• TABLE OF CONTENTS
HIDE
 Title Page
 Acknowledgement
 Table of Contents
 Abstract
 Description of the study
 Review of the literature
 Presentation of data
 Summary and discussion of data
 Appendices
 Bibliography
 Biographical sketch














Group Title: investigation of the motivator-hygiene theory of job satisfaction
Title: An investigation of the motivator-hygiene theory of job satisfaction
CITATION PDF VIEWER THUMBNAILS PAGE IMAGE ZOOMABLE
Full Citation
STANDARD VIEW MARC VIEW
Permanent Link: http://ufdc.ufl.edu/UF00099526/00001
 Material Information
Title: An investigation of the motivator-hygiene theory of job satisfaction among selected student affairs administrators
Physical Description: viii, 130 leaves : ; 28 cm.
Language: English
Creator: Groseth, Rolf Stigum, 1946-
Publication Date: 1978
Copyright Date: 1978
 Subjects
Subject: Motivation (Psychology)   ( lcsh )
Job satisfaction   ( lcsh )
Student affairs administrators   ( lcsh )
Educational Administration and Supervision thesis Ph. D   ( lcsh )
Dissertations, Academic -- Educational Administration and Supervision -- UF   ( lcsh )
Genre: bibliography   ( marcgt )
non-fiction   ( marcgt )
 Notes
Thesis: Thesis--University of Florida.
Bibliography: Bibliography: leaves 124-129.
General Note: Typescript.
General Note: Vita.
Statement of Responsibility: by Rolf Stigum Groseth.
 Record Information
Bibliographic ID: UF00099526
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 - 000064714
oclc - 04290074
notis - AAG9925

Downloads

This item has the following downloads:

PDF ( 4 MBs ) ( PDF )


Table of Contents
    Title Page
        Page i
        Page ii
    Acknowledgement
        Page iii
    Table of Contents
        Page iv
        Page v
    Abstract
        Page vi
        Page vii
        Page viii
    Description of the study
        Page 1
        Page 2
        Page 3
        Page 4
        Page 5
        Page 6
        Page 7
        Page 8
        Page 9
        Page 10
        Page 11
        Page 12
        Page 13
        Page 14
        Page 15
        Page 16
        Page 17
        Page 18
        Page 19
    Review of the literature
        Page 20
        Page 21
        Page 22
        Page 23
        Page 24
        Page 25
        Page 26
        Page 27
        Page 28
        Page 29
        Page 30
        Page 31
        Page 32
        Page 33
        Page 34
        Page 35
        Page 36
        Page 37
        Page 38
        Page 39
        Page 40
        Page 41
    Presentation of data
        Page 42
        Page 43
        Page 44
        Page 45
        Page 46
        Page 47
        Page 48
        Page 49
        Page 50
        Page 51
        Page 52
        Page 53
        Page 54
        Page 55
        Page 56
        Page 57
        Page 58
        Page 59
        Page 60
        Page 61
        Page 62
        Page 63
        Page 64
        Page 65
        Page 66
        Page 67
        Page 68
        Page 69
        Page 70
        Page 71
        Page 72
        Page 73
        Page 74
        Page 75
        Page 76
        Page 77
        Page 78
        Page 79
        Page 80
        Page 81
        Page 82
        Page 83
        Page 84
        Page 85
        Page 86
        Page 87
        Page 88
        Page 89
        Page 90
        Page 91
        Page 92
        Page 93
        Page 94
        Page 95
        Page 96
        Page 97
        Page 98
    Summary and discussion of data
        Page 99
        Page 100
        Page 101
        Page 102
        Page 103
        Page 104
        Page 105
        Page 106
        Page 107
        Page 108
        Page 109
        Page 110
        Page 111
    Appendices
        Page 112
        Page 113
        Page 114
        Page 115
        Page 116
        Page 117
        Page 118
        Page 119
        Page 120
        Page 121
        Page 122
        Page 123
    Bibliography
        Page 124
        Page 125
        Page 126
        Page 127
        Page 128
        Page 129
    Biographical sketch
        Page 130
        Page 131
        Page 132
Full Text














AN INVESTIGATION OF THE MOTIVATOR-HYGIENE THEORY OF JOB
SATISFACTION AMONG SELECTED STUDENT
AFFAIRS ADMINISTRATORS









BY

ROLF STIGUM GROSETH


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






UNIVERSITY OF FLORIDA

1978


L































To my family
Haakon, Mary, Jon, and Bob Groseth,
Mary Ann Nichols and Sanna Bunnell.













ACKNOWLEDGMENTS


The author is indebted to many persons who have assisted him

throughout his doctoral program and in the preparation of this study.

He expresses gratitude to members of his supervisory committee, Dr.

James L. Wattenbarger, chairman, Dr. Harold C. Riker, and Dr.

C. Arthur Sandeen. Each has made major contributions to the design

and execution of this study.

Special appreciation is extended to Drs. Tom Goodale and Art

Sandeen for their never ending inspiration, friendship and support

over the past seven years.

Finally, the author expresses special thanks and love to his wife,

Lynda, who has been with him each and every step of the way, for her

love, sacrifice and understanding.













Table of Contents

Page

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS . .. iii

ABSTRACT . .. .. vi

CHAPTER
I. DESCRIPTION OF THE STUDY .. . .
Introduction . .. .
The Problem ...... . ... 5
Theoretical Background ... . 6
Delimitations and Limitations . 7
Hypotheses . . 9
Research Methodology . .... 14
Selection of Sample . 14
Instrumentation .... . ... 15
Data Collection . . 16
Data Analysis . .. .. 17
Definition of Terms ... . 18
Organization of Subsequent Chapters ... 19

II. REVIEW OF THE LITERATURE ... ...... 20
Job Satisfaction as a Function of Need Fulfillment 20
Job Satisfaction as a Function of Expectation .. 22
Herzberg's Two-Factor Theory of Job Satisfaction 24
Support for the Two-Factor Theory ... 30
Criticism of the Two-Factor Theory ... 32
Job Satisfaction in Education . .... 35

III. PRESENTATION OF DATA . ... 42
The Chief Student Personnel Officer .... 42
The Director of Financial Aid . ... 52
The Union Director . ... 61
The Director of Housing . 72
The Director of Counseling . .... 84
The Five Administrative Types . .... 93

IV. SUMMARY AND DISCUSSION OF DATA ... .... 99
Hypotheses ... .. . ..... 99
Summary . . 102
Discussion of Results in Regard to Related
Literature . . 105
Suggestions for Further Research . .. 109








Page
APPENDIX

A. CHIEF STUDENT PERSONNEL OFFICER ... . 112

B. DIRECTOR OF FINANCIAL AID . . 114

C. DIRECTOR OF STUDENT UNION .. . 116

D. DIRECTOR OF HOUSING .. . 119

E. DIRECTOR OF HOUSING . .. 122

BIBLIOGRAPHY .. . . 123

BIOGRAPHICAL SKETCH ... ... 130









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


AN INVESTIGATION OF THE MOTIVATOR-HYGIENE THEORY OF JOB SATISFACTION
AMONG SELECTED STUDENT AFFAIRS ADMINISTRATORS


By

Rolf Stigum Groseth

March 1978

Chairman: James L. Wattenbarger
Major Department: Educational Administration

The motivator-hygiene theory of job satisfaction states that

certain aspects of a person's job lead to satisfaction while others

are related to job dissatisfaction. Those which are related to

satisfaction are termed motivators and include recognition, achieve-

ment, opportunity for advancement, possibility of growth, responsibility,

and the work itself. Those job aspects which are related to dis-

satisfaction are termed hygienes and include company policy and

administration, supervision-technical, working conditions, salary,

personal life, job security, status and interpersonal relationships.

This study is undertaken to determine specific job satisfaction

and dissatisfaction for the chief student personnel administrator,

the director of financial aid, the director of the union, the director

of housing, and the director of counseling and to test the applicability

of Frederick Herzberg's motivator-hygiene theory of job satisfaction

to these positions. Persons holding these positions at each of seven

institutions in the State University System of Florida were interviewed.









Each of the positions was subdivided into the major job

functions identified in the literature. Each person was then asked

to describe, for each major job function, an incident in their present

position when they had been particularly satisfied and one when they

had been particularly dissatisfied. Each of the incidents was then

classified as having been primarily influenced by one of the six

motivators or the eight hygienes.

The data were analyzed, using 12 hypotheses as a guide, by the

Chi-square method to determine whether significant differences existed

in the contributions of motivators and hygienes to satisfying and dis-

satisfying incidents for the various positions. The .05 level of

significance was used.

The data show that for the 196 satisfying incidents in the study,

134 or 68.3 percent were classified with motivators as Herzberg's

theory would predict. For the 181 dissatisfying incidents in the study,

147 or 81.3 percent were classified with hygienes as Herzberg's theory

would predict. Further, the data for the chief student personnel

officer supported Herzberg's theory for satisfying incidents, but not

for dissatisfying ones, while data for the directors of financial aid,

housing, and the union supported Herzberg's theory for dissatisfying

incidents, but not for satisfying ones. The data for the director of

counseling position supported Herzberg's theory for both satisfying

and dissatisfying incidents.

The most frequently mentioned motivators were recognition,

achievement and the work itself. Of these, each was mentioned in

significantly more satisfying than dissatisfying incidents. The most









frequently mentioned hygienes were company policy and administration,

interpersonal relationships, and working conditions. Of these,

company policy and administration and working conditions were mentioned

in significantly more dissatisfying than satisfying incidents. Inter-

personal relationships was mentioned nearly as often in satisfying

incidents (16.8% of all satisfying incidents) as in dissatisfying ones

(19.8% of all dissatisfying incidents). The researcher feels that

this is due to the fact that administrators accomplish tasks primarily

through other persons, increasing the likelihood that interpersonal

relationships will be a factor in all situations.

Further research to determine the stability of motivators and

hygienes for various kinds of occupations is suggested.

If the administrators studied can be encouraged and supported in

the areas which are the greatest cause of dissatisfaction to them,

it is possible that their morale and productivity will remain at high

levels. Additionally if supervisors can attempt to minimize those

aspects of the job which are the greatest sources of dissatisfaction,

administrators, such as those studied here, can spend more time in

positive satisfying work. These two ideas may be helpful in a time

of reduced job mobility.













CHAPTER I


DESCRIPTION OF THE STUDY


Introduction


Student personnel administration as a separate entity is a fairly

recent phenomenon in American higher education. Since the founding of

Harvard in 1636 and for two hundred fifty years thereafter, the

president and the faculty, many of whom were clerics, performed most

of the functions now associated with student personnel administration.

During this period, colleges were quite small, were most often

based on religious foundations, and stood unabashedly in loco parents

with their students. For these reasons, activity now accomplished by

specialists known as student personnel administrators was expected of

each member of the faculty and staff of the various colleges, often the

president.

As a result of Francis Wayland's innovations at Brown, the

development of the Morrill Act, the installation of the elective system

at Harvard, and the progress of industrialization, curricula were

expanded and the college population doubled in each of the first five

decades following 1880 (Hitchcock et al., 1951). It was also during

this period that research became a major activity in colleges,whereas

interaction between student and teacher had previously dominated. These

increased numbers of students and the new faculty who were brought to

teach them contributed to a shift in the emphasis on the in loco











parents tradition in American colleges. Many of these new faculty

were trained in the research-oriented, non-residential universities of

Europe, and their commitment to students often did not extend beyond

the classroom (Mathews, 1915). The increased enrollments and new

faculty made it clear that institutions would no longer be able to

function effectively with only three administrative officers (president,

librarian, and secretary of the faculty) which were the most common in

1860 (McGrath, 1938).

In 1890, President Charles Eliot of Harvard decided to add the

office of Dean of the College and named to the position, LeBaron

Russell Briggs, who was such a likeable person that some students

intentionally got into trouble so that they might have an opportunity

to visit with him (Mills, 1974).

These early administrators were chosen by their presidents to

assume, in an official capacity, those duties which had previously

been done informally: counseling students with personal, academic,and

vocational problems, interpreting to students the values and standards

of conduct deemed appropriate by the president and the trustees, and

sponsoring and supervising social and extra-curricular activities of

students. The positions, often, could not be separated from the persons

who held them.

The conditions which encouraged the establishment of deans of

men and women in the late nineteenth century continued through the early













part of the twentieth century. It was during this latter period that

"such work took a tremendous leap forward to self-consciousness .

and made itself known as the personnel movement" (Mueller, 1961, p. 50).

In 1916, the National Association of Deans of Women was formed and the

first course in student personnel administration was conducted by Dr.

Paul Monroe at the Columbia University Summer School. The National

Association of Student Personnel Administrators traces its history to

a meeting of the Big Ten deans of men at the University of Wisconsin

in 1919 (Turner, 1968).

From these beginnings as a profession and through the 1960's,

the growth of student personnel administration paralleled that of

higher education as a whole. Higher education, during this period, was

marked by an expanding labor market for faculty. The growth rate for

faculty hiring reached a peak of 17.9 percent between 1964 and 1965,

a period during which 25 percent of colleges and universities hired at

least one new faculty member for every four employed in the previous

year. This rapid growth was not limited to faculty positions, but held

for student personnel administrators as well (Ayers et al., 1966; Foy,

1969). In Foy's (1969) study, the chief student personnel administrator

and the directors of counseling, housing and student activities had

served in both their present and previous positions a mean of only 2.1

years.

During the past decade, much of higher education has moved from

a period of explosive growth to one of steady state or even recession.













Alan Cartter's (1976) work pointed out a number of consequences for

higher education over the next decade and beyond. Much of his data for

faculty can be generalized to student personnel administrators.

Cartter (1976) points out that the rapid growth in faculty in the 1960's

produced a faculty pool which was skewed toward the lower end of the

age scale. This trend was demonstrated in student personnel admini-

stration in the data which Ayers et al. (1966) collected in 1962, and

which Foy (1969) collected in 1969. Cartter (1976) also noted that the

interinstitutional mobility of college professors dropped from a high

of 8 percent in 1962 to 1.4 percent in 1972. Additionally, he

noted that the professional qualifications of those who are able to

move in a "tight" market tend to rise sharply. The implication of

these data for student personnel administrators is that younger persons

may spend more time in "lower" positions than had the directors of

housing (3.2 years) or the chief student personnel officers (4.4 years)

in Foy's (1969) study.

Another development which is indicative of the current problem

is the proliferation of student personnel training programs which has

taken place in the last several years. There are currently over 100

professional preparation programs in student personnel administration

(American College Personnel Association, 1973). Ferrari's (1972) data

indicated that a substantial increase in such programs will take place













prior to 1980, despite indications that fewer new persons will be

hired in the future and that student personnel staffs may decrease in

size.

A major problem in a situation where the total numbers of positions

in the field may be reduced is one of job and career satisfaction. It

is common for young persons to model their professional aspirations

after the career patterns of their supervisors or other staff in

their organization. However, market conditions which may have allowed

these staff to progress to their present position at an accelerated

rate may no longer exist and career expectations based on nonexistent

conditions may be frustrated. This may lead to a lower morale, job

dissatisfaction and a lack of productivity (Miller and Form, 1964).

In the field of student personnel administration, the problem is

one of maintaining job satisfaction, high morale, and high productivity

in a market situation in which many persons feel their career paths

may be blocked. If not addressed, the problem may lead persons in

the field to become disenchanted with student personnel administration

or even leave the field.


The Problem


This study was undertaken to determine specific kinds of

job satisfactions and dissatisfactions among chief student personnel

administrators, directors of housing, directors of counseling,













directors of financial aid, and directors of the student unions.

The study also sought to test the applicability of the two-factor

theory of job satisfaction developed by Herzberg et al. (1959) to

selected student affairs positions.

Specifically, the following questions are addressed in this

study:

1) For the six positions studied, which of Herzberg's

motivators and hygienes are applicable?

2) What differences, if any, exist in the frequency

with which Herzberg's motivators and hygienes

occur in the critical incidents for each

position?

3) Do the critical incidents of these six positions

support Herzberg's theory of job satisfaction/dis-

satisfaction?


Theoretical Background


The theory used in this study was the two-factor model of job

attitudes developed by Frederick Herzberg and his colleagues (1959)

and later elaborated on by Herzberg (1966). Herzberg postulated

that job satisfaction and dissatisfaction, rather than being opposite

ends of a single contiuum, are, in fact, two separate continue. This

theory proposed that the opposite of job satisfaction is not dissatisfaction,













but no satisfaction. Similarly, the opposite of job dissatisfaction

is not satisfaction, but no dissatisfaction.

In their study of 200 accountants and engineers in Pittsburgh,

Herzberg et al. (1959) found that certain elements, if present in a job

setting, promoted job satisfaction, but did little to prevent dis-

satisfaction. Those elements were: recognition, achievement, advance-

ment, responsibility, the work itself, and possibility of growth.

Herzberg termed these elements "motivators" and found that they

related to the content of the job. The study also revealed that

certain job elements, if present, prevented job dissatisfaction, but

did little to promote satisfaction. Those elements were: company

(institutional) policy and administration, supervision-technical,

working conditions, salary, personal life, job security, status, and

interpersonal relations. Herzberg termed those elements "hygienes,"

and found that they related primarily to the context or environment

of the job. A more detailed discussion of the two-factor theory

appears in Chapter II.


Delimitations and Limitations


In seeking answers to the previously stated questions, the

following constraints were observed by the researcher.

1) The study involves student affairs positions at

selected institutions within the State University System

of Florida. The institutions were not chosen randomly,













but were selected for the similarity in their

administrative structure. The selection of these

schools will be discussed later in this chapter.

2) Separate interview guides were designed for each of

the six positions studied. The guides limited the

interviews to questions concerning job satisfaction and

dissatisfaction associated with the major job functions

of each of the positions studied. Demographic questions

were also included.

This study has limitations which should be recognized. They

are as follows:

1) This study was conducted at seven universities, all of

which are in Florida. It is not, therefore, possible to

generalize from the findings of this study to the popula-

tion of student personnel administrators.

2) All data collected in this study consisted of self

reports by the respondents. The data are, therefore, subject

to the perception of the respondents. Every effort was made

to encourage honesty and all respondents were told that

they would not be identified, either by name or by institution,

in the study.

3) The data collected are subject to threats to internal

validity, because incidents were collected and categorized

according to Herzberg's theory by the writer.













Hypotheses

The following hypotheses were developed as guidelines for

implementing the objectives of this study:

Ho1 For the Chief student Personnel Officers (CSPOs),

there is no difference in the contribution of

motivators and hygienes to satisfying situations

associated with the major job function of the

position.

Those functions, as identified in the literature, include:

A) Selection, supervision, coordination, and evaluation

of staff

B) University-wide administration

C) Professional and civic activities

D) Program planning and budgeting

E) Counseling and advising with individual students

and student groups.

Ho2 For the Chief Student Personnel Officers (CSPOs)

there is no difference in the contribution of

motivators and hygienes to dissatisfying situations

associated with the major job functions of the

position.

Those functions, as identified in the literature, include:

A) Selection, supervision, coordination, and evaluation

of staff.













B) University-wide administration

C) Professional and civic activities

D) Program planning and budgeting

E) Counseling and advising with individual students

and student groups.

Ho3 For the Directors of Financial Aid (DFAs) there is

no difference in contributions of motivators and

hygienes to the satisfying situations associated with

the major job functions of the position.

Those functions, as identified in the literature, include:

A) Supervision, training and evaluation of staff

B) Formulation of administrative policies

C) Coordination of programs with state and federal

agencies

D) Planning and budgeting

E) Coordination with on-campus agencies.

Ho4 For the Directors of Financial Aid (DFAs) there

is no difference in the contributions of motivators

and hygienes to dissatisfying situations associated

with major job functions of the position.

Those functions, as identified in the literature, include:

A) Supervision, training and evaluation of staff

B) Formulation of administrative policies

C) Coordination with state and federal agencies













D) Planning and budgeting

E) Coordination with on-campus agencies.

Ho For the Directors of Unions (DOUs), there is no

difference in the contributions of motivators and

hygienes to satisfying situations associated with

major job functions of the position.

Those functions, as identified in the literature, include:

A) Management of physical facilities

B) Supervision, evaluation, and selection of staff

C) Formulation of policies concerning student organizations

and use of facilities

D) Coordination with other campus agencies

E) Planning the union program

F) Financial Management

Ho For the Directors of Unions (DOUs), there is no

difference in the contributions of motivators and

hygienes to dissatisfying situations associated

with major job functions of the position.

Those functions, as identified in the literature, include:

A) Management of physical facilities

B) Supervision, evaluation, and selection of staff

C) Formulation of policies concerning student organizations


and use of facilities













D) Coordination with other campus agencies

E) Planning the union program

F) Financial Management.

Ho7 For the Director of Housing (DOH) there is no

difference between the contributions of motivators

and hygienes to satisfying situations associated

with the major job functions of the position.

Those functions as identified in the literature, include:

A) Supervision and evaluation of staff

B) Maintenance of physical plant

C) Financial planning and budgeting

D) Formulation and implementation of Housing Policies

E) Communication with students and parents

F) Administration of security

G) Coordination with other campus agencies

Ho8 For the Directors of Housing (DOHs) there is no

difference between the contributions of motivators

and hygienes to dissatisfying situations associated

with the major job functions of the position.

Those functions, as identified in the literature, include:

A) Supervision and evaluation of staff

B) Maintenance of physical plant

C) Financial planning and budgeting

D) Forumlation and implementation of Housing Policies













E) Communication with students and parents

F) Administration of security

G) Coordination with other campus agencies.

Ho9 For the Directors of Counseling (DOCs), there is

no difference in the contributions of motivators

and hygienes to satisfying situations associated

with major job functions of the position.

Those functions, as identified in the literature, include:

A) Supervision, coordination and evaluation of staff

B) Counseling individual students

C) Coordinating activities with other campus agencies

D) Conducting and stimulating research

E) Program development, planning and budgeting.

Ho10 For the Directors of Counseling (DOCs) there is

no difference in the contributions of motivators

and hygienes to dissatisfying situations associated

with the major job functions of the position.

Those functions, as identified in the literature, include:

A) Supervision, coordination and evaluation of staff

B) Counseling individual students

C) Coordinating activities with other campus agencies

D) Conduct and stimulate research

E) Program development, planning and budgeting.













HoI For the five administrative positions, there is

no difference in the contributions of motivators

and hygienes to satisfying situations associated

with major job functions of the positions.

Ho2 For the five administrative positions, there is

no difference in the contributions of motivators

and hygienes to dissatisfying situations associated

with major job functions of the positions.


Research Methodology


The major purpose of this study, as stated earlier, was to

examine job satisfaction and dissatisfaction among persons in selected

student personnel positions. The attitudes were measured within .the

framework of the two-factor theory of job satisfaction developed by

Herzberg et al. (1959), and were classified using job factor definitions

developed by Herzberg. The critical incident technique developed by

Flanagan (1954) was used in the collection of the data.


Selection of Sample

Persons holding six major student personnel administration

positions at seven of the nine institutions within the State University

System of Florida were interviewed. Institutions were included in the

study based upon the similarity of organization within student personnel.

The major factor influencing the decision to include or exclude a












particular institution was the existence of on-campus housing. The

two institutions which were excluded on this basis were Florida

International University in Miami and the University of North Florida

in Jacksonville. Included were the University of Florida in Gainesville,

Florida State University and Florida A & M University in Tallahassee,

the University of West Florida in Pensacola, the University of South

Florida in Tampa, Florida Technological University in Orlando, and

Florida Atlantic University in Boca Raton. Two of the institutions,

Florida Atlantic University and the University of West Florida, are

upper division/graduate institutions, and one, the University of South

Florida, despite the existence of on-campus housing, is primarily

an urban-commuter campus.


Instrumentation

Information relevant to the job satisfaction and dissatisfaction

of persons in the six administrative positions was collected by the

use of six parallel instruments which were adapted by this researcher

from those used by Herzberg et al. (1959) and Thomas (1977).

These instruments utilized the critical incident method

developed by Flanagan (1954). Flanagan defined an incident as "any

observable human activity that is sufficiently complete in itself to

permit inferences and predictions to be made about the person performing

the act" (p. 327). In order for an incident to be termed critical,

according to Flanagan (1954), it













must occur in a situation where the purpose or intent
of the act seems fairly clear to the observer and where
its consequences are sufficiently definite to leave
little doubt concerning its effects.(p. 327)

Flanagan (1954) further stated three assumptions of the critical

incident technique: 1) only simple judgments are required of the

observer; 2) only reports from qualified observers are included;

and 3) all observations are evaluated in light of previously agreed-

upon purposes. Fox (1969) observed that in addition to providing

some of the positive qualities of impersonal interaction, the critical

incident technique allows the respondents to select events which have

significance for them.

The five parallel instruments were based on a review of the

literature for major job functions of the chief student personnel

administrator (Ayers et al., 1966; Hoyt and Tripp, 1967; Brooks and

Avila, 1974; Smith, 1961; Sandeen, 1977), the director of counseling

(Cochrane, 1973; Goodman, 1974; Willette, 1974; Young, 1970; Kolarik,

1977), the director of housing (Riker, 1965; ACHUO, 1958; Armstrong,

1966), the director of financial aid (Kates, 1970; Turner, 1977;

Converse, 1975), and the director of the union (Bloland, 1970; Rion,

1977).


Data Collection

The first step in the data collection involved a letter to the

chief student personnel administrator (CSPO) at each of the seven

schools selected for the study. The letter requested the names of

persons in the other positions studied and attempted to enlist the













active support of the CSPO in assisting the study. In step two,

the author followed up with phone calls to the CSPO and the persons

in the other positions studied in order to establish appointments

for interviews.

Step three was the interviews, during which the data were

collected utilizing a structured questionnaire developed for each

position (see Appendices A, B, C, D, and E). Fox (1969) noted that the

face-to-face interview situation allows more detailed observation to

be recorded. In order to obtain the most accurate results possible,

each respondent was assured of the complete confidentiality of the

results. No person, either by name or position, was identified in the

study.


Data Analysis

Step one in the analysis of the data was the classification of

each critical incident as having been influenced by one of the six

motivators (achievement, the work itself, recognition, opportunity for

growth, advancement, or responsibility) or by one of the eight hygienes

(salary, institutional policy, supervision, interpersonal relations,

personal life, job security, status, or working conditions). The

researcher used definitions developed by Herzberg in the classification.

If appropriate, more than one factor was assigned to a critical incident.

Step two involved the statistical analysis of the data.

The purpose of the statistical test in this study was to deter-

mine whether the observed influence of motivators and hygienes on












the critical incidents identified by the administrators in the sample

was different from that which would have been expected by chance. The

data had characteristics established as being effectively tested by the

chi-square method (Siegel, 1956; Downie and Heath, 1965; Fox, 1969).

The .05 level of significance was required before a null hypothesis

was rejected. The .05 level was described by Fox (1969) as typical in

educational research.


Definition of Terms


Chief Student Personnel Officer (CSPO). The highest ranking administra-

tor at each institution whose major responsibility is the management

of non-classroom services and programs for the benefit of students. He

or she will have the title of vice president or dean for student affairs

or chief student personnel officer.

Critical incident. An event in a person's job which is identified as

being associated with extremely good or bad feelings about the job.

Director of Counseling (DOC). The highest ranking administrator at

each institution whose major responsibility is the management and

operation of a service related to the personal, academic, and vocational

needs of students.

Director of Financial Aid (DFA). The highest ranking administrator

at each institution whose major responsibility is the management and

operation of a program of financial aid for students.

Director of Housing (DOH). The highest ranking administrator at each

institution whose major responsibility is the management and supervision












of facilities and programs relating to on-campus housing for both

single and married students.

Director of Union/Student Activities (DU/SA). The highest ranking

administrator at each institution whose major responsibilityis the

administration of the college union facility and the programs therein.

Factors. Any of six motivators or eight hygienes used to describe

job conditions which may contribute to job satisfaction or dissatisfaction.

Hygienes. Factors derived from Herzberg's two-factor theory of job

attitudes as being associated with the context in which a person

performs a job. (Individual hygienes are described in Chapter II).

Major Job Functions. Those duties of each student personnel administra-

tive position identified in the literature as being most common and

as constituting the major work load of the position.

Motivators. Factors, derived from Herzberg's two-factor theory of job

attitudes as being associated with the actual performance of content

of a job. (Individual motivators are described in Chapter II.)


Organization of Subsequent Chapters


Chapter II presents a review of literature related to job

satisfaction in student personnel administration. Chapter III includes

the results of the study. Chapter IV presents the summary and con-

clusions and includes suggestions for further research.













CHAPTER II


REVIEW OF THE LITERATURE


Victor Vroom (1964), in an extensive review of the literature

concerning determinants of job satisfaction, considered the following

variables: supervision, influence in decision making, work group

interaction, similarity of attitudes in the work group, acceptance

within the work group, interdependence of goals within the work group,

individual differences within the work group, job level, specialization,

control over work methods, control over work pace, use of skills and

abilities, success and failure in work performance, interruption of

work on tasks, wages, promotional opportunities, and hours of work.

Wanous and Lawler (1972) pointed out through their review of the

literature that different measures of job satisfaction may not measure

the same thing and that there is probably a distinction which can be

drawn between overall job satisfaction and satisfaction with individual

facets of a job. Additionally, they concluded that most studies of

job satisfaction measure the concept in terms of one or more of nine

operational definitions which are based in the interaction of three

theoretical bases for definition: need fulfillment, equity, and work

values or desires.

Job Satisfaction as a Function of Need Fulfillment

Many studies which are based on need fulfillment draw upon the

work of Abraham Maslow (1943). Maslow proposed that individual needs













are arranged in a specific hierarchy. At the lower end are the

physiological needs such as food, rest, sex and shelter. The next level

is the safety needs which include protection from danger, threat and

deprivation, and social needs such as love, affection and belongingness.

Finally, the hierarchy culminates in esteem needs, among which are

status, appreciation and self-confidence and in self-actualization which

is the desire to become all one is capable of becoming. Maslow noted

that as the needs of each lower group were satisfied, the next higher

group appeared to be more important in providing a basis for action.

Further, he noted that the higher the group, the lower the percentage

of its needs would be fulfilled (Miller and Form, 1964).

In his study of need satisfaction and job satisfaction, Blai

(1970), studied 470 employees of the federal government who held

various jobs ranging from laborer to high-level professionals. Among

the professionals, Blai found that the strongest needs were self-

actualization, interesting duties, and opportunity for advancement.

Lyman Porter (1963a) studied 1,916 managers in an attempt to

determine whether a relationship existed between the vertical level of

a person's position within management and the degree of importance he

or she attached to 13 items representing five areas of psychological

needs: security, social, esteem, autonomy and self-actualization. He

found that higher-level persons tended to place more emphasis on self-

actualization and autonomy than persons in lower positions. In other













components of the same study, Porter (1962, 1963b, 1963c) found that

line managers had greater need fulfillment, particularly in the areas

of esteem and self-actualization, than did staff officers, but that

staff officers had a greater need for autonomy than did the line

managers.

Studies also found that the interaction of company size and

position in a managerial hierarchy had an effect on job satisfaction.

Lower-level managers were found to be happier in small companies and

higher-level managers were happier in large companies. Additionally,

these studies produced the finding that self-actualization and esteem

needs were higher at each higher level of employment and were the least

fulfilled of all needs. The basic premise of the need fulfillment

theory is stated by Zytowski (1968) as one in which job satisfaction

is defined as being "proportionate to the degree that the elements of

the job satisfy the particular needs which the person feels most

strongly" (p. 399). This statement, coupled with Maslow's theory,

may tend to indicate that, in jobs which satisfy lower level needs,

satisfaction based on need gratification may be followed by dissatisfac-

tion or lack of satisfaction based on the emergence of new needs.


Job Satisfaction as a Function of Expectancy

The expectancy theory of job satisfaction proposes that not

only the satisfaction of needs, but the expectancy that a job will be

able to satisfy needs leads to job satisfaction. Victor Vroom (1964)













states this theory in two propositions. The first is that a person's

job satisfaction is directly related to the ability of the job to

provide the person with certain rewarding outcomes such as pay, possi-

bility of promotion, or influence in decision-making. The second, and

closely related, proposition is that the forces on a person to act in

a particular manner are a function of the degree to which the person

expects certain desired outcomes to result from that action. In this

model, rewarding outcomes take on a relative posture, with each person

deciding for him or herself the potential for a specific job to provide

these rewarding outcomes.

Another theory which views job satisfaction in a relative sense

resulted in the development of the Job Descriptor Index by Patricia

Smith and her associates at Cornell (e.g., Ewen, Hulin, Smith and Locke,

1966; Hulin and Smith, 1967). Vroom (1964) called the Job Descriptor

Index "the most carefully constructed measure of job satisfaction today"

(p. 100). Vroom cited the instrument's strong methodological base and

the availability of its norms as indications that it would receive wide-

spread use in both research and practice. The theoretical basis of the

Cornell studies is that job content and context cannot operate indepen-

dently of the overall environment in which the worker exists, as a means

of producing job satisfaction or dissatisfaction. Community character-

istics play an important role in placing the person higher or lower on

the socio-economic scale and, according to Hulin, "the worker evaluates













his present position in the context of the alternatives open to him"

(p. 186).

Katzell (1964) voiced a view similar to that of Smith et al.

(cited in Steers and Porter, 1975). He noted that:

People differ markedly in the degree of job satisfaction .
due to differences in stimuli, i.e., job features, and differ-
ences in job incumbents. The intra individual sources
of job satisfaction may be accounted for largely in terms of
the concept of adaptation levels or the related concept of
personal values.(p. 342).

He formulated a theoretical framework which linked job satisfaction to

the worker's personal values, job environment, out-of-job environment

and job performance.


Herzberg's Two-Factor Theory of Job Satisfaction


In contrast to the need fulfillment and expectancy theories

discussed above, which are based on the notion that job satisfaction

is measured on a single contiuum, there exists a theory that job satis-

faction and dissatisfaction are separate criteria and that they are

caused by different dimensions within the work situation. This theory

was developed and stated by Frederick Herzberg and his associates (1959)

in their work, The Motivation to Work.

The seeds of the theory are found in the 1957 work of Herzberg

and his associates. Their review of literature up until that point led

them to question the accuracy of the commonly held opinion that any

factor within the job setting could cause either satisfaction or













dissatisfaction depending on the degree to which it is present in the

work setting. In 1959, Herzberg et al. published the results of their

study of the job attitudes of 200 engineers and accountants from which

the theoretical framework for their two-factor hypothesis was derived.

The basic hypothesis of the two-factor theory is that job satisfaction

and dissatisfaction are not, as had been commonly held, opposite

extremes of the same measurement, but are, in fact, discrete criteria

which require separate measurement. Thomas (1977) has illustrated the

difference between the traditional single continuum theory (see Figure

1-A) and Herzberg's two-factor theory (see Figure 1-B). She has shown

that different factors cause satisfaction, i.e., motivators, than

cause dissatisfaction, i.e., hygienes.


Dissatisfaction <-> Satisfaction

A

No Satisfaction< Motivators Satisfaction

Dissatisfaction >-- H gienes No Dissatisfaction

B

Figure 1

Traditional (A) and Motivator-Hygiene (B) Attitude Models


In the course of his research, Herzberg et al. (1959) were forced to make

the assumption that "people could place their own feelings about

their jobs on a continuum, identify the extremes of this continuum and












choose those extreme situations to report" (p. 14). By making this

assumption, Herzberg et al. were able to use the critical incident tech-

nique developed by Flanagan (T954). Flanagan (1954) found that "A list

of critical behavior provides a sound basis for making inferences as to

requirements (of an activity) in terms of the aptitudes, training, and

other characteristics" (p. 355), and cited studies of motivation as an

area in which the technique might be of some use.

Herzberg et al.'s (1959) method did not exactly duplicate that of

Flanagan but was one which Brayfield (1960) termed "a combination of

the critical incident technique, retrospective patterned interview, and

content analysis" (p. 101). Using this method, Herzberg asked workers

in the 1959 study to "Think of a time when you felt exceptionally good

or exceptionally bad about your job, either your present job or any

other job you have had" (Herzberg et al., 1959, p. 141). They were asked

how long ago the event happened, how long the feeling lasted, what the

events meant to them, whether the events had an effect on their jobs

or changed their careers, and whether the situation could happen again.

One incident in which the worker felt good and one in which he (all

respondents in the original study were male) felt bad were described in

this manner.

Herzberg et al.'s (1959) data revealed that, as they had hypothesized,

the factors which caused satisfaction seemed to be different from those

associated with dissatisfaction. Those associated with satisfaction












were termed motivators. In the initial results, Herzberg et al. (1959)

singled out five factors as motivators: achievement, recognition, the

work itself, responsibility, and advancement. Later research revealed

that the factor, possibility of growth, also acted as a motivator. These

motivators and their definitions (Herzberg et al., 1959; Herzberg, 1966)

are as follows:

1. Recognition. The major criterion for this factor was the

notice by some other person of something the respondent had done. This

factor could include praise, blame, or criticism of the respondent's

work or the acceptance or rejection of an idea by the company.

2. Achievement. This factor included seeing the results of one's

work, the successful completion of a job, the failure to complete a

job, or making money for the company.

3. Possibility of Growth. This factor included growth in specific

types of skills, growth in status, such as the movement from one job

to another, and the lack of opportunity for growth.

4. Advancement. Herzberg notes that this category was used only

when a person made a definite position change which increased his

status. This use was an effort to discriminate among the categories

labelled possibility of growth, advancement and responsibility.

5. Responsibility. This category included incidents in which

the respondents mentioned that he was allowed to be responsible for his

own work or given responsibility for the work of others, was given a

new responsibility or had responsibility taken away, or was allowed to

work without supervision.













6. The work itself. Actual doing of the work was the major

factor in this category. Whether the actual tasks were a source of

good or bad feelings was represented in respondent's description of the

work as routine, creative, or challenging. Additionally, the opportunity

to complete an entire unit of work in all its phases was mentioned in

this category.

Herzberg's research identified eight factors as making contribu-

tions to job dissatisfaction. The presence of these factors in a

negative sense produced job dissatisfaction, but their presence in a

positive sense did not necessarily produce satisfaction.

The factors along with the definitions given them by Herzberg (1959,

1966), are as follows:

1. Salary. All situations having to do with compensation fell

into this category. The vast majority of reported incidents had to do

with increases in salary, whether expected or unexpected, or the failure

to receive an expected increase. Additionally, the comparison of one's

wages with others doing the same job also fell into this category.

2. Interpersonal relations. Because of the possibility that

this category might coincide with several others, it was restricted to

those incidents in which the respondent verbalized the character of

interaction between himself and another person, whether a superior, peer,

or subordinate. These verbalizations included the support he may have













received from a superior, the personal and working relationship between

him and his subordinates, or his part in a cohesive work group.

3. Supervision-technical. Factors included in this group

included the competency of the superior, the degree to which work was

delegated, and use of criticism and/or favoritism by the superior.

Herzberg (1966) found that independent coders were able to distinguish

consistently between this characteristic and interpersonal relations

with the supervisor.

4. Company Policy and Administration. Factors relating either

to the adequacy of the company's organizational structure as it affects

the worker, or the effects of the company's personnel policies on the

individual were included in this category.

5. Working Conditions. This category was used to classify

incidents in which environmental or physical considerations seemed to

be paramount. Factors such as lighting, ventilation, availability of

tools and adequacy of space were included. The degree to which the

amount of work given to the worker was met by the resources to do the

work was also included.

6. Factors in personal life. Incidents in this category

reflected some aspect of the job which had an effect on the respondent's

personal life. Incidents in which elements of the respondent's personal

life affect job performance were not included in this category.

7. Status. Status was not inferred from other categories, such

as advancement, but was accepted only when the respondent specifically













mentioned a change in status and its effect on his feelings about the

job. Examples of this were the acquisition of a secretary in a new

position or having the use of the company car.

8. Job Security. Here, only objective signs of job security,

such as tenure were accepted; mere feelings of security or insecurity

were not accepted.

Two items of explanation are in order at this point. The first

has to do with the factor of salary. Herzberg had originally classified

salary as a motivator, that is, a source of job satisfaction. Upon

further investigation of its effects, however, he found that mentions

of salary as a motivator were restricted to satisfaction in the short

run and that its primary influence was as a hygiene, that is, as a

source of dissatisfaction, in the long run. Upon this discovery,

Herzberg classified salary as a hygiene. The second item which the

reader should consider is that each of the factors, as defined above,

was stated as a positive. It should be remembered that the effect of

each of these categories can come either from its presence in a positive

sense or in a negative sense.


Support for the Two-Factor Theory


Support for the two-factor theory is provided by Schwartz et al.

(1963) who studied 111 male supervisors in 21 utility companies.

The supervisors were asked to recall one very good experience they had













had and one very bad experience. Experiences were classified according

to Herzberg's taxonomy and results showed clearly that factors which led

to job satisfaction were predominantly those classified by Herzberg as

motivators and factors leading to dissatisfaction were those involving

the context of the job and classified by Herzberg as hygienes. These

classifications held across the dimensions of age, job classification,

and personality characteristics.

Saleh (cited in Bockman, 1971) studied the job attitudes of

managerial employees between the ages of 60 and 65. The data in this

study show that, when looking back on their careers, the respondents

were able to identify motivators as the major sources of job satisfaction.

This study provided an interesting additional dimension, however,

because when looking forward to retirement, the same persons identified

hygiene factors as the major source of satisfaction. Saleh links this

change in attitudes with a radical change in needs from the years of

employment to those of retirement. Walt (1962) replicated Herzberg's

study among 50 women employed by the federal government in research and

analytical work. Herzberg (1966) noted that this study was important

because its subjects were the first women involved in a test of the two-

factor theory. Herzberg's findings were substantially confirmed by Walt

(1962) with four motivators--achievement, work itself, responsibility

and recognition--appearing significantly more in satisfying incidents

than in dissatisfying ones. Additionally, the hygiene factors, company













policy and administration, status, working conditions and effect on

personal lives were mentioned more often in dissatisfying incidents.

The hygiene factor--interpersonal relationships with subordinates--was

mentioned more often in satisfying sequences than in dissatisfying

sequences.


Criticism of the Two-Factor Theory


Because it has been so controversial, the two-factor theory

of job satisfaction has been widely tested. Aebi (1973) found that 158

attempts had been made to test the theory. The literature reviews of

Bockman (1971) and Ewen (1964) document the results of many of these

attempts. Ewen (1964) outlined four basic criticisms of the Herzberg

theory. First, Ewen noted that Herzberg et al. (1959) had investigated only

engineers and accountants, a range of jobs he felt to be too narrow to

produce meaningful results. Secondly, Ewen noted that Herzberg's theory

had been generated on the basis of only one method of data collection--

the critical incident technique. Ewen was not critical of the technique

per se, but felt that because there was only one method of data collec-

tion, the results were not generalizable. Thirdly, Ewen stated that

the two-factor theory lacked validity and reliability data such as the

use of a parallel form of data collection or the use of a test-retest

technique. Finally, Ewen noted that the theory offered no measure of

overall satisfaction, a feature which theories based on a single

continuum handled easily.













Perhaps the most frequent/criticism of the two-factor theory

is illustrated by Soliman (1970). He found that the theory appeared

to be bound by its own methodology, that is, the results obtained by

Herzberg et al. (1959) were, in part, a function of the method used to

collect the data--the critical incident technique. As evidence, Soliman

points to the fact that of 41 studies he reviewed, 18 of 21 which used

the critical incident technique supported the two-factor theory and 17

of 20 which used other methods failed to support the theory. Soliman

studied 96 persons in the Urbana, Illinois,schools using four methods:

the critical incident technique, Porter's need categories, a Likert

scale on 18 job-related questions and the Job Descriptor Index developed

at Cornell. The results showed that, as Herzberg predicted, there are

two sets of needs, motivators and hygienes. Soliman (1970) departed

from Herzberg, however, by saying that both motivators and hygienes

related to both job satisfaction and job dissatisfaction which were,

indeed, opposite ends of the same continuum. Additionally, Soliman

(1970) found that when all needs are satisfied, motivators are a stronger

force for satisfaction, but that when no needs are satisfied, hygienes

are a stronger force for dissatisfaction. Vroom (1964) stated that

Herzberg's theory merely confirms human nature. Workers are more likely

to attribute satisfaction "to their own achievements and accomplishments.

On the other hand, they may be more likely to attribute their dissatis-

faction to factors in the work environment" (Vroom, 1964, p. 129).













House and Wigdor (1967) criticized Herzberg because the coding

in his tabulation of data was not entirely dependent on the data or on

a rating system, but required interpretation by the researcher. This

violates one requirement of the critical incident technique, as explained

by Flanagan (1954), that only simple judgments be required of the

observer.

Hulin and Smith (1967), who admitted to wanting to put the two-

factor theory to rest, studied 670 office workers and executives of the

same company using the Job Descriptor Index. They found no support for

predictions which were made on the basis of the two-factor theory.

Motivators and hygiene factors were both found to contribute to satis-

faction and dissatisfaction and the importance of a job factor in deter-

mining satisfaction was whether or not it was present.

It is obvious that confusion exists over the validity of the

two-factor theory. King (1970) felt that much of the confusion in tests

of the theory was due to the fact that researchers had been using five

different definitions of the two-factor theory in their work. Wanous and

Lawler (1972) have pointed out that different measures simply do not

measure the same thing. They developed nine operational definitions for

job satisfaction which have been used by various researchers and which

combine the basic elements of the relativistic, expectancy, and equity

theories. The confusion is increased by Zytowski (1970) who showed,

with a side-by-side comparison of six separate work value taxonomies,













the potential for confusion which may result from the comparison of

one theory with another. Many of the criticisms of the two-factor

theory derive from tests which are substantially different from and

whose job elements are far less refined than Herzberg's. Clearly, the

theory is not perfect, but as even one of its most ardent detractors

(Vroom, 1964) notes, Herzberg's "evidence of nonlinearity in relation-

ships is worthy of much more attention than it has received"

(p. 129).


Job Satisfaction in Education


Scott (1965), in a 30% sample of deans of students in 1963-64,

found data which would, generally, support the two-factor theory. The

greatest satisfaction of the deans in this sample came from the

nature of the position; from the opportunity to work with college

students and from an interest in their problems. Dissatisfaction, on

the other hand, seemed to be related to the context of the job--the heavy

workload, the long and irregular hours, and the lack of appreciation

by the faculty and administration. Knox (1953) in data collected from

questionnaires of 1439 graduates of the University of Illinois engaged

in teaching and administration found that working conditions and salary

were factors which contributed to dissatisfaction and that salary was

unimportant to the most satisfied among the respondents. Knox also

noted that teachers' turnover seemed to be related to job satisfaction.













Avakian (1971) studied 50 faculty selected from two liberal arts

colleges and two universities. The study was designed to determine

whether certain job factors were related to job satisfaction and dissatis-

faction as Herzberg etal.(1959) would have predicted. Three coders

rated the factors independently and found that the data supported

Herzberg's theory, with some exceptions. Avakian noted that opportunity

for advancement tended to be a factor on the dissatisfaction continuum

while interpersonal relations with students, status, and job security

tended to operate on the satisfaction continuum. These exceptions,

and the general support for Herzberg's theory, were consistent across

the variables of type and size of institution and demographic variables.

Bishop (1969) surveyed public school teachers in Iowa who were

members of the National Education Association (NEA) and those who were

members of the American Federation of Teachers (AFT). The survey used

both Herzberg's two-factor theory and Porter's unfilled needs theory as

a base, and ofund that that the job factors most important to both groups

were the work itself, achievement, and relations with students. Factors

related by the teachers as causes of dissatisfaction were school policies,

recognition, quality of supervision, and salary. With the exception

of recognition, which Herzberg placed on the satisfaction continuum,

this study supports the two-factor theory.

Jackson (1975), in a study of 442 middle managers and vice-

presidents from five Illinois universities, asked respondents to choose,

from each of 48 pairs of job factors, the one which most contributed to













job satisfaction. Each of the six motivators was paired with each of

the eight hygienes in the comparison. The results of the chi square

test showed that middle managers did identify Herzberg's motivators as

relating to job satisfaction and that vice-presidents accurately pre-

dicted that these factors would relate to satisfaction among the

middle managers.

Strickland (1973) used an instrument developed by Porter to test

the two-factor theory among chief business officers at 89 institutions

which are members of the National Association of State Universities

and Land Grant Colleges, with enrollments of over 7500. Persons were

asked, after describing an incident, which of Herzberg's six motivators

and eight hygienes was most influential incidents. The results over-

lapped somewhat, with seven factors appearing in 90% of the satisfying

incidents and nine factors appearing in 80% of the dissatisfying

incidents. Strickland noted that two-thirds of the responses supported

the theory, three percent were non-supportive and the remainder were

partially supportive. Finally, motivators were found to be highly

significant in satisfying incidents and hygienes were highly significant

in dissatisfying incidents.

Pallone (1971) studied 148 professional staff under the vice

president for student affairs at the University of Minnesota to deter-

mine the relationships between the social characteristics in individual

offices within students affairs and those in the overall student affairs













staff. Pallone generalized from his findings that job satisfaction was

related more to the work situations than any personality factors. The

most important contribution to dissatisfaction was the lack of clarity

in the job expectations. Ohanesian (1974) studied 402 student personnel

workers in six midwestern and western states. Overall satisfaction was

measured and produced a mean of 4.7 on a six-point scale. Higher

levels of satisfaction were significantly related to higher positions

and the availability in those positions of recognition, status, achieve-

ment, and variety of job tasks. Lower satisfaction was associated with

lower salaries. These findings give support to Herzberg's (1959, 1966)

theory.

Job satisfaction among student personnel administrators has not

been studied extensively. It has been a topic most often touched upon

in studies of characteristics of members of the profession or studies of

career patterns. Cheatham (1964) in a study of the characteristics of

members of the American College Personnel Association (ACPA) noted that

most student personnel administrators felt their greatest satisfaction

from helping students, exercising leadership, and working as a team

member. The first two of these categories would fall into Herzberg's

motivators as being related to the content of the job, while working

with others would be related to the context or environment. Cheatham

noted that, as a group, student personnel administrators prize the

intrinsic rewards of their jobs. This characteristic seemed more













pronounced among women than among men. The finding that women are

rewarded from their job whereas men seem to require the status that

comes from being rewarded for their job was also presented in a study

of teachers in Saskatchewan (Wickstrom, 1971).

Foy (1969) studied the personal characteristics and backgrounds

of 1320 student personnel administrators at 449 of 742 member institu-

tions of the National Association of Student Personnel Administrators

(NASPA). This study measured job satisfaction by requesting an indica-

tion of happiness three years prior to the study, at the time of the

study, and a prediction for three years subsequent to the study. Foy

found that, at the time of the study (1969), job satisfaction was at a

slightly lower level than it had been three years earlier, but that it

was anticipated that satisfaction would rise to a much higher level in

the three years following the study. Hargrove (1969) in a study of

the chief student personnel administrators in member institutions of the

Southern Association of Colleges and Schools (SACS) measured job satis-

faction and dissatisfaction by asking persons in the sample for their

impression of the advantages and disadvantages of their jobs. Those

characteristics which were most often listed as advantages resemble the

motivators of Herzberg's theory. They were: working with young people,

the variety of tasks, good personal and professional associations,

providing a meaningful service, and self-satisfaction. Those job

characteristics listed as being disadvantages of the position seem to













be closely related to the context of the job which would place them in

Herzberg's hygiene category. They were long and irregular hours,

being the "man in the middle," being viewed as a disciplinarian and not

being understood or accepted by the faculty.

Dutton (1968) expressed concern with the larger problem of

ca-.eer satisfaction. He felt that a first priority for research in

student personnel administration should be the determination of "what

career patterns exist in student personnel administration and what

factors influence attrition or continuation in the field." Similarly,

Nygreen (1962) noted that no attempt had ever been made to articulate

the place of an entry-level housing position in a well-defined career

path that can be seen by the person in the position as leading to some

definable future objective.

Ferrari (1972) in a study of 439 chief student personnel

administrators found that the field was becoming saturated and that

those in the study predicted a reduction of hiring in the field. These

predictions followed three years of growth which ranged from 6.0 percent

to 6.7 percent per year. Despite these gloomy forecasts, persons in the

study predicted that new preparation programs would continue to be

established. As a result, Ferrari stated that there would be a large

oversupply of student personnel administrators. This fact, plus the

reduction in staff that persons in Ferrari's (1972) study predicted

indicate that inter- and intra-institutional mobility may be reduced.








41




A gap in the literature exists in the study of sources of job

satisfaction and dissatisfaction among specific student personnel

administrators. This information could be useful to supervisors of

persons in those positions during a time when mobility is reduced and

career strategies are, of necessity, revised. The information could

be used to remove or reduce those areas of an administrator's job

known to cause job dissatisfaction and to encourage and support

those activities known to be sources of satisfaction.












CHAPTER III


PRESENTATION OF DATA


A presentation is made in this chapter of the data gathered from

interviews conducted with the Chief Student Personnel Officer, Director

of Financial Aid, Director of the Student Union and Director of

Housing at each of seven of nine State University System of Florida

institutions. Each administrator was personally interviewed using a

guide constructed for the position (See Appendices A, B, C, D, & E).

The administrators recalled both positive and negative critical incidents

related to their major job functions. These incidents were then cate-

gorized as having been primarily influenced by one of Herzberg's six

motivators or eight hygienes. With the 12 stated hypotheses as a guide,

the data were analyzed using the Chi-square (Siegel, 1956, pp. 42-47)

to determine whether significant differences existed in the contribu-

tion of motivators and hygienes to satisfying and dissatisfying situa-

tions of the administrative types. Data for individual major job

functions were not analyzed for statistical significance.

This chapter presents each administrative group separately and

then considers the groups as a whole. The chapter begins with the

data for the Chief Student Personnel Officer.


The Chief Student Personnel Officer


The most common title for the Chief Student Personnel Officer

(CSPO) in the sample was Vice-President for Student Affairs, with five













persons holding that title. One holds the title Dean for Student

Affairs and another holds the title Chief Student Affairs Officer. Five

of the seven hold the Ph.D. and two hold the M.A. Additionally, five

had come to their positions from other institutions, while two had been

promoted from within.

The major job functions of the Chief Student Personnel Officer,

as defined by the researcher, proved accurate. Two Chief Student

Personnel Officers mentioned extra duties. One mentioned the recruiting

of students and the other mentioned programming.

Generally the kind of work that they did, coupled with the ac-

complishments which resulted from it and the general recognition that

it produced was the greatest cause of satisfying incidents for

CSPOs. Dissatisfying incidents for these administrators were caused

by company policy, primarily that caused by their working within a

statewide system, and their relationships with other persons in their

work setting.

Discussion of the five major job functions with the Chief Student

Personnel Officers produced 35 classifications of positive incidents.

Of the factors used in the classification of these satisfying incidents,

30 were motivators (85.7%) and five were hygienes (14.3%). There were

significantly more motivators than hygienes used in describing the

satisfying incidents of Chief Student Personnel Officers. The satisfying

incidents, as they were classified according to specific motivators and

hygienes, are represented in Table 1.













Table 1

Factors Categorized in the Satisfying Incidents of CSOPs


% of Total
Factor Number (N = 35)


Motivators

Recognition 10 28.5
Achievement 9 25.7
The Work Itself 11 31.4

Hygienes

Interpersonal Relations 3 8.5
Supervision, Technical 1 2.9
Working Conditions 1 2.9

Total Motivators 30 85.7
Total Hygienes 5 14.3



Hol For the Chief Student Personnel Officers (CSPOs),

there is no difference in the contribution of motivators

and hygienes to satisfying situations associated with

the major job function of the position.

The data in Table 1 show a strong tendency in the direction of

support for Herzberg's theory that motivators are the primary cause of

satisfying critical incidents. These data show a significant difference

between motivators and hygienes (X2 (1) = 17.85, p <.001), causing

the null hypothesis to be rejected. While no test for significance was

completed for individual job functions, Tables 3-7 show that











in each of the five major job functions, motivators contributed more

than hygienes to satisfying incidents. The range of percentages for

motivators in the individual job function was 75 to 100.

Only three specific motivators were mentioned by Chief Student

Personnel Officers in positive incidents, with recognition, achievement

and the work itself being about equal in their contributions.

Interviews with the Chief Student Personnel Officers produced 31

classifications of dissatisfying incidents. Of the factors used in

these incidents, 20 were hygienes (64.5%) and 11 were motivators (35.5%).

There were not significantly more hygienes than motivators used in

describing dissatisfying incidents of Chief Student Personnel Officers.

The dissatisfying incidents, as they were classified according to

specific motivators and hygienes, are represented in Table 2.

Ho2 For the Chief Student Personnel Officers (CSPOs)

there is no difference in the contribution of motivators

and hygienes to dissatisfying situations associated

with the major job functions of the position.

The data in Table 2 show a tendency in the direction of support

for Herzberg's theory that hygienes are the primary cause of dissatisfying

critical incidents. These data do not show a significant difference

between motivators and hygienes (X2 (1) = 2.61, ns), and fail to

reject the null hypothesis. While no test for significance was completed

for individual job functions, Tables 3-7 show that in four of the

five major job functions (selection, training, and evaluation of













Table 2

Factors Categorized in Dissatisfying Incidents of CSPOs


% of Total
Factor Number (N = 31)


Motivators

Recognition 4 12.9
Achievement 5 16.1
The Work Itself 2 6.5

Hygienes

Salary 1 3.2
Interpersonal Relations 7 22.6
Company Policy and
Administration 8 25.8
Working Conditions 4 12.7

Total Motivators 11 35.5
Total Hygienes 20 64.5



staff, university-wide administration, professional and civic activities,

and program planning and budgeting) more hygienes than motivators were

used in the classification of dissatisfying incidents by CSPOs. Only

in work of individual students and student groups were there more

classifications of motivators than of hygienes.

For the Chief Student Personnel Officer (CSPO), the most frequently

mentioned sources of dissatisfaction were company policy and administra-

tion, interpersonal relations and achievement. These three categories

were used in the classification of 65% of all dissatisfying incidents.













In addition to reviewing the position of CSPO as a whole, the

researcher observed each major job function to determine the relative

contribution of motivators and hygienes to the satisfying and dis-

satisfying incidents in each function. Table 3 presents the data for

the selection, supervision, coordination and evaluation of staff, the

first major function of the CSPO.


Table 3

Distribution of Motivators and Hygienes in the Selection,
Supervision, Coordination and Evaluation of Staff by CSPOs



Type of Incident

Satisfying Dissatisfying
Type of Classification (% of Satisfying) (% of Dissatisfying)

Motivators 5 3
(83.3) (42.8)

Hygienes 1 4
(16.7) (57.2)



Of the six incidents listed as satisfying by CSPOs, five were

classified with motivators. Among these, three were classified as

achievement and two as the work itself. The one hygiene among the

satisfying incidents was classified as interpersonal relationships.

The seven dissatisfying incidents produced four hygienes. Of these, all

four involved company policy and administration. Each of the three

motivators classified were achievement.












The second major job function of the CSPOs is university-wide

administration. Table 4 presents data regarding incidents related

to university-wide administration by CSPOs.


Table 4

Distribution of Motivators and Hygienes
in University-Wide Administration by CSPOs


Type of Incident

Satisfying Dissatisfying
Type of Classification (% of Satisfying) (% of Dissatisfying)

Motivators 6 1
(75) (20)

Hygienes 2 4
(25) (80)



Of the eight classification of satisfying incidents in the area

of university-wide administration, six were motivators. Of these,

four were classified as recognition, one as achievement and one as the

work itself. The two hygienes included in satisfying incidents were

interpersonal relationships and working conditions. The five dissatisfying

incidents included four classified as hygienes; two interpersonal

relationships and two company policy. The one motivator among the dis-

satisfying incidents was classified as the work itself.

The third major job function of the CSPO involves professional

and civic activities. Table 5 presents data regarding incidents related

to the professional and civic activities of CSPOs.













Table 5

Distribution of Motivators and Hygienes in Professional
and Civic Activities of CSPOs


Type of Incident

Satisfying Dissatisfying
Type of Classification (% of Satisfying) (% of Dissatisfying)

Motivators 6 1
(85.7) (20)

Hygienes 1 4
(14.3) (80)


Of the seven satisfying incidents in the area of professional and

civic activities, six were classified with motivators. Of these, three

were classified as recognition and three as achievement. The single

hygiene among the satisfying incidents was classified as interpersonal

relationships. The five dissatisfying incidents included four classified

with hygienes. Of these, two were classified as working conditions and

two as interpersonal relationships. The only motivator among the dis-

satisfying incidents in professional and civic activities was classified

as recognition.

The fourth major job function of the CSPO concerns counseling and

advising with individual students and student groups. Table 6 presents

data classified from the descriptions of satisfying and dissatisfying incidents

given by CSPOs regarding their work in this area.














Table 6

Distribution of Motivators and Hygienes in the Counseling
and Advising With Individual Students and
Student Groups by CSPOs


Type of Incident

Satisfying Dissatisfying
Type of Classification (% of Satisfying) (% of Dissatisfying)

Motivators 7 4
(100) (57.1)

Hygienes 0 3
(0) (42.9)


All seven satisfying incidents related to work with students and

student groups were classified with motivators. These included five

classified as the work itself and two classified as recognition. The

seven dissatisfying incidents included four classified with motivators

and three with hygienes. This was the only job function for CSPOs

for which motivators were classified more frequently than hygienes in

dissatisfying incidents. The four motivators included two classified

as achievement and one each classified as recognition and the work

itself. The three hygienes involved in these dissatisfying incidents

include two classified as interpersonal relationships and one classified

as company policy and administration.

The fifth and final major job function of the CSPOs in this study

involves program planning and budgeting. Table 7 presents data on













this area based on CSPOs descriptions of satisfying and dissatisfying

incidents in this area.


Table 7

Distribution of Motivators and Hygienes in the Program
Planning and Budgeting Activities of CSPOs


Type of Incident

Satisfying Dissatisfying
Type of Classification (% of Satisfying) (% of Dissatisfying)

Motivators 6 2
(85.7) (28.6)
Hygienes 1 5
(14.3) (71.4)


Of the six satisfying incidents described in this area, six

motivators and one hygiene were used in their classification. The

motivators included three classified as the work itself, two as recogni-

tion, and one as achievement. The single hygiene among the satisfying

incidents was classified as supervision-technical. The seven dis-

satisfying incidents included five classified with hygienes. Among

these were two classified as company policy and administration and three

as working conditions. The two motivators included in the dissatisfying

incidents related to planning and budgeting were both classified as

recognition.

In review, data for the CSPOs supported, in part, Herzberg's

theory, but not fully at a significant level.













The Director of Financial Aid


The most common title among persons charged with managing financial

aid operations was Director of Financial Aid (DFA) which was held by

five of seven persons. The remaining two held the title Director

of Student Financial Affairs. These staff had held their positions for

an average of 3.7 years with a range of one (1) year to 11years. There

seemed to be no common pattern of education in the group. Three persons

held the B.S. degree, three the M.A., and one the Ph.D. All except one

had come to their positions from outside the institutions, though three

had been Director of Financial Aid at other institutions.

The major job functions ofthe Director of Financial Aid, as defined

by the researcher, proved adequate with one exception. One of the

financial aid staff suggested that professional association with others

in the field was so important that it should be included as a major

job function.

Generally, professional accomplishments and relationships with

students and colleagues were the greatest cause of satisfying incidents

for DFAs. Dissatisfying incidents for these administrators were caused,

in large part, by state and federal regulations and their administration

and by a lack of resources necessary to do their job.

Discussions of the five major functions with the Directors of

Financial Aid produced 35 classifications of satisfying incidents. Of

the factors used in the classification, 18 were motivators (51.4%) and













17 were hygienes (48.6%). The satisfying incidents, as they were

classified according to specific motivators and hygienes, are represented

in Table 8.

Ho3 For the Directors of Financial Aid (DFAs) there is no

difference in contributions of motivators and hygienes

to the satisfying situation associated with the major

job functions of the position.

The data in Table 8 show a slight tendency in the direction of sup-

port for Herzberg's theory that motivators would be the primary cause

of satisfying incidents for DFAs. These data did not produce a signifi-

cant difference (X2 (1) .02, ns) and failed to reject the null hypo-

thesis. While no test for significance was completed for individual

job functions, Tables 10-14 show that in only two of the major job

functions, formulation and implementation of financial aid policy

and coordination with on-campus agencies, did motivators contribute

more than hygienes in the classification of satisfying critical incidents.

For the major job functions, staff training and supervision and planning

and budgeting, motivators and hygienes contributed equally, while in

a single job function, coordination of state and federal agencies,

hygienes contributed more than motivators.

Of the 18 positive incidents classified as motivators, 13 were

classified as achievement, two each as recognition and the work itself

and one as responsibility. The 17 incidents classified as hygienes

included eight classified as interpersonal relations, five as working














conditions and two each as supervision-technical and company policy

and administration.


Table 8

Factors Categorized in the Positive Incidents of DFAs


% of Total
Factor Number (N = 35)

Motivators

Recognition 2 5.7
Achievement 13 37.1
Responsibility 1 2.8
The Work Itself 2 5.7

Hygienes

Interpersonal Relationships 8 22.8
Supervision-Technical 2 5.7
Company Policy and
Administration 2 5.7
Working Conditions 5 14.2

Total Motivators 18 51.4
Total Hygienes 17 48.6



Interviews with the Directors of Financial Aid produced 33 classifi-

cations of dissatisfying incidents. Of the factors used in the classifi-

cation, 29 were hygienes (87.8%) and four were motivators (12.2%). The

dissatisfying incidents, as they were classified according to specific

motivators and hygienes, are represented in Table 9.











Ho4 For the Directors of Financial Aid (DFAs), there is

no difference in the contributions of motivators and

hygienes to dissatisfying situations associated with

major job functions of the position.

The data in Table 9 show a strong tendency in the direction of

support for Herzberg's theory that hygienes would be the primary cause

of dissatisfying critical incidents. These data produced a significant

difference (X2 (1) = 18.93, p < .001) which caused the null hypothesis

to be rejected. While no test for significance was completed for

individual job functions, Tables 10-14 show that in each of the major

job functions of DFAs, hygienes contributed more than motivators to

the classification of dissatisfying critical incidents.


Table 9

Factors Classified in the Dissatisfying Incidents of DFAs


% of Total
Factors Number (N = 33)

Motivators

Recognition 2 6.0
Achievement 2 6.0

Hygienes

Salary 2 6.0
Interpersonal Relationships 6 18.1
Supervision-Technical 1 3.0
Company Policy and
Administration 15 45.4
Working Conditions 5 15.1

Total Motivators 4 12.2
Total Hygienes 29 87.8













Of the 33 dissatisfying incidents described by DFAs, 29 were

classified with hygienes (87.8%) and four with motivators (12.2%).

Among the hygienes, company policy and administration was used in

classifying 15 incidents, interpersonal relationships in six incidents,

working conditions in five, salary in two, and working conditions in

one. Motivators used in classifying dissatisfying incidents of DFAs

included two each of recognition and achievement.

In addition to reviewing the position of DFA as a whole, each

major job function was observed separately to determine, for each

function, the relative constitution of motivators and hygienes. Table

10 presents the data for the first major job function of the DFA, the

training, evaluation, and supervision of staff.


Table 10

Distribution of Motivators and Hygienes in the Staff Training,
Evaluation and Supervision Functions of the DFAs


Type of Incident

Satisfying Dissatisfying
Type of Classification (% of Satisfying) (% of Dissatisfying)

Motivators 4 2
(50) (28.6)

Hygienes 4 5
(50) (71.4)













Of the eight classifications of seven satisfying incidents in this

area; motivators and hygienes each accounted for four. The motivators

included three classified as achievement and one as working conditions,

while the hygienes included three mentions of interpersonal relations

and one of working conditions. The seven dissatisfying incidents in

this area were classified with five hygienes and two with motivators

classified were in the area of achievement.

The second major job function of the DFAs is the formulation and

implementation of financial aid policy. Table 11 presents a summary of

the classification of critical incidents in this area.


Table 11

Distribution of Motivators and Hygienes in the Formulation
of Administrative Policies by DFAs


Type of Incidents

Satisfying Dissatisfying
Type of Classification (% of Satisfying) (% of Dissatisfying)

Motivators 4 1
(57.1) (16)

Hygienes 3 5
(42.9) (83.3)



Of the seven satisfying incidents in this job area, four were

classified with motivators and three with hygienes. The four motivators

included three classified as achievement and one as recognition, while













the hygienes were comprised of two classified as working conditions

and one as interpersonal relationships. The dissatisfying incidents

in the area of policy were comprised of five hygienes, four of which

were classified as company policy and administration and one of which

was classified as interpersonal relationships. Additionally, the motivator,

recognition, was classified once in the dissatisfying incidents in

the area of policy.

The third major job function of the DFAs is the coordination with

state and federal agencies. Table 12 presents a summary of the classifica-

tions of critical incidents in this area.


Table 12

Distribution of Motivators and Hygienes in the Coordination
With State and Federal Agencies by DFAs


Type of Incident

Satisfying Dissatisfying
Type of Classification (% of Satisfying) (% of Dissatisfying)

Motivators 2 0
(28.6) (0)

Hygienes 5 7
(71.4) (100)


Coordination with state and federal agencies was the only major

job function of the DFAs in which the satisfying critical incidents

produced more classifications which were hygienes than were motivators.













Of the seven satisfying critical incidents in this job function, five

were classified with hygienes while only two were classified with

motivators. The five hygienes included three classified as interpersonal

relationships and two as company policy and administration, while the

two motivators were made up of one each classified as achievement and

responsibility. The dissatisfying incidents were all classified as

hygienes with six classified as company policy and administration and

one as salary.

The fourth major job function of the DFAs involves planning and

budgeting for the financial aid operation. Table 13 presents a

summary of the classifications of critical incidents in this area.


Table 13

Distribution of Motivators and Hygienes in the Planning
and budgeting Process of the DFAs


Type of Incident

Satisfying Dissatisfying
Type of Classification (% of Satisfying) (% of Dissatisfying)

Motivators 3 1
(50) (28.6)

Hygienes 3 5
(50) (71.4)


The six satisfying incidents in the area of planning and budgeting

by DFAs included three classified with motivators and three with hygienes.












The incidents classified with motivators included two classified as

achievement and one of recognition, while those classified with

hygienes included two classified as working conditions and one as

supervision-technical. The dissatisfying incidents included five

classified with hygienes and one with a motivator. The hygienes were

comprised of three classified as working conditions and one each as

salary and supervision-technical. The single motivator among the DFAs'

dissatisfying incidents was classified as recognition.

The fifth major job function of the .DFAs involves coordination

with on-campus agencies. Table 14 presents a summary of the classi-

fications of critical incidents involving this area.


Table 14

Distribution of Motivators and Hygienes in the Coordination
With On-Campus Agencies by DFAs


Type of Incident

Satisfying Dissatisfying
Type of Classification (% of Satisfying) (% of Dissatisfying)

Motivators 5 0
(71.4) (0)

Hygienes 2 7
(28.6) (100)


The seven positive incidents in the area of coordination with on-

campus agencies included five classified with motivators and two with











hygienes. The incidents classified with motivators included four

classified as achievement and one as the work itself, while the hygienes

included one each classified as interpersonal relationships and super-

vision-technical. The dissatisfying incidents in the area of coordina-

tion with on campus agencies included seven hygienes and no motivators.

The hygienes included three classified as company policy and administration,

two as working conditions, and one each as salary and interpersonal relations.

In review, data for the DFAs support, in part, Herzberg's theory,

but not fully at a significant level.


The Union Director


The union directors (DOUs) hold a wide range of titles. Two

were directors of the (specific name) union, two were directors of the

university center, and one each had the titles of director of the

village center, director of student activities, and director of the

university union. The average tenure in the position was ten years,

though this figure was skewed upward by two persons who had served

for 29 and 16 years, respectively. Four of these staff had been promoted

to their present position from within their institutions, while three

came from other schools. The most common educational background was

the nester's degree with five of the seven having earned that degree.

The remaining two had earned Ph.D.s.

Again, the major job functions, as defined by the researcher,

proved satisfactory to the respondents. One director indicated that a

significant amount of time was spent coordinating with outside agencies.

The others had no additional suggestions.













Generally, DOUs found the greatest satisfaction in those incidents

which reflected their professional achievements and their interaction

with other persons in their achievements. Also important was the

recognition that these administrators received for their efforts.

Dissatisfying incidents for DOUs were most often caused by interpersonal

relationships, company policy and administration, and working conditions.

These tended to reflect a frustration in dealing with complex regulations

and procedures such as those dealing with finance and personnel.

Discussions of the six major job functions with the Directors

of the Union produced 40 satisfying incidents. Of the factors used in

the classification of these incidents, 25 were motivators (62.5%) and

15 were hygienes (37.5%). The satisfying incidents, as they were

classified according to specific motivators and hygienes, are represented

in Table 15.

Ho5 For the Director of Union (DOUs), there is no

difference in the contributions of motivators and

hygienes to satisfying situations associated with

major job functions of the position.

The data in Table 15 show a tendency in the direction of support

for Herzberg's theory that motivators are the primary cause of satisfying

critical incidents. These data did not produce a significant dif-

ference between motivators and hygienes (X2 (1) = 2.50, ns) and thus

failed to reject the null hypothesis. While no test for significance

was completed for individual job functions, Tables 17-22














show that in four of six major job functions; development and implemen-

tation of union policy, management of physical facilities, planning

the union program, and financial management, motivators contributed

more than hygienes to satisfying incidents of DOUs. The two functions

in which hygienes contributed more than motivators to satisfying

incidents were the selection, supervision, and evaluation of staff and

coordination with other campus agencies. The range of percentages

of motivators in the satisfying incidents of individual job functions

was 37.5 to 100.


Table 15

Factors Categorized in the Positive Critical Incidents of DOUs


% of Total
Factors Number (N = 40)

Motivators

Recognition 7 17.5
Achievement 12 30.0
Responsibility 4 10.0
The Work Itself 2 5.0

Hygienes

Interpersonal Relationships 9 22.5
Supervision-Technical 2 5.0
Company Policy and
Administration 3 7.5
Working Conditions 1 2.5

Total Motivators 25 62.5
Total Hygienes 15 37.5













Four motivators and four hygienes were used in classification

of satisfying incidents for Directors of the Union, with achievement

and interpersonal relations being the most prominent.

Interviews with the Director of the Union produced 38 dissatisfying

incidents. Of the factors used in these classifications, 32 were

hygienes (84.2%) and six were motivators (15.8%). The dissatisfying

incidents, as they were classified according to specific motivators

and hygienes, are represented in Table 16.


Table 16

Factors Categorized in the Dissatisfying Critical Incidents of DOUs


% of Total
Factors Number (N = 38)

Motivators

Recognition 1 2.6
Achievement 4 10.5
Possibility of Growth 1 2.6

Hygienes

Interpersonal Relationships 11 28.9
Supervision-Technical 5 13.1
Company Policy and
Administration 8 21
Working Conditions 8 21

Total Motivators 6 15.8
Total Hygienes 32 84.2











Ho6 For the Directors of Unions (DOUs), there is no

difference in the contributions of motivators and

hygienes to dissatisfying situations associated

with major job functions of the position.

The data in Table 16 show a strong tendency in the direction of

support for Herzberg's theory that hygienes are the primary cause of

dissatisfying critical incidents. Of the 38 classifications of dis-

satisfying incidents, 32 or 84.2% were hygienes and six or 15.8% were

motivators. These data produced a significant difference between

motivators and hygienes (X2 (1) = 17.78, p < .001) which caused the

null hypothesis to be rejected. While no test for significance was

completed for individual job functions, Tables 17-22 show that in

five of the six major job functions; selection, supervision, and

evaluation of staff, the development and implementation of policy,

the management of physical facilities, financial management, and the

coordination with other campus agencies, hygienes contributed more

than motivators to dissatisfying critical incidents. For the function

of planning the union program, motivators contributed more than hygienes

to the dissatisfying incidents of DOUs. The range of motivators to

hygienes in the individual job functions for DOUs was 40 to 100.

Of the 32 dissatisfying incidents which were classified with

hygienes, eleven were classified as interpersonal relationships, eight

each were classified as company policy and administration and working

conditions, and five were classified as supervision-technical. The

six motivators among the classifications of dissatisfying incidents













involved four mentions of achievement and one each of recognition

and the possibility of growth.

In addition to reviewing the position of DOU as a whole, each

major job function was observed to determine, for each function, the

relative contribution of motivators and hygienes. Table 17 presents

a summary of the data for the first major job function of the DOUs,

the selection, supervision and evaluation of staff.


Table 17

Distribution of Motivators and Hygienes in the Selection,
Supervision, and Evaluation of Staff by DOUs


Type of Incident

Satisfying Dissatisfying
Type of Classification (% of Satisfying) (% of Dissatisfying)

Motivators 3 1
(42.8) (14.3)

Hygienes 4 6
(57.2) (85.7)



Of the seven satisfying critical incidents in the area of selection,

supervision and evaluation of staff, three were classified with

motivators--one each as recognition, achievement and responsibility.

lygienes were used in four classifications of these incidents, all of

which were classified as interpersonal relationships. The seven











dissatisfying incidents in the area of selection, supervision and

evaluation of staff included six classifications with hygienes and

one with motivator. The hygienes included three classified as inter-

personal relationships, two as company policy and administration and

one as supervision-technical. The single motivator among the dis-

satisfying incidents in this job function was classified as achievement.

The second major job function of the DOUs involves the development

and implementation of policy for the Union. Table 18 presents a summary

of the classification of critical incidents in the area of policy

development and implementation.


Table 18

Distribution of Motivators and Hygienes in the Formulation
and Implementation of Policies Concerninq Student
Organizations and Use of Facilities
by DOUs


Type of Incident

Satisfying Dissatisfying
Type of Classification (% of Satisfying) (% of Dissatisfying)

Motivators 6 1
(85.7) (14.3)

Hygienes 1 6
(14.3) (85.7)













Of the seven satisfying critical incidents, six were classified

as motivators. The motivators included two classified as achievement,

two as responsibility, and one each as recognition and the work itself.

The one hygiene among the satisfying incidents in the area of policy was

classified as supervision-technical. The dissatisfying critical

incidents in the area of policy included six classified with hygienes

and one with a motivator. Of the six hygienes, three were supervision-

technical, two were working conditions and one was company policy and

administration. The single motivator to be used in classifying this

group of incidents was achievement.

The third major job function of the DOUs is management of the

physical facilities. Table 19 presents a summary of the classification

of critical incidents in the area of physical facilities.


Table 19

Distribution of Motivators and Hygienes in the Management
of Physical Facilities by DOUs


Type of Incident

Satisfying Dissatisfying
Type of Classification (% of Satisfying) (% of Dissatisfying)

Motivators 7 0
(100) (0)

Hygienes 0 7
(0) (100)














All seven positive critical incidents in the area of physical

facilities were classified with motivators. Included were four mentions

of recognition, two of achievement and one of the work itself. The

classifications of dissatisfying critical incidents in this area

were all a result of hygienes and included four mentions of working

conditions, two of company policy and administration and one of inter-

personal relationships.

The fourth major job function of the DOUs is the coordination

with other campus agencies. Table 20 presents a summary of the classi-

fication of critical incidents in this area.


Table 20

Distribution of Motivators and Hygienes in the Coordination
With Other Campus Agencies by DOUs


Type of Incident

Satisfying Dissatisfying
Type of Classification (% of Satisfying) (% of Dissatisfying)

Motivators 3 0
(37.5) (0)
Hygienes 5 5
(62.5) (100)


Of the eight classifications of seven satisfying critical incidents,

motivators accounted for three, all of which were classified as achievement.














Hygienes were involved in five classifications of these satisfying

incidents, including three classified as interpersonal relationships

and two as company policy and administration. The five dissatisfying

incidents in this area were all classified with the hygiene inter-

personal relationships.

The fifth major job function of the DOUs involves the planning

of the union program. Table 21 presents a summary of the classifications

of critical incidents in this area.


Table 21

Distribution of Motivators and Hygienes in the Planning
of the Union Program by DOUs


Type of Incident

Satisfying Dissatisfying
Type of Classification (% of Satisfying) (% of Dissatisfying)

Motivators 3 3
(60) (50)

Hygienes 2 2
(40) (50)



Of the five satisfying incidents in the area of program planning,

three were classified with motivators. These included two classified

as achievement and one as responsibility. The two hygienes involved in

the classifications of these satisfying incidents included one each














classified as interpersonal relationships and supervision-technical.

The dissatisfying incidents were comprised of two classified with

motivators and two with hygienes. The motivators included one each

classified as achievement and the possibility of growth, while the

hygienes involved one each classified as working conditions and

company policy and administration.

The sixth major job function of the DOUs is the financial

management of the union operation. Table 22 presents a summary of the

classifications of critical incidents in this area.


Table 22

Distribution of tlotivators and Hygienes in the Financial
Management of the Union by DOUs


Type of Incident

Satisfying Dissatisfying
Type of Classification (% of Satisfying) (% of Dissatisfying)

Motivators 4 1
(57.1) (14.3)

Hygienes 3 6
(42.9) (85.7)


Of the seven satisfying critical incidents in the area of financial

management, four were classified with motivators and three with

hygienes. The motivators included three classified as achievement











and one as recognition, while the hygienes were comprised of two

classified as interpersonal relationships and one as working conditions.

The dissatisfying critical incidents involved six classified with

hygienes and one with a motivator. The six hygienes included two each

classified as interpersonal relationships and company policy and

administration and one each classified as supervision-technical and

working conditions. The single motivator involved in the classification

of these dissatisfying incidents was recognition.

In review, data for the DOUs support Herzberg's theory, but not

fully at a significant level.


The Director of Housing


Five of the persons in this group held the title Director of

Housing (DOH), with one of those also being Associate Vice President

for Student Affairs. The other two held the titles of Director of

Housing and Food Service and Director of Resident Student Development.

The average length of service in the position was 5.7 years with the

range being from 1 to 11 years. Five of the group had been promoted

to the position from within the institution, while two came from other

schools. Of the seven Directors of Housing, five have earned the

master's degree, while one has the bachelor's degree and one a doctor

of philosophy.

The major job functions derived for the Director of Housing

were: supervision, selection and training of staff, maintenance of













physical plant, financial planning and budgeting, formulation and

implementation of housing policies, communication with parents and

students, security, and coordination with other campus agencies.

Only one of the Directors of Housing suggested a change, that being

the addition of the development of educational programs.

For the DOHs, the most frequent cause of satisfying incidents

were professional achievements, personal relationships with students

and other staff, and the nature of the job itself. Also important

were the recognition received and the working conditions. Dissatisfying

incidents for the DOHs were caused most frequently by the necessity

and frustration of working within the bureaucracy of the state. Secondary

causes, closely linked to the primary cause, were working conditions

and interpersonal relationships.

Discussion of the seven major job functions with the Directors

of Housing produced 50 classifications of satisfying incidents. Of

the factors used in the classification of these incidents, 31 or 62%

were motivators and 19 or 38% were hygienes. Table 23 presents the

satisfying incidents of DOHs as they were classified according to

specific motivators and hygienes.

Ho7 For the Director of Housing (DOH) there is no

difference between the contributions of motivators

and hygienes to satisfying situations associated

with the major job functions of the position.












Table 23

Factors Categorized in the Satisfying


Incidents of DOHs


% of Satisfying
Factor Number Incidents (N = 50)

Motivators

Recognition 7 14
Achievement 11 22
Possibility of Growth 1 2
Opportunity for Advancement 1 2
Responsibility 3 6
The Work Itself 8 16

Hygienes

Interpersonal Relationsihps 9 18
Supervision-Technical 1 2
Company Policy and
Administration 2 4
Working Conditions 7 14

Total Motivators 31 62
Total Hygienes 19 38



The data in Table 23 show a tendency in the direction of support

for Herzberg's theory that motivators are the primary cause of

satisfying critical incidents. However, these data did not show a

significant difference between motivators and hygienes (X2 (1) = 2.88, ns)

and, therefore, failed to reject the null hypothesis. While no test

for significance was completed for individual job functions, Tables 25-31 show

that in six of the seven major job functions (selection, supervision and training














of staff, maintenance of physical plant, financial planning and

budgeting, formulation and implementation of housing policy, communica-

tion with parents and students, and administration of security)

motivators were classified more than hygienes in satisfying incidents.

The single job function which produced more classification of hygienes

than of motivators in the satisfying incidents of DOHs was coordination

with other campus agencies.

All six motivators were represented in the classification of

positive incidents of Directors of Housing, while four hygienes appeared.

The most prominent factors were achievement and interpersonal relation.

Interviews with the Directors of Housing produced 47 classifications

of dissatisfying incidents. Of the factors used in the classification

of these incidents, 41 were hygienes (87.2%) and six were motivators

(12.8%). The dissatisfying incidents, as they were classified ac-

cording to specific motivators and hygienes, are represented in

Table 24.

Ho8 For the Directors of Housing (DOHs) there is no

difference in the contributions of motivators and

hygienes to dissatisfying situations associated

with the major job functions of the position.

The data in Table 24 show a strong tendency in the direction of

support for Herzberg's theory that hygienes are the primary cause of

dissatisfying critical incidents. These data show a significant











difference between motivators and hygienes (X2 (1) = 26.06, p < .001),

and cause the null hypothesis to be rejected. While no test for

significance was completed for individual job functions, Tables 25-31

show that in six of the seven major job functions (selection, training

and supervision of staff, maintenance of physical plant, financial

planning and budgeting, the formulation and implementation of housing

policy, the administration of security, and coordination with other

campus agencies) hygienes were classified more than motivators in the

dissatisfying incidents of DOHs. The single job function in which

motivators contributed more than hygienes was communication with

parents and students.


Factors Categorized in t


Table 24

he Dissatisfying Incidents of DOHs


% of Dissatisfying
Factors Number Incidents (N = 41)

Motivators

Recognition 4 8.5
Achievement 2 4.2

Hygienes

Interpersonal Relationships 9 19.1
Supervision-Technical 3 6.3
Company Policy and
Administration 18 38.2
Working Conditions 10 21.2
Personal Life 1 2.1

Total Motivators 6 12.8
Total Hygienes 41 87.2














For the Director of Housing, the most frequently mentioned sources

of dissatisfaction were company policy and administration, working

conditions, and interpersonal relationships. Together, these three

factors accounted for 78.5 percent of the dissatisfying critical

incidents.

In addition to reviewing the position of Director of Housing as

a whole, the researcher observed each major job function separately

to determine the relative contribution of motivators and hygienes to

the satisfying and dissatisfying incidents in each function. Table

25 presents the data for the first major job function, the supervision

and evaluation of staff.


Table 25

Distribution of Motivators and Hygienes in the Evaluation
and Supervision of Staff by DOHs

Type of Incident

Satisfying Dissatisfying
Type of Classification (% of Satisfying) (% of Dissatisfying)

Motivators 6 1
(75) (14.3)
Hygienes 2 6
(25) (85.7)













Of eight classifications of seven satisfying incidents, six

were classified with motivators and two with hygienes. The six motivators

included three classified as the work itself and one each as opportunity

for advancement, achievement, and recognition. The two classifications

of hygienes in these satisfying incidents were one each as inter-

personal relationships and supervision-technical. The seven dis-

satisfying incidents in this job function included six classified

with hygienes and one with a motivator. Included among the hygienes

were two each classified as interpersonal relationships and company

policy and administration and one each as working conditions and

personal life.

The second major job function of the DOHs is the maintenance of

the physical plant. Table 26 presents a summary of the classifications

of critical incidents for this job function.


Table 26

Distribution of Motivators and Hygienes in the Maintenance
of Physical Plant for DOHs


Type of Incident

Satisfying Dissatisfying
Type of Classification (% of Satisfying) (% of Dissatisfying)

Motivators 4 0
(57.1) (0)
Hygienes 3 7
(42.9) (100)













Of seven satisfying critical incidents in this job function,

four were classified with motivators and three with hygienes. The

motivators included three classified as achievement and one as the

work itself, while the three hygienes were classified as working

conditions. The seven dissatisfying incidents in this job function

were all classified with hygienes; five as company policy and

administration and two as working conditions.

The third major job function of the DOHs involves financial

planning and budgeting. Table 27 presents a summary of the classifica-

tions of critical incidents for this job function.


Table 27

Distribution of Motivation and Hygienes in the Financial
Planning and Budgeting of DOHs


Type of Incident

Satisfying Dissatisfying
Type of Classification (% of Satisfying) (% of Dissatisfying)


Motivators 5 0
(62.5) (0)

Hygienes 3 7
(37.5) (100)


Of the eight classifications of seven satisfying incidents in the

area of financial planning and budgeting, five were classified with













motivators and three with hygienes. The five motivators included

one each classified as recognition, achievement, opportunity for growth,

responsibility, and the work itself, while the three hygienes were

classified as working conditions. The dissatisfying critical incidents

were classified with seven hygienes, including three as working con-

ditions, two as supervision-technical, and one each as interpersonal

relationships and company policy and administration.

The fourth major job function of the DOH's involves the formula-

tion and implementation of housing policies. Table 28 presents a

summary of the classification of critical incidents in this job function.


Table 28

Distribution of Motivation and Hygienes in the Formulation
and Implementation of Housing Policies by DOHs


Type of Incident

Satisfying Dissatisfying
Type of Classification (% of Satisfying) (% of Dissatisfying)

Motivators 6 0
(85.7) (0)
Hygienes 1 7
(14.3) (100)


In this job function the seven satisfying incidents included six

classified with motivators and one with a hygiene. The motivators for













these satisfying incidents were comprised of three classified as

achievement, two as responsibility and one as the work itself. The

single hygiene was classified as interpersonal relationships. The

classification of dissatisfying incidents was with hygienes, including

five classified as company policy and administration and one each as

interpersonal relationships and supervision-technical.

The fifth major job function of the DOHs is communication with

students and parents. Table 29 presents a summary of the classifica-

tions of critical incidents in this job function.


Table 29

Distribution of Motivators and Hygienes in the Communication
With Students and Parents by DOHs


Type of Incident

Satisfying Dissatisfying
Type of Classification (% of Satisfying) (% of Dissatisfying)

Motivators 5 4
(71.4) (57.1)

Hygienes 2 3
(28.6) (42.9)


Of the seven satisfying critical incidents for this job function,

five were classified with motivators and two with hygienes. The













motivators included four classified as recognition and one as the work

itself, while both hygienes were classified as interpersonal relation-

ships. The dissatisfying incidents in this job function were the only

ones for the DOHs in which more motivators were used than hygienes.

The four motivators used included three classified as recognition and

one as achievement. The three hygienes used included two classified

as interpersonal relationsihps and one as company policy and administration.

The sixth major job function of the DOH is the administration of

security in the residence halls. Table 30 presents a summary of the

classifications of critical incidents in this job function.


Table 30

Distribution of Motivators and Hygienes in the
Administration of Security by DOHs


Type of Incident

Satisfying Dissatisfying
Type of Classification (% of Satisfying) (% of Dissatisfying)

Motivators 4 0
(57.1) (0)

Hygienes 3 7
(42.9) (100)


Of the seven satisfying incidents for the administration of

security, four were classified with motivators and three with hygienes.













The four motivators included three classified as achievement and one

as recognition. The hygienes included two classified as interpersonal

relationships and one as working conditions. All of the dissatisfying

incidents for this job function were classified with hygienes and

included three mentions each classified as interpersonal relationships

and working conditions and one as company policy and administration.

The seventh major job function of the DOH involves coordination

with other campus agencies. Table 31 presents a summary of the classi-

fications of critical incidents in this job function.


Table 31

Distribution of Motivators and Hygienes in the Coordination
With Other Campus Agencies by DOHs


Type of Incident

Satisfying Dissatisfying
Factors (% of Satisfying) (% of Dissatisfying)

Motivators 1 1
(16.7) (20)

Hygienes 5 4
(83.3) (80)


This job function produced the greatest percentage of hygienes in

satisfying incidents in the study. Of the six satisfying incidents in

this area, only one was classified with a motivator, while five were

classified with hygienes. The single motivator used was the work itself,











while hygienes included two each classified as interpersonal relation-

ships and working conditions and one as company policy and administration.

The dissatisfying incidents included four classifications with hygienes

and one with a motivator. The hygienes included three classified as

company policy and administration and one as working conditions, while

the single motivator was classified as recognition.

In review, data for the DOHs support Herzberg's theory, but not

fully at a significant level.


The Director of Counseling


The Directors of Counseling (DOC) provide the greatest degree of

homogeneity among the several administrative types. In terms of

background and title, they are quite similar. Three persons in the

sample held the title, Director of University Counseling Center and one

person each held the title, Director of Development Center,

Coordinator of Counseling Services, Director of Counseling and Director

of Counseling and General Studies. The average tenure in the position

for the sample was 2.5 years. Three persons in the sample came from

other institutions. Of those, two had directed counseling activities

at the institution from which they came. Four persons in the sample

had been promoted to the position from within the institution. All

seven directors held the doctor of philosophy, five in clinical psychology

and two in counseling psychology.

The five major job functions derived from the literature for the

Director of Counseling were accurate in the view of the persons in the













sample. The only suggestion for change was the suggestion, by one

director, that university-wide administration did take a sizable

portion of his time.

Personal achievement was by far the most predominant cause of

satisfying critical incidents among DOCs. Incidents effecting this

factor appeared in each of the five major job functions for at least

one member of the sample. The nature of the work itself, the second

leading cause of satisfying incidents was also mentioned by at least

one member of the sample in each of the major job functions. Dis-

satisfying incidents for DOCs were most often caused by the necessity

of operating in a bureaucracy and working conditions. The latter was

mentioned by at least one member of the sample for each major job

function.

Interviews with the DOCs produced 36 classifications of satisfying

incidents. Of the factors utilized in these classifications, 30

were motivators (83.3%) and six were hygienes (16.7%). The satisfying

incidents of DOCs, as they were classified according to specific

motivators and hygienes, are presented in Table 32.

Ho9 For the Directors of Counseling (DOCs), there is

no difference in the contributions of motivators and

hygienes to satisfying situations associated with

major job functions of the position.













Table 32

Factors Classified in the Satisfying


Incidents of DOCs


% of Satisfying
Factors Number Incidents (N = 36)

Motivators

Recognition 4 11.1
Achievement 14 38.8
Possibility of Growth 2 5.5
Responsibility 1 2.7
The Work Itself 9 25

Hygienes

Interpersonal Relationships 4 11.1
Supervision-Technical 1 2.7
Working Conditions 1 2.7

Total Motivators 30 83.3
Total Hygienes 6 16.7



The data in Table 32 show a strong tendency toward support of

Herzberg's theory that motivators are the primary cause of satisfying

critical incidents. These data show a significant difference

between motivators and hygienes (X2 (1) = 16.0, p < .001), and cause

the null hypothesis to be rejected. While no test for significance

was completed for individual job functions, Tables 34-38 report that

in each of the major job functions of the DOCs, motivators contributed

more than hygienes to satisfying critical incidents. The range of

percentages for motivators in the individual job function was 57.1 to

100.














The interviews with DOCs produced 34 classifications of dis-

satisfying incidents. Of the factors utilized in these classifications,

27 were hygienes (79.4%) and seven were motivators (20.6%). The

dissatisfying incidents of DOCs, as they were classified according to

specific motivation and hygienes, are presented in Table 33.


Table 33

Factors Classified in the Dissatisfying


Incidents of DOCs


% of Dissatisfying
Factors Number Incidents (N = 34)

Motivators

Achievement 3 8.8
Possibility of Growth 1 2.9
The Work Itself 3 8.8

Hygienes

Interpersonal Relationships 3 8.8
Supervision-Technical 3 8.8
Company Policy and
Administration 11 32.3
Working Conditions 10 29.4

Total Motivators 7 20.6
Total Hygienes 27 79.4


Ho10
Ho


For Directors of Counseling (DOCs) there is no

difference in the contributions of motivators and

hygienes to dissatisfying situations associated

with the major job functions of the position.













The data in Table 33 show a strong tendency in the direction of

support for Herzberg's theory that hygienes are the primary cause of

dissatisfying critical incidents. These data show a significant dif-

ference between motivators and hygienes (X2 (1) = 13.36, p <.001),

causing the null hypothesis to be rejected. While no test for significance

was completed for individual job functions, Tables 34-38 show that in

each of the major job functions of the DOCs, hygienes contributed

more than motivators to dissatisfying critical incidents. The range

of percentages for hygienes in the individual job functions was 57.1

to 100.

In addition to viewing the position of DOC as a whole, the

researcher observed each major job function separately to determine

the relative contribution of motivators and hygienes to the satisfying

and dissatisfying incidents in each function. Table 34 presents the

data for the first job function, supervision, coordination and evalua-

tion of staff by the DOCs.


Table 34

Distribution of Motivation and Hygienes in the Supervision,
Coordination, and Evaluation of Staff by DOCs


Type of Incident

Satisfying Dissatisfying
Type of Classification (% of Satisfying) (z of Dissatisfying)

Motivators 6 1
(85.7) (14.3)
Hygienes 1 6
(14.3) (85.7)












Of the seven satisfying incidents in this job function, six

were classified with motivators and only one was classified with a

hygiene. Included among the motivators were two classified as the

work itself and one each as recognition, achievement, possibility of

growth and responsibility. The single hygiene among the satisfying

incidents was classified as interpersonal relationships. The dis-

satisfying incidents included six classified with hygienes and one with

motivators. The hygienes were comprised of three classified as

company policy and administration and one each as interpersonal rela-

tionships, supervision-technical, and working conditions. The single

motivator among the dissatisfying incidents was classified as achieve-

ment.

The second major job function of the DOCs is the counseling of

individual students. Table 35 presents a summary of the classifications

of critical incidents in this job function.


Table 35

Distribution of Motivation and Hygienes in the Counseling of
Individual Students by DOCs


Type of Incident

Satisfying Dissatisfying
Type of Classification (% of Satisfying) (% of Dissatisfying)

Motivators 9 2
(100) (28.6)
Hygienes 0 5
(0) (71.4)













All of the nine classifications of seven satisfying incidents in

this job function resulted from motivators. Included in these classi-

fications were four classified as achievement, two each as recognition

and the work itself and one as the possibility for growth. The dis-

satisfying incidents in this job function included five classified

with hygienes and two with motivators. Among the hygienes were two

each classified as company policy and administration and working

conditions and one as supervision-technical. The motivators classified

in these dissatisfying incidents were two classified as the work itself.

The third major job function of the DOCs involves coordination

with other campus agencies. Table 36 presents a summary of the classi-

fications of critical incidents in this job function.


Table 36

Distribution of Motivation and Hygienes in the Coordinating
Activities With Other Campus Agencies by DOCs


Type of Incident

Satisfying Dissatisfying
Type of Classification (% of Satisfying) (% of Dissatisfying)

Motivators 4 0
(66.6) (0)

Hygienes 2 7


(33.4)


(100)













Of the six satisfying incidents in this job function, four were

classified with motivators and two with hygienes. The four motivators

included three classified as achievement and one as the work itself,

while the two hygienes were both classified as interpersonal relation-

ships. All seven classifications of dissatisfying incidents were

classified with hygienes. Among these were four classified as company

policy and administration, two as interpersonal relationships, and one

as working conditions.

The fourth major job function of the DOCs is the conduct and

stimulation of research activities. Table 37 presents a summary of

the classifications of critical incidents in this job function.


Table 37

Distribution of Motivators and Hygienes in the Conduct
and Stimulation of Research by DOCs


Type of Incident

Satisfying Dissatisfying
Type of Classification (% of Satisfying) (% of Dissatisfying)

Motivators 7 3
(100) (42.9)

Hygienes 0 4
(0) (57.1)














Each of the seven satisfying critical incidents in this job function

were classified with motivators. Included were three each classified

as achievement and the work itself and one as recognition. The dis-

satisfying incidents included four classified with hygienes and three

with motivators. The hygienes included three classified as working

conditions and one as supervision-technical, while the motivators were

comprised of one each classified as achievement, possibility of growth,

and the work itself.

The fifth major job function of the DOCs involves planning and

budgeting for the counseling program. Table 38 presents a summary

of the classifications of the critical incidents in this job function.


Table 38

Distribution of Motivators and Hygienes in the Program
Development, Planning, and Budgeting by
by DOCs


Type of Incident

Satisfying Dissatisfying
Type of Classification (% of Satisfying) (% of Dissatisfying)

Motivators 4 1
(57.2) (16.7)

Hygienes 3 5
(42.8) (83.3)




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