c_ MPs ranged from 4.20

(Aggression) to 17.30 (Affiliatlon) while those for NMPs

ranged from 4.80 (Aggression) to 15.55 (Achievement). The

MPs had higher need levels on 9 of the 14 scales, all

except Aggression, Autonomy, En--rance, Impulsivity, and

Play. The greatest mean score difference was for the Dom-

inance scale (d=4.00) while he smallest difference was for

the Understanding scale (d=.15). The MPs responses were









Table 2

Means and Standard Deviations for Engineers


Managerial
Personnel
n=!0


Non-Managing
Professional
n=20


Std. Dev. X Std. Dev.


Job Satisfaction

General 77.20 6.12 75.65 9.00

Internal 48.30 2.67 46.00 5.66

External 21.10 4.38 21.00 3.81


Personality Traits

Achievement 16.00 1.15 15.55 2.24

Affiliation 17.30 1.49 14.10 2.83

Aggression 4.20 2.57 4.80 3.21

Autonomy 5.20 2.30 7.20 3.41

Dominance 15.50 3.31 11.50 4.03

Endurance 13.90 2.73 14.80 3.50

Exhibition 11.10 2.64 10.30 3.89

Harmavoidance 11.70 2.91 8.65 3.62

Impulsivity 5.60 3.37 6.90 3.52

Nurturance 14.80 2.04 13.35 3.22

Order 13.50 2.42 12.55 4.33

Play 8.40 2.95 9.90 3.49

Social Recognition 13.10 2.69 9.65 4.96

Understanding 14.50 2.32 14.35 3.10










the most homogeneous, as shown by smaller standard devi-

ations on all 14 scales.

Table 3 shows the PRF and MSQ means and standard

deviations for both MPs and NMP research scientists. The

MPs showed greater satisfaction and greater dispersion of

response on the General and Internal scales and less on

the External scale, as indicated by the MSQ standard

deviations.

The PRF needs mean scores of MPs ranged from 4.80

(Aggression) to 16.60 (Achievement) while those for NMPs

ranged from 3.90 (Aggression) to 15.85 (Achievement).

The MPs had higher need levels on eight scales: Achievement,

Aggression, Autonomy, Dominance, Endurance, Exhibition,

Impulsivity, and Understanding. The NMPs had higher need

levels on five scales: Affiliation, Harmavoidance, Order,

Play, and Social Recognition. They had no difference in

levels on the Nurturance scale. The greatest mean score

difference was for the Exhibition scale (d=3.00). The

pattern of dispersion was fairly balanced as the MPs had

larger standard deviations for eight of the scales while

the reverse was true for the other six scales.

Table 4 shows the PRF and MSQ means and standard devi-

ations for both MP and NMP data processors. The MPs showed

greater satisfaction on each of the three MSQ scales, al-

though their responses to each scale were less homogeneous

as shown by greater standard deviations.









Table 3

Means and Standard Deviations for Research Scientists


Managerial Non-Managinc
Personnel Professional
n=10 n=20

X Std. Dev. X Std. Dev.


Job Satisfaction

General 78.60 12.96 77.35 9.89

Internal 49.00 8.31 48.65 6.09

External 21.40 5.19 23.45 13.98


Personality Traits

Achievement 16.60 3.10 15.85 2.32

Affiliation 13.60 4.01 14.50 3.89

Aggression 4.80 2.39 3.90 2.13

Autonomy 7.60 3.41 6.15 2.43

Dominance 11.90 3.93 10.65 4.37

Endurance 16.10 1.79 14.40 2.33

Exhibition 11.70 4.08 8.70 3.89

Harmavcldance 10.10 3.54 10.30 4.73

Impulsivity 6.80 3.52 6.20 2.53

Nurturance 13.60 2.76 13.60 3.27

Order 11.40 4.58 13.30 3.57

Play 7.80 1.93 8.65 3.01

Social Recognition 8.90 3.63 9.95 4.70

Understanding 13.70 3.23 12.70 2.68









Table 4

Means and Standard Deviations for Data Processors


Managerial
Personnel
n=10


Non-Managing
Professional
n=20


x Std. Dev. X Std. Dev.


Job Satisfaction

General 80.60 10.71 77.45 8.02

Internal 50.60 6.42 48.45 4.91

External 21.60 4.53 20.70 4.19


Personality Traits

Achievement 15.90 3.51 15.50 2.06

Affiliation 14.80 3.91 14.75 2.53

Aggression 5.00 2.62 5.25 2.61

Autonomy 7.00 3.59 7.10 3.34

Dominance 12.40 5.04 10.35 4.34

Endurance 13.70 3.71 13.70 3.34

Exhibition 9.50 4.88 10.95 3.72

Harmavoidance 9.60 4.86 11.80 2.65

Impulsivity 9.50 4.48 8.55 3.38

Nurturance 13.90 3.28 14.45 3.39

Order 12.30 4.16 11.80 4.19

Play 9.70 2.95 9.30 3.36

Social Recognition 10.70 5.06 10.85 4.45

Understanding 13.80 3.26 14.05 2.95









The PRF needs mean scores of the MPs ranked from

5.00 (Aggression) to 15.90 (Achievement). The MPs had

higher need levels on six of the 14 scales: Achievement,

Affiliation, Dominance, Impulsivity, Order, and Play.

They had lower need levels on seven scales: Aggression,

Autonomy, Exhibition, Harmavoidance, Nurturance, Social

Recccnition, and Understanding. The Endurance scale had

no difference in need levels for both groups. The greatest

mean difference was for the Earmavcidance scale (d=2.20).

The MPs showed more dispersion of responses on all but

three scales: Nurturance, Order and Play. This was

shown by the difference in standard deviation.

Table 5 shows the PRF and MSQ means and standard

deviations for both MP and NMP financial employees. The

MPs showed greater satisfaction on each of the three MSQ

scales. Further, their responses to each scale were more

homogeneous as evidenced by smaller standard deviations.

The PRF needs mean scores of MPs ranged from 4.60

(Aggression) to 15.20 (Achievement) while those for NMPs

ranged from 5.95 (Aggression) to 15.50 (Affiliation).

The NMPs had higher need levels on all but Harmavoidance,

Impulsivity, Understanding, and no difference on the

Achievement scale. The greatest mean score difference was

for the Nurturance scale (d=1.75). This instrument showed

a similar pattern of dispersion of responses as indicated

by the standard deviations. The MPs were more homogeneous









Table 5

Means and Standard Deviations for Financial Employees


Managerial Non-Managing
Personnel Professional
n=10 n=20

X Std. Dev. X Std. Dev.


Job Satisfaction

General 80.70 9.96 76.05 12.41

Internal 49.20 6.30 47.50 6.38

External 23.40 2.72 21.15 5.90


Personality Traits

Achievement 15.20 2.49 15.20 2.80

Affiliation 14.50 2.59 15.50 2.59

Aggression 4.60 3.03 5.95 3.52

Autonomy 5.70 2.21 6.65 3.22

Dominance 10.60 3.72 10.70 4.61

Endurance 12.80 2.35 13.80 2.44

Exhibition 8.90 2.88 9.50 4.10

harmavoidance 13.10 2.92 12.25 4.28

Impulsivity 7.90 3.63 7.60 3.90

Nurturance 13.20 1.81 14.95 2.37

Order 12.50 4.67 14.30 2.98

Play 9.30 3.23 10.30 2.68

Social Recognition 10.40 3.10 12.00 3.46

Understanding 12.80 2.74 12.10 3.80









on 11 of the 14 scales, less homogeneous on the Order and

Play scales, and equally homogeneous on the Affiliation

scale.

Table 6 shows the discriminant function between

managers combined as one group and IMP lawyers using the

scales from the MSQ and PRF. The discriminant function

was significant at the .05 level of probability. The PRF

need levels were the most significant factors in the func-

tion. Five of the six factors were personality needs.

The one job satisfaction scale selected, external, had the

lowest weighted coefficient (.24). The variable with the

greatest weight was Play (.88).

Table 7 shows the discriminant function between all

managers combined as one group and NMP engineers using the

scales from the MSQ and the PRF. The discriminant func-

tion was significant at the .05 level of probability.

The major discriminators were the three job satisfaction

scales. Only two need scales were selected, Exhibition

and Harmavoidance. The factor with the greatest weight

was general job satisfaction (-4.20).

Table 8 shows the discriminant function between all

managers combined as one group and NMP research scientists

using the scales from the MSQ and the PRF. The discrimin-

ant function was significant at the .05 level of probabil-

ity. All of the five factors selected were personality

need scales. No job satisfaction scales were selected. The

factor with the greatest weight was Understanding (.80).









Table 6

Discriminant Function Between Managers
and Non-Managing Professional Lawyers


Eigenvalue


D.F.


Wilks Landa


.51 6 .66*


*p<. 05


Variable


Coefficient


External Job Satisfaction -.24

Autonomy .60

Impulsivity -.33

Nurturance .53

Play .88

Understanding .40






47

Table 7

Discriminant Function Between Manacers
and Non-Managing Professional Engineers


Eigenvalue


Wilks Landa


.39 5 .72*



*p<.05












Variable Coefficient


General Job Satisfaction -4.20

Internal Job Satisfaction 3.33

External Job Satisfaction 1.95

Exhibition .63

Harmavoidance .79






48


Table 8

Discriminant Function Between Managers
and Non-Managing Professional Research Scientists


Eigenvalue


D.F.


Wilks Lamda


.23 5 .81*

* p<05












Variable Coefficient


Achievement -.70

Dominance .70

Harmavoidance .78

Impulsivity .61

Understanding .80









Table 9 shows the discriminant function between all

managers combined as one group and NMP data processors

Sing the scales from the MSQ and the PRF. The discrim-

inant function was significant at the .05 level of proba-

bility. All of the five selected were personality need

scales. No job satisfaction scales were used. The factor

with the greatest weight was Dominance (1.00).

Table 10 shows the discriminant function between all

managers combined as one group and NMP financial employees

using the scales from the MSQ and PPF. The discriminant

function was significant at the .05 level of probability.

Of the seven scales selected, none were job satisfaction

scales. The scale with the greatest weight was Play (.62).

Table 11 shows the discriminant function between MP

lawyers and NMP lawyers using the MSQ and PRF. The dis-

criminant function was significant at the .05 level of

probability. Six personality need scales were selected

and one job satisfaction scale. The scale with the

greatest weight was Dominance (.92).

Table 12 shows the discriminant function between MP

engineers and NMP engineers using the scales of the MSQ

and the PRF. The discriminant function was significant

at the .05 level of probability. Four personality need

scales were selected. No job satisfaction scales were

chosen. The greatest weights were in the Affiliation

and Dominance scales, .76 for each.









Table 9


Discrim.inant Function Between Managers
and Non-Managing Professional Data Processors



Eigenvalue D.F. Wilks Lamda


.24 5 .80*



*p<.05












Variable Coefficient


Dominance -1.00

Exhibition .81

Harmavoidance .66

Impulsivity .33

Understanding .68










Table 10

Discriminant Function Between Managers
and Non-Managing Professional Financial Employees


Eigenvalue


D.F.


Wilks Lamda


.49 7 .67*



*p<.05












Variable Coefficient


Aggression .57

Autonomy .39

Dominance -.43

Exhibition -.38

Nurturance .55

Order .55

Play .62









Table 11

Discriminant Function Between Managerial
Personnel Lawyers and Non-Managing Professional Lawyers


Eigenvalue


D.F.


Wilks Lamda


1.64 7 .38*



*p. 05













Variable Coefficient


General Job Satisfaction -.77

Achievement .47

Affiliation .44

Dominance -.92

Exhibition .45

Harmavoidance -.36

Nurturance .83









Table 12

Discriminant Function Between Managerial Personnel
Engineers and Non-Managing Professional Engineers


Eigenvalue


D.F.


Wilks Lamda


1.57 4 .39*


*p<.05


Variable


Coefficient


Affiliation

Dominance

Harmavoidance


Play


.76

.76

.71

-.33









Table 13 shows the discriminant function between

MP research scientists and NMP scientists using the

scales of the MSQ and PRF. The discriminant function was

significant at the .05 level of probability. All six

scales selected were personality needs. None were job

satisfaction scales. The factor with the greatest

weight was Endurance (1.17).

Table 14 shows the discriminant function between

MP data processors and NMP data processors using the

scales of the MSQ and PRF. The discriminant function was

significant at the .05 level of probability. All seven

scales used were personality needs. No job satisfaction

scale was selected. The factor with the greatest weight

was Exhibition (1.97).

Table 15 shows the discriminant function between MP

financial employees and NMP financial employees using

scales from the MSQ and PPF. The discriminant function

was significant at the .05 level of probability. Four

scales were used, all of them personality needs. The

factor with the greatest weight was Order (.90).

Table 16 presents the correlations of the MSQ and

the PRF for MP lawyers. All of the job satisfaction

scales were highly correlated. Three personality need

scales correlated with the job satisfaction scales. Only

one personality need scale for the lawyers correlated sig-

nificantly with all three job satisfaction scales. All









Table 13

Discriminant Function Between Managerial Personnel Research
Scientists and Non-Managing Professional Research Scientists


Eigenvalue


D.F.


Wilks Lamda


.94 6 .52*



*p<.05












Variable Coefficient


Affiliation -.63

Aggression .54

Endurance 1.17

Exhibition .38

Nurturance .94

Order -.86









Table 14

Discriminant Function Between
Managerial Personnel Data Processors
and Non-Managing Professional Data Processors


Eigenvalue


D.F.


Wilks Lamda


1.19 7 .46*



*p.Q05












Variable Coefficient


Dominance -1.06

Exhibition 1.97

Harmavoidance 1.31

Impulsivity -.83

Nurturance -.58

Order -.54

Understanding .73









able 15

Discriminant Function Between
Managerial Personnel Financial Employees
and Non-Managing Professional Financial Employees


Eigenvalue


D.F.


1ilks Landa


.43 4 .70*



*p<.05












Variable Coefficient


Aggression .62

Harmavcidance -.51

Nurturance .67

Order .90












Correlation of
Traits


Table 16

Job Satisfaction Scores and Personality
for Managerial Personnel Lawyers


Job Satisfaction

General Internal


Job Satisfaction

General

Internal

External


Personality Traits

Achievement

Affiliation

Aggression

Autonomy

Dominance

Endurance

Exhibition

Harmavoidance

Impulsivity

Nurturance

Order

Play

Social Recognition

Understanding


*py.05


1.00

.90*

.97*


.30

-.29

-.13

.27

-.18

.43

-.52

.01

-.33

.37

-.41

-.58*

-.06

.64*


External


.97*

.79*

1.00


.29

-.35

-.13

.33

-.24

.42

-.42

-.01

-.24

.25

-.45

-.59*

-.06

.61*


.90*

1.00

.79*


.23

-.28

-.11

.12

-.15

.33

-.61*

-.08

-.27

.53

-.28

-.61*

-.02

.53









three were negatively correlated. Tne Understanding

scale correlated significatnly with two job satisfaction

scales: general and external. Exhibition was correlated

with Internal Job Satisfaction. The greatest correla-

tion was the Understanding scale with the General scale

(.64).

Table 17 shows the correlation of the scales from

the MSQ and the PRF for NMP lawyers. All three scales

of the job satisfaction questionnaire were significantly

correlated. Six personality need scales were signifi-

cantly correlated with one or more of the job satisfac-

tion scales. Exhibition was the only scale to be corre-

lated with all three job satisfaction scales. The Endur-

ance scale correlated with the General Job Satisfaction

scale and the External Job Satisfaction scale. External

Job Satisfaction was significantly correlated with

Achievement and Play, General Job Satisfaction with

Understanding, and Internal Job Satisfaction with Im-

pulsivity. The greatest correlation was the Exhibition

scale and the General scale (.58).

Table 18 shows the correlation of the scales from

the MSQ and the PRF for MP Engineers. There were three

significant correlations. External Job Satisfaction

scale correlated with the General Job Satisfaction (.87),

Aggression (-.69), and Impulsivity (-.63). The greatest

correlation was the Aggression scale and the External

scale (-.69).









Table 17

Correlation of Job Satisfaction Scores and Personality Traits
for Non-Managing Professional Lawyers



Job Satisfaction

General Internal External

Job Satisfaction

General 1.00 .87* .92*

Internal .87* 1.00 .66*

External .92* .66* 1.00


Personality Traits

Achievement .37 .26 .41*

Affiliation .26 .16 .27

Aggression -.02 .13 -.05

Autonomy .05 .11 .02

Dominance .16 -.35 .02

Endurance .44* .28 .49*

Exhibition .58* .56* .52*

Ha-navoidance -.31 -.53 -.10

Impulsivity .34 .44* .17

Nurturance .28 .14 .26

Order .03 .15 -.04

Play -.31 -.05 -.42*

Social Recognition -.19 .03 -.34

Understanding .42* .27 .40


*p<.05









Table 18

Correlation of Job Satisfaction Scores and Personality
Traits for Managerial Personnel Engineers



Job Satisfaction

General Internal External

Job Satisfaction

General 1.00 .53 .87*

Internal .53 1.00 .08

External .87* .08 1.00


Personality Traits

Achievement -.20 -.11 -.15

Affiliation .04 -.25 .23

Aggression -.46 .31 -.69*

Autonomy -.39 -.52 -.09

Dominance .11 .25 -.04

Endurance -.30 -.35 -.21

Exhibition -.42 -.37 -.32

Har.-avoidance .40 .13 .39

Impulsivity -.52 .06 -.63*

Nurturance -.08 -.05 -.07

Order .05 -.09 .01

Play -.19 -.07 -.19

Social Recognition -.08 -.39 .10

Understanding -.05 .12 -.04


*p<.05









Table 19 shows the correlation of the scales from

the MSQ and the PRF for NMP engineers. All three scales

of the job satisfaction questionnaire were significantly

correlated. Three personality need scales were correlated

with the Job Satisfaction scales. The Dominance scale

correlated with General (.46) and Internal (.45) scales.

Impulsivity correlated with Internal (.44) and External

with Nurturance (-.52). The greatest correlation was the

Nurturance scale and the External scale (-.52).

Table 20 presents the correlation of the scales of

the MSQ and the PRF for HP Research Scientists. The three

scales of the job satisfaction questionnaire were signifi-

cantly correlated with each other. Only three personality

need scales correlated with the job satisfaction scales.

Dominance correlated with General (.57) and Internal (.64),

Impulsivity with Internal (.60), and Understanding with

External (-.60). The greatest correlation was the Domin-

ance scale with the Internal scale (.64).

Table 21 shows the correlation of the scales of the

MSQ and the PRF for the NMP Research Scientists. Within

the job satisfaction questionnaire, the internal scales

significantly correlated with the general scale. Four

personality need scales correlated with the job satisfac-

tion scales. Social Recognition correlated with both

General (.50) and Internal (.45). Both the Exhibition

scale correlated with the Internal scale (.52). The









Table 19

Correlation of Job Satisfaction Scores and Personality
Traits for Non-Managing Professional Engineers



Job Satisfaction

General Internal External

Job Satisfaction

General 1.00 .90* .80*

Internal .90* 1.00 .48*

External .80* .48* 1.00


Personality Traits

Achievement -.12 -.07 -.12

Affiliation -.13 -.11 -.10

Aggression .24 .31 .11

Autonomy .32 .30 .33

Dominance .46* .45* .33

Endurance -.20 -.18 -.16

Exhibition .16 .16 .15

Harmavoidance -.37 -.27 -.36

Impulsivity .31 .44* .07

Nurturance -.22 -.01 -.52*

Order -.24 -.35 -.04

Play .23 .17 .14

Social Recognition .02 -.04 .13

Understanding .03 .08 .00


*p<.05






64


Table 20

Correlation of Job Satisfaction Scores and Personality
Traits for Managerial Personnel Research Scientists



Job Satisfaction

General Internal External

Job Satisfaction

General 1.00 .94* .89*

Internal .94* 1.00 .69*

External .89* .69* 1.00


Personality Traits

Achievement .18 .37 -.11

Affiliation .06 .31 -.33

Aggression -.11 -.04 -.17

Autonomy -.07 -.26 .26

Dominance 57* .64* .39

Endurance -.27 -.16 -.41

Exhibition -.15 -.22 -.06

Harmavoidance .17 .14 .16

Impulsivity .52 .60* .33

Nurturance .03 .24 -.34

Order -.16 -.01 -.35

Play .23 .15 .32

Social Recognition .14 .39 -.25

Understanding -.41 -.23 -.60*


*p .05






65


Table 21

Correlation of Job Satisfaction Scores
and Personality Traits for Non-Managing
Professional Research Scientists



Job Satisfaction

General Internal External

Job Satisfaction

General 1,00 .86* .09

Internal .86* 1.00 -.11

External .09 -.11 1.00


Personality Traits

Achievement .25 .29 -.54*

Affiliation .37 .29 -.08

Aggression -.17 .01 .02

Autonomy -.08 -.13 .00

Dominance .24 .24 -.29

Endurance .31 .07 -.28

Exhibition .33 .52* -.12

Harmavoidance .31 .24 .37

Impulsivity -.35 -.05 .16

Nurturance .13 .19 -.10

Order .22 .07 -.18

Play .01 .15 -.01

Social Recognition .50* .45* .32

Understanding -.01 -.06 -.49*


*p<.05









Achievement scale and the Understanding scale had a nega-

tive correlation with the External scale (respectfully,

-.54, -.49). The greatest correlation was the Achievement

scale with the External scale (-.54).

Table 22 presents the correlation of the scales of

the MSQ and the PRF for MP Data Processors. All the job

satisfaction scales were significantly correlated with

each other. Five personality need scales significantly

correlated with the job satisfaction. Aggression and

Order were negatively correlated with all three job satis-

faction scales. Endurance was negatively correlated with

General and Internal Job Satisfaction. Exhibition was

negatively correlated with Internal Job Satisfaction. The

greatest correlation was the Endurance scale with the

Internal scale (-.72).

Table 23 shows the correlation of the scales of the

MSQ and the PRF for NMP data processors. The job satis-

faction scale intercorrelations showed that the General

scale was significantly correlated with the Internal and

External scales. However, the Internal and External scales

were not significantly correlated. Only one personality

need scale significantly correlated with the job satis-

faction scales, Harmavoidance. It was negatively corre-

lated with all three satisfaction scales, the greatest being

the general scale (-.60).









Table 22

Correlation of Job Satisfaction Scores and Personality
Traits for Managerial Personnel Data Processors



Job Satisfaction

General Internal External

Job Satisfaction

General 1.00 .94* .94*

Internal .94* 1.00 .78*

External .94* .78* 1.00


Personality Traits

Achievement .00 -.02 -.02

Affiliation .21 .16 .34

Aggression -.64* -.68* -.57*

Autonomy -.21 -.10 -.37

Dominance -.46 -.47 -.44

Endurance -.65* -.72* -.51

Exhibition -.48* -.56* -.37

Harmavoidance .16 .28 .08

Impulsivity .42 .21 .56*

Nurturance -.06 .07 -.03

Order -.65* -.58* -.64*

Play .16 .00 .38

Social Recognition -.11 -.16 .06

Understanding -.04 -.07 -.04


*p<.05










Table 23

Correlation of Job Satisfaction Scores and
Traits for Non-Managing Professional Data


Personality
Processors


Job Satisfaction

General Internal


Job Satisfaction

General

Internal

External


Personality Traits

Achievement

Affiliation

Aggression

Autonomy

Dominance

Endurance

Exhibition

Harmavoidance

Impulsivity

Nurturance

Order

Play

Social Recognition

Understanding


*p<.05


1.00

.84*

.74*


.08

.06

-.02

-.09

-.05

.25

.34

-.60*

.22

.11

-.05

-.09

.13

-.04


.84*

1.00

.28


.12

.15

.07

-.24

.10

.27

.37

-.49*

.21

.19

.04

-.04

.17

-.07


External


.74*

.28

1.00


.04

-.07

-.11

.09

-.14

.11

.18

-.48*

.15

-.05

-.07

-.11

.09

-.04









Table 24 shows the correlation of the scales on

the MSQ and the PRF for the MP financial employees. All

the intercorrelations of the job satisfaction question-

naire were significant and in the positive direction. Only

two personality need scales were significantly correlated

with the satisfaction scales. The Exhibition scale nega-

tively correlated with the Internal scale (-.54). The

Harmavcidance scale had a negative correlation with the

External scale (-.56), this being the greatest correlation.

Table 25 presents the correlation of the scales of the

MSQ and the PRF for NMP financial employees. All inter-

correlations of the job satisfaction scales were positive

and significant. Nine personality need scales were cor-

related with job satisfaction scales. Aggression, Domin-

ance, Impulsivity, and Play were negatively correlated

with all three job satisfaction scales. Harmavoidance and

Order were positively correlated with all three scales.

Affiliation and Exhibition were both negatively correlated

with the General and External scales. Social Recognition

correlated with the Internal scale (-.41). The greatest

correlation was Aggression and Internal Job Satisfaction

(-.61).


Hypotheses Tested

The hypotheses used for this study were selected to

investigate differences between the five NMP groups and

two different groupings of managers; altogether as one










Table 24

Correlation of Job Satisfaction Scores and Personality
Traits for Managerial Personnel Financial Employees



Job Satisfaction

General Internal External

Job Satisfaction

General 1.00* .99* .94*

Internal .99* 1.00* .92*

External .94* .92* 1.00


Personality Traits

Achievement .05 .08 -.10

Affiliation .11 .00 .06

Aggression -.03 -.11 .12

Autonomy .17 .29 .15

Dominance .15 .14 -.07

Endurance .38 .33 .21

Exhibition -.45 -.54* -.35

Harmavoidance -.45 -.43 -.56*

Impulsivity .04 -.02 .11

Nurturance -.24 -.24 -.15

Order .01 .07 -.06

Play -.30 -.35 -.15

Social Recognition .04 -.02 .11

Understanding .46 .43 .41

*p<.05






71


Table 25

Correlation of Job Satisfaction Scores and Personality
Traits for Non-Managing Professional Financial Employees



Job Satisfaction

General Internal External

Job Satisfaction

General 1.00 .91* .80*

Internal .91* 1.00 .69*

External .80* .69* 1.00


Personality Traits

Achievement .00 -.07 .04

Affiliation -.44* -.34 -.41*

Aggression -.55* -.61* -.49*

Autonomy -.23 -.24 -.13

Dominance -.47* -.38* -.48*

Endurance -.07 .05 -.16

Exhibition -.45* -.32 -.49*

Harmavoidance .40* .41* .41*

Impulsivity -.50* -.45* -.46*

Nurturance .07 .25 -.08

Order .42* .42* .45*

Play -.56* -.47* -.51*

Social Recognition -.34 -.41* -.24

Understanding -.16 -.11 -.12


*p<.05









group or in separate career fields. The second area of

interest was what relationships are there between job

satisfaction and personality needs for NZIPs and MPs.

Hypothesis 1: There are no differences in person-

ality needs and job satisfaction between NMPs and MiPs.

The discriminate functions for each NMP group (e.g.

lawyers, engineers, research scientists, data processors

and financial accountants) and the managers grouped to-

gether as a whole were significant; thus hypothesis 1

is rejected.

hypothesiss 2: There are no differences in person-

ality needs and job satisfaction a.ong subgroups (e.g.

lawyers, engineers, research scientists, data processors,

and financial employees of NMPs and their corresponding

MP groups).

The discriminate functions for each of the separate

career groups were significant; thus Hypothesis 2 is re-

jected.

Hypothesis 3: There are no relationships among job

satisfaction and personality needs for either NMPs or

MPs.

There were significant correlations in all subgroups;

therefore, Hypothesis 3 is rejected.















CHAPTER V
DISCUSSION, RECOY-1DA: S AND IMPLICATIONS


discussionn

The results of this study show differences between

MPs and NMPs within each of the five occupational subgroups.

There also were significant correlations among some of the

personality traits and job satisfaction scores.

Although there were significant results, a limitation

was present in the study wrjich may have affected the re-

sults and affected the generalizations. Prior to col-

lecting the data, one company had initially agreed to pro-

vide all of the participants. However, they were unable

to provide a sufficient number of subjects. Consequently,

four additional companies were contacted to provide the

remainder of the subjects. The results may have been af-

fected by these differences in companies.

The results of this study also show that most of edu-

cation is an important factor in that it is related to

degree of professionalism.. Education has been shown to be

an important trait in professional engineers (Kerr et al.,

1977). As a result, this study only selected those engin-

eers with at least a master's degree. The data processing

NMPs and the financial accountant NMPs were not restricted









to this degree and 'had a lower amount of education than did

the engineers, lawyers, and research scientists. They had

stronger opposite weights on several factors in their dis-

criminate functions with managers: Dominance, Harmavoid-

ance, and Impulsivity. They showed no differences in job

satisfaction, while lawyers and engineers did. The data

processing and financial accountant NMPs differed from

the other groups and are possibly at the career oriented

end of the professional versus career oriented scale, as

is true of engineers without graduate degrees.

Although all ten discriminant functions were signi-

ficant, no single personality trait or job satisfaction

score differentiated between managers and non-managers

in all ten functions. However, there were factors that

discriminated for several groups. Dominance was a signi-

ficant factor in 6 of the 10 functions. Harmavoidance

was selected as a factor in 5 of the 10 functions. Ex-

hibition was a discriminator in 4 of the 10 functions.

Further definition of professional orientation was

shown by the differences between MP and NMPs within each

of the different fields. There were high achievement

needs within each group, as was suggested by Greenwald

(1978). However, there was a low need level in each of

the different fields for autonomy as compared to the

norms developed by Jackson. The opposite result was expec-

ted. The NMPs were suggested to have a high autonomy or

at least average scores (Ritti, 1968). Even though there









was support for the concept of a group of people defined

as NMPs, there is much to suggest that it is defined dif-

ferently in each career field. The discriminant func-

tions were radically different in some cases, such as

lawyers vs. engineers.

Few personality traits appear to correlate consis-

tently across groups with any of the job satisfaction

scores. Several reasons may have caused this. For ex-

ample, the job satisfaction scores may have had a strong

relationship to the working conditions. Also, the measure-

ment may have not been sensitive enough to show any corre-

lation. Finally, individuals with a moderate or low satis-

faction score may have left the field, or never entered it.

There did seem to be a wide range of scores, so that the

first proposition is most likely to be true.

The job satisfaction subscores were not very useful in

this study. In almost all subgroups these scores were

highly correlated. This suggests that they were measuring

one general factor for these groups of subjects. The major

exception was the correlation of Internal Job Satisfaction

with General and External Job Satisfaction for NMP Research

Scientists.


Implications


Although some limitations affected this study, im-

plications can be made from it. The amount of education









is related to the sense of professionalism, regardless of

field. This would have implications for all types of

career fields such as counseling and education, and certi-

fied public accountants inside and outside of the business

community. Those persons who function as private prac-

titioners in the community, particularly those who are

licensed, may need to have an educational requirement.

This requirement, in addition to making sure that these

people have a knowledge base, would mean that these peo-

ple who are licensed are more likely to have accepted the

ethics and methods of conduct generally espoused by the

profession, further protecting the public.

Those factors which are highly discriminating between

the MPs and NMPs are useful in the processes of developing

and selecting managers. They can help in developing

training programs for different fields and can help in

individuals' self knowledge and understanding. They can

be used in training programs to select the better candi-

dates for a managerial training program. In developing

training programs for NMPs those areas that discriminate

them from managerial personnel can be highlighted, ex-

plained and used to increase self awareness. Since domin-

ance appeared to be a discriminator for all career fields

studied, those people that are low in need for dominance,

yet want to manage may benefit from a training program

in leadership skills.









Recomrmen nations


The definition of a professional merits further

examination because of the lack of consistent discrimin-

ating factors between MP and NMIPs in each of the occupa-

tions studied. The definition needs to be made clearer

by examining different professionals and different ca-

reers for similarities and differences on a variety of

relevant traits. Professionals who function independently

from a business organization, such as management consult-

ants, accountants, and engineers also need to be examined

for a clearer definition of professionals.

The results of this study on job satisfaction con-

flict with previous research (Greenwald, 1978). It would

have been predicted that satisfaction would have occurred

more as a discriminator between MPs and NMFs, particularly

since each MP group consisted of professionals who be-

came managers. However, in the 10 functions produced, job

satisfaction was selected only three times as a discrimin-

ator. Further research needs to be conducted to verify the

differences in job satisfaction. Specifically, in which

fields and under what conditions do these job satisfaction

differences occur?

The differences of the data processing groups from

the engineers, lawyers, and research scientists, as al-

ready stated, suggests that some fields may just be begin-

ning to develop their identities as professionals. Their









fields of knowledge are expanding, requiring more educa-

tion to practice in this area. Professional associations

are gaining an identity and are organizing their efforts.

Data processing is moving toward the professional end of

the professional versus career oriented scale. It would

be useful to investigate the relationship of amount of

education data processors have and their senses of pro-

fessionalism. It would seem that those with graduate de-

grees are more likely to be less career oriented and more

professionally oriented.

Generally, both the MFs and the NMPs were very satis-

fied with their jobs, although the MPs were a little more

so. MPs and NMPs both characterized by higher need levels

than the normal population in Achievement, Endurance,

Harmavoidance, Nurturance, Order and Understanding. They

had lower need levels in Aggression, Autonomy, Impulsi-

vity, Play and Social Recognition, and about the average

need level of Dominance while the NMPs were almost average.

This study found significant differences between MPs

and NMPs on personality traits. However, there were few

differences in job satisfaction, and little relationship

between the job satisfaction scores and personality

traits. A better and clearer definition of professionals

needs to be developed. Their roles in the business world

as well as the community will continue to grow.















APPENDIX A


The traits defined by Jackson (1974) are as follows:

TABLE A

PERSONALITY RESEARCH FORM


Scale

Achievement





Affiliation





Aggression






Autonomy






Dominance





Endurance


Defining Trait Adjectives

striving, accomplishing, capable,
purposeful, attaining, industrious,
achieving, aspiring, enterprising,
self-improving, productive, driving,
ambitious, resourceful, competitive

neighborly, loyal, warm, amicable,
good-natured, friendly, companionable,
genial, affable, cooperative, gre-
garious, hospitable, sociable,
affiliative, good-willed

aggressive, quarrelsome, irritable,
argumentative, threatening, attack-
ing, antagonistic, pushy, hot-tem-
pered, easily-angered, hostile,
revengeful, belligerent, blunt,
retaliative

unmanageable, free, self-reliant,
independent, autonomous, rebellious,
unconstrained, individualistic,
ungovernable, self-determined, non-
conforming, uncompliant, undominated,
resistant, lone-wolf

governing, controlling, commanding,
domineering, influential, persuasive,
forceful, ascendant, leading, dir-
ecting, dominant, assertive, author-
itative, powerful, supervising

persistent, determined, steadfast,
enduring, unfaltering, persevering,
unremitting, relentless, tireless,
dogged, energetic, has stamina,
sturdy, zealous, durable

79









Exhibition






Harmavoidance







Impulsivity





Nurturance





Order





Play


Social Recognition








Understanding


colorful, entertaining, unusual
spellbinding, exhibitionistic,
conspicuous, noticeable, ex-
pressive, ostentatious, immodest,
demonstrative, flashy, dramatic,
pretentious, showy

fearful, withdraws from danger,
self-protecting, pain avoidant,
careful, cautious, seeks safety,
timorous, apprehensive, precau-
tionary, unadventurous, avoids
risks, attentive to danger, stays out
of harm's way, vigilant

hasty, rash, uninhibited, spontaneous,
reckless, irrepressible, quick-
thinking, mercurial, impatient, in-
cautious, hurried, impulsive, fool-
hardy, excitable, impetuous

sympathetic, paternal, helpful, be-
nevolent, encouraging, caring, pro-
tective, comforting, maternal,
supporting, aiding, ministering,
consoling, charitable, assisting

neat, organized, tidy, systematic,
well-ordered, disciplined, prompt,
consistent, orderly, clean, metho-
dical, scheduled, planful, unvarying,
deliberate

playful, jovial, jolly, pleasure-
seeking, merry, laughter-loving,
joking, frivolous, prankish, spor-
tive, mirthful, fun-loving, gleeful,
carefree, blithe

approval seeking, proper, well-be-
haved, seeks recognition, courteous,
makes good impression, seeks respec-
tability, accommodating, socially
proper, seeks admiration, obliging,
agreeable, socially sensitive, de-
sirous of credit, behaves appropri-
ately

inquiring, curious, analytical, explor-
ing, intellectual, reflective, in-
cisive, investigative, probing, logi-
cal, scrutinizing, theoretical, astute,
rational, inquisitive















APPENDIX B


INTRODUCTORY LETTER


Dear

(Subject's Supervisor's name) suggested you would be

willing to participate in a research study I am con-

ducting. I air requesting that you complete two short

questionnaires: a personality inventory and a job satis-

faction questionnaire. In return for your participation

I will review the results with you. The advantage to

you for participating will be receiving some feedback

about yourself as a person. Some information will re-

affirm what you already know. The rest may provide you

with additional insight into understanding yourself. It

is not often that we are able to find out about our-

selves.

The instruments are self administered and the aver-

age time needed for completion is about one hour. The

personality inventory covers a broad range of categories,

which are useful in describing our significant personality

traits. The job satisfaction questionnaire provides an

indication of what people are satisfied with in their

jobs.





82


I will call you within the next week to answer

any questions you may have and to establish a mutually

convenient time for delivering the questionnaires to

you.

Sincerely,



Lynn A. Walker















APPENDIX C


BIOGRAPHICAL QUESTIONNAIRE


1. Name

2. Today's date 19

3. Circle one: Male Female

4. Circle one: Caucasian, Afro-American, Hispanic,
other--Specify

5. Eirth date: 19

6. Circle the number of years of schooling you have
completed:

4,5,6,7,8 9,10,11,12 13,14,15,16 17,18,19,20
grade school high school college graduate or
professional
school

7. What is your present job title?



8. What is your primary function in your present job?





9. How long have you been on your present job? years,

months.

10. How long have you been in this line of work? years,

months.

11. How many people do you supervise?














BIBLIOGRAPHY


Bentler, P.M. Response Variability: Fact or Artifact?
rUpublished Doctoral Dissertation, Stanford Uni-
versity, 1964.

Brcusseau, K.R. Personality and job experience. Organi-
zational Behavior and Human Performance, 1978, 22
235-252.

Burns, J.M. Leadership. New York: Harper and Row Pub-
lishers, 1978.

Campbell, J.P., Dunnette, M.P., Lawler, E.E., III, and
Weick, K.E., Jr. Managerial Behavior, Performance
and Effectiveness. New York: McGraw-Hill, 1970.

Costello, J. What it takes to be a chief executive.
Nations Business, May 1977, p. 6.

Durand, D.E. and Nord, W.R. Perceived leader behavior
as a function of personality characteristics of
supervisors and subordination. Academy of Man-
agement Journal, 1976, 19, 427-438.

Ewen, R.B. An Introduction to Theories of Personality.
New York: Academic Press, Inc., 1980.

Greenwald, H.P. Scientists and the need to manage.
Industrial Relations, 1978, 17, 156-167.

Hall, J. and Donnell, S.M. Managerial achievement: The
personal side of behavioral theory. Human Relations,
1976, 32, 77-101.

Hall, J. and Glasgow, R.K. Portrait of the manager as an
achiever. Supervisory Management, August 1979, pp.
10-14.

Harlow, D.N. Professional employees' preference for
upward mobility. Journal of Applied Psychology,
1973, 57, 137-141.

Harrell, T.W. and Harrell, M.S. The personality of MBAs
who reach general management early. Personnel
Psychology, 1973, 26, 127-134.









Hines, G.H. Achievement motivation, occupations, and
labor turnover in New Zealand. Journal of Applied
Psychology, 1973, 58, 313-317.

Hinrichs, J.R. Psychology of men at work. Annual Review
of Psychology. 1970, 21, 519-554.

Howard, J.R. The ambitious manager. Business Quarterly,
Spring 1978, pp. 38-43.

Jackson, D.N. Multimethod factor analysis in the analysis
of convergent and discriminate validity. Psychology
Bulletin, 1969, 72, 34-49.

Jackson, D.N. Personality Research Form Manual. Gosen,
New York: Research Psychologists Press, Inc.,
1974.

Jackson, D.N. and Guthrie, G.M. A multitrait-.ultimethod
evaluation of the Personality Research Form. Pro-
ceedings of the 76th Annual Convention of the
American Psychological Association, 1968, 3, 177-178.

Kerr, S. and Von Glinow, M.A. and Schriesheim, S. Issues
in the study of "professionals" in organizations:
The case of scientists and engineers. Organiza-
tional Behavior and Human Performance, 1977, 18,
329-345.

Levinson, H. Power, leadership and the management of
stress. Professional Psychology, 1980, 11, 497-
508.

Loesch, L.C. and Weikel, W.J. Perceived and measured
needs levels of counselor education students.
Counselor Education and Supervision, 1976, 16(1),
59-65.

Maccoby, M. Work and human development. Professional
Psychology, 1980, 11, 507-519.

Maddi, S.R. Personality Theories: A Comparative Analysis.
Homeward, Ill.: The Dorsey Press, 1972.

McClelland, D.C. and Burnham, D.H. Good guys make bum
bosses. Psychology Today, Dec. 1975, 69-70.

Miller, W.H. Miseries of the misfit managers. Industry
Week, April 16, 1979, 51-54.









Murray, H.A. Explorations in Personality. Cambridge:
Harvard University Press, 1938.

Palmer, W.J. Management effectiveness as a function of
personality traits of the manager. Personnel
Psychology, 1974, 27, 283-295.

Peter, H. Human factors in research administration, in
R. Likert and S.P. Hayes (Eds.), Some Applica-
tions of Behavioral Research Science and Society
Series. Paris: UNESCO, 1957.

Peters, W.S. and Champaux, J.E. The use of moderated
regression in job design decisions. Decision
Sciences, 1979, 10, 85-95.

Pihl, R.O. and Spiers, P. Some personality differences
among the multidisciplinary team. Journal of
Clinical Psychology, 1977, 33(1), 269-272.

Pinder, C.C. and Pinto, P.R. Demographic correlates of
management style. Personnel Psychology, 1974,
27, 257-270.

Rawls, D.J. and Rawls, J.R. The latent manager: Identi-
fying him. California Management Review, 1971,
15(2), 24-27.

Rotondi, T., Jr. Identification, personality needs and
managerial position. Human Relations, 1976, 29,
507-515.

Ritti, R. Work goals of scientists and engineers.
Industrial Relations, 1968, 7, 118-131.

Siess, T.F. and Jackson, D.N. Vocational interests
and personality: An empirical integration.
Journal of Counseling Psychology, 1970, 17(1),
147-160.

Sisson, R.S., Arthur, G.L., Fierro, S.V. and Gazda, G.
Success variables in outstanding business and
industrial leaders in America: A national
survey. The Vocational Guidance Quarterly,
1978, 26, 197-205.

Skinner, H.A. and Jackson, D.N. The missing person in
personnel classification: A tale of two modes.
Canadian Journal of Behavioral Science, 1977,
9(2), 147-160.






87


Stagner, R. Psychology of Personality. New York:
McGraw-Hill Book Company, 1974.

Steers, R.M. Task-goal attributes, n-achievement, and
supervisory performance. Organizational Behavior
and Human Performance, 1975, 73, 392-403.

Tannebaum, R., Weschler, I.R. and Massariah, F. Leader-
ship and Organization. New York: McGraw-Hill
Book Company, Inc., 1961.

Tiffon, J. and McCormick, E.J. Industrial Psychology.
Englewood Cliffs, N.J.: Prentice-Hall, Inc., 1958.

University of Minnesota, Vocational Psychology Research.
Minnesota Satisfaction Questionnaire. Minneapolis,
M1inn..:- university of :innesota, 1977.

Waters, L.K. and Roach, D. Managerial role-job attitude
relationships: Comparison of two multiscale
measures of satisfaction. Psychological Reports,
1976, 38, 1095-1098.















BIOGRAPHICAL SKETCH


Lynn Artie Walker was born October 9, 1954, to

Joseph L. and Artie E. Walker, in Maryville, Missouri.

He attended McCluer Senior High School in Florissant,

Missouri, and graduated in June 1972.

In August, 1972, he entered the University of

Missouri-Columbia. He received the degree of Bachelor

of Arts in psychology in May, 1976.

In August, 1976, he entered the University of

Florida. He achieved the degree of Master of Education

in December, 1977.

The author is currently employed as a management

consultant for business and industries.

He is married to Debra Renee Walker and has two

children: Nolan and Whitney.









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


LarrtC. Loesch, Chairman
Professor of Counselor Education


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


Robert 0. StrilinV/
Distinguished Service Professor
Emeritus of Counselor Education


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



Richard J. Ah'erson
Distinguished Service Professor
Emeritus of Psychology


This dissertation was submitted to the Graduate
Faculty of the Division of Curriculum and Instruction in
the College of Education and to the Graduate Council, and
was accepted as partial fulfillment of the requirements
for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy.


August, 1983
Dean for Graduate Students
and Research




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