Citation
Job satisfaction determinants for selected administrators in Florida's community colleges and universities : an application of Herzberg's motivator-hygiene theory

Material Information

Title:
Job satisfaction determinants for selected administrators in Florida's community colleges and universities : an application of Herzberg's motivator-hygiene theory
Creator:
Burr, Russell Kenneth
Publication Date:
Language:
English
Physical Description:
xiii, 152 leaves : ; 28 cm.

Subjects

Subjects / Keywords:
College admission ( jstor )
Community colleges ( jstor )
Corporate policies ( jstor )
Job satisfaction ( jstor )
Motivation ( jstor )
Motivation research ( jstor )
Salary administration ( jstor )
Students ( jstor )
Universities ( jstor )
University administration ( jstor )
College administrators -- Florida ( lcsh )
Dissertations, Academic -- Educational Administration and Supervision -- UF ( lcsh )
Educational Administration and Supervision thesis Ph. D ( lcsh )
Job satisfaction ( lcsh )
Miami metropolitan area ( local )
Genre:
bibliography ( marcgt )
theses ( marcgt )
non-fiction ( marcgt )

Notes

Thesis:
Thesis--University of Florida.
Bibliography:
Includes bibliographical references (leaves 147-151).
Additional Physical Form:
Also available online.
General Note:
Typescript.
General Note:
Vita.
Statement of Responsibility:
by Russell Kenneth Burr.

Record Information

Source Institution:
University of Florida
Holding Location:
University of Florida
Rights Management:
Copyright [name of dissertation author]. Permission granted to the University of Florida to digitize, archive and distribute this item for non-profit research and educational purposes. Any reuse of this item in excess of fair use or other copyright exemptions requires permission of the copyright holder.
Resource Identifier:
023404645 ( ALEPH )
06952928 ( OCLC )

Downloads

This item has the following downloads:


Full Text
















JOB SATISFACTION DETERMINANTS FOR SELECTED ADMINISTRATORS
IN FLORIDA'S COMMUNITY COLLEGES AND UNIVERSITIES:
AN APPLICATION OF HERZBERG'S MOTIVATOR-HYGIENE THEORY







BY

RUSSELL KENNETH BURR


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



UNIVERSITY OF FLORIDA


1980















To my loving parents,

Russell K. Burr and Gladys M. Burr

of Camano Island, Washington
















ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

As is true for most complex endeavors, the completion of

this study reflects the contributions of many individuals.

Grateful appreciation is expressed to the members of my com-

mittee, Dr. James L. Wattenbarger (Chairman), Dr. Robert 0.

Stripling, and Dr. C. Arthur Sandeen, for their continuous

support, guidance, and encouragement.

I am indebted to Dr. Max Dertke, Dr. Charles Hewitt,

Dr. Larry Scott, and Linda Erikson for their empathy and

understanding. I would like to express my sincere appre-

ciation to Marie Dence, Dr. Edward S. Blankenship, and Dr.

David Harrison who provided moral support throughout the

entire process. I would also like to thank Mrs. Connie

Stepp for her stalwart efforts and those dedicated profes-

sionals who agreed to participate in this study.


iii















TABLE OF CO;'-TE['TS

Page

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS ...........................................i i i

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

ABSTRACT ................................................... xi

CHAPTER

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

The Research Objectives.......................... 4
Hypotheses ......................................... 5
Justification.................................. 10
Definition of Terms............................ .. 11
Organization of Subsequent Chapters ............ 13

II REVIEW OF LITERATURE ............................ 14

Traditional Theory-Hoppock's (1935) Theory.... 14
Herzberg's (M-I1) Theory........................ 18
Analysis of Research Related to Hlerzberg's
(M-H) Theory ................................. 32
Major Criticisms of Herzberg's Theory .......... 37
Two Alternative Theories of Motivation
Related to Job Satisfaction .................. 40
The Application of Herzberg's Theory to
Individuals in Educational Settings .......... 49
Summary ......................................... 56

III METHODOLOGY .................................... 58

Selection of Sample ............................. 58
Instrumentation................................. 59
Data Collection ................................ 59
Data Analysis.................................. 60
Assumptions ............ ...........................61
Delimitations and Limitations ................... 61
















IV PRESENTATION AND ANALYSIS OF DATA ............... 63

Data Relating to Positions ...................... 65
Director of Admissions ....................... 65
Registrar .... ................................. 77
Director of Placement........................ 90
Comparisons Between Community College
and University Positions ...................... 103
Directors of Admissions:
Determinants of Job Satisfaction .........103
Determinants of Job Dissatisfaction ...... 105
Registrars:
Determinants of Job Satisfaction .........106
Determinants of Job Dissatisfaction ...... 108
Directors of Placement:
Determinants of Job Satisfaction .........109
Determinants of Job Dissatisfaction ...... 111
Comparisons Among Positions .................... 113
Determinants of Job Satisfaction:
Community College Positions Compared........ 113
Determinants of Job Dissatisfaction:
Community College Positions Compared........ 115
Determinants of Job Satisfaction:
University Positions Compared ...............116
Determinants of Job Dissatisfaction:
University Positions Compared ...............117
Comparisons Between Community College
and University Groups .......................... 120
Determinants of Job Satisfaction: Commu-
nity College Compared to University .........120
Determinants of Job Dissatisfaction: Commu-
nity College Compared to University ......... 122
Discussion..................................... 124

V SUMMARY, CONCLUSIONS, IMPLICATIONS, AND
RECOMMENDATIONS FOR FURTHER RESEARCH ...........130

Major Findings................................. 131
Conclusions .................................... 133
Implications................................... 135
Recommendations for Further Research ........... 136


Page


CHAPTER















APPENDICES


A. INTERVIEW GUIDE FOR DIRECTOR OF
ADMISSIONS ..................................... 138

B. INTERVIEW GUIDE FOR REGISTRAR................... 140

C. INTERVIEW GUIDE FOR DIRECTOR OF
PLACEMENT ...................................... 142

D. VERIFICATION OF MAJOR JOB FUNCTIONS:
DIRECTOR OF ADMISSIONS ........................ 144

E. VERIFICATION OF MAJOR JOB FUNCTIONS:
REGISTRAR ...................................... 145

F. VERIFICATION OF MAJOR JOB FUNCTIONS:
DIRECTOR OF PLACEMENT ......................... 146


REFERENCES ................................................ 147

BIOGRAPHICAL SKETCH ...................................... 152


Page














LIST OF TABLES


Page

TABLE

1. Contribution of Motivators and IHygienes for
Directors of Admissions in Selecting,
Supervising, Coordinating, and Evaluating 67
Staff .............................................

2. Contribution of Motivators and Hygienes
for Directors of Admissions in Recruitment,
Selection, and Admission of Undergraduate 68
and/or Graduate Students .........................

3. Contribution of Motivators and IHygienes for
Directors of Admissions in the Development 69
of Admissions Criteria ...........................

4. Contribution of Motivators and Hygienes for
Directors of Admissions in Professional and 71
Civic Activities. .................................

5. Contribution of Motivators and Hygienes for
Directors of Admissions in Counseling and 72
Advising Students, Parents, and Others ...........

6. Contribution of Motivators and Hygienes for
Directors of Admissions in Program Planning 73
and Budgeting.....................................

7. Relative Contribution of Motivators and
IHygienes to Satisfying Incidents for Directors of 75
Admissions across Job Functions ..................

8. Relative Contribution of Motivators and
Hygienes to Dissatisfying Incidents for 77
Directors of Admissions across Job Functions.....

9. Contribution of Motivators and IHygienes for
Registrars in the Selection, Supervision, 79
Coordination, and Evaluation of Staff ............

10. Contribution of Motivators and Hygienes for
Registrars in their Responsibility for Student 80
Enrollment and Records ...........................


vii













LIST OF TABLES (continued)


Page

TABLE

11. Contribution of Motivators and Hygienes for
Registrars in Registration, Scheduling, and
Record-Maintenance ................................ 82

12. Contribution of Motivators and Hygienes for
Registrars in Professional and Civic Activities... 83

13. Contribution of Motivators and Hygienes for
Registrars in Counseling, Advising, Students
Parents, and Others............................... 84

14. Contribution of Motivators and Hygienes for
Registrars in Program Planning and Budgeting...... 86

15. Relative Contribution of Motivators and Hygienes
to Satisfying Incidents for Registrars across
Job Functions ..................................... 87

16. Relative Contribution of Motivators and Hygienes
to Dissatisfying Incidents for Registrars across
Job Functions ..................................... 89

17. Contribution of Motivators and Hygienes for
Directors of Placement in the Selection, Super-
vision, Coordination,and Evaluation of Staff ...... 91

18. Contribution of Motivators and Hygienes for
Directors of Placement in Recruiting Activities
and the Maintenance of Related Files and Records.. 93

19. Contribution of Motivators and Hygienes for
Directors of Placement in Providing Job Place-
ment Services ..................................... 94

20. Contribution of Motivators and Hygienes for
Directors of Placement in Professional and
Civic Activities .................................. 95

21. Contribution of Motivators and Hygienes for
Directors of Placement in Counseling and
Advising Students, Parents and Others ............. 97


viii













LIST OF TABLES (continued)


Page
TABLE

22. Contribution of Motivators and Hygienes for
Directors of Placement in Program Planning
and Budgeting...................................... 98

23. Relative Contribution of Motivators and Hygienes
to Satisfying Incidents for Directors of Place-
ment across Job Functions......................... 100

24. Relative Contribution of Motivators and Hygienes
to Dissatisfying Incidents for Directors of
Placement across Job Functions..................... 102

25. Comparison of Motivators and Hygienes in the
Satisfying Incidents for Community College
and University Directors of Admissions ............104

26. Comparison of Motivators and Hygienes in the
Dissatisfying Incidents for Community College
and University Directors of Admissions ............106

27. Comparison of Motivators and Hygienes in the
Satisfying Incidents for Community College
and University Registrars. ...................... .. 107

28. Comparison of Motivators and Hygienes in the
Dissatisfying Incidents for Community College
and University Registrars......................... 109

29. Comparison of Motivators and Hygienes in the
Satisfying Incidents for Community College
and University Directors of Placement .............110

30. Comparison of Motivators and Hygienes in the
Dissatisfying Incidents for Community College
and University Directors of Placement ............. 112

31. Comparison of Motivators and Hygienes in the
Satisfying Incidents among Community College
Positions .......................................... 114















LIST OF TABLES (continued)


Page

TABLE

32. Comparison of Motivators and Hygienes in the
Dissatisfying Incidents among Community College
Positions .......................................... 116

33. Comparison of Motivators and Hygienes in the
Satisfying Incidents among University Positions .... 118

34. Comparison of Motivators and IHygienes in the
Dissatisfying Incidents among University Posi-
tions .............................................. 119

35. Comparison of Motivators and Hygienes in Satis-
fying Incidents for Community College and Univer-
sity Groups ........................................ 121

36. Comparison of Motivators and Hygienes in Dissatis-
fying Incidents for Community College and Univer-
sity Gruups. .......................................... 123

37. Frequency Distribution of Motivators for Satis-
fying and Dissatisfying Incidents .................. 126

38. Frequency Distribution of Hygienes for Satisfying
and Dissatisfying Incidents ........................ 127














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


JOB SATISFACTION DETERMINANTS FOR SELECTED ADMINISTRATORS
IN FLORIDA'S C.)I,1UNITY COLLEGES A;iJU UNIVERSITIES:
AN APPLICATION OF HERZBERG'S MOTIVATOR-HYGIENE THEORY

BY

RUSSELL KENNETH BURR

AUGUST 1980

Chairman: Dr. James L. Wattenbarger
Major Department: Educational Administration and Supervision

The specific purposes of this study were to: (1) apply

Herzberg's Motivator-Ilygiene Theory to examine the job content

and context factors related to job attitudes for community

college and university Directors of Admissions, Registrars,

and Directors of Placement; (2) identify specific motivators

and hygienes relevant to these administrative positions; (3)

verify support for the application of Herzberg's theory to an

educational setting; and (4) compare the determinants of job

satisfaction and dissatisfaction among these positions and

across the two types of institutions.

Respondents' attitudes were measured within the theoret-

ical framework of Herzberg's Motivator-Hygiene Theory and were

classified using the job factor definitions developed by Herz-

berg. The job content factors (motivators) related to job








satisfaction include achievement, recognition, the work itself,

responsibility, advancement, and the possibility of personal

growth. The job context factors (hygienes) related to job

dissatisfaction include salary, interpersonal relationships,

supervision-technical, company policy and administration,

work conditions, personal life, status, and job security.

Four Directors of Admissions, eight Registrars, and five

Directors of Placement were interviewed at three Florida com-

munity colleges and three universities in Florida's State Uni-

versity System (SUS). These positions were selected because

they exemplify mid-level administrative positions in an educa-

tional setting.

The researcher conducted semi-structured interviews with

the respondents in which they were asked to recall and describe

incidents in which they felt exceptionally good or bad about

their job related to specific job functions. During the inter-

views, the researcher recorded on the interview guides the

respondent's verbal descriptions of the satisfying and dissatis-

fying incidents. Following the interviews, the verbal descrip-

tions of the critical incidents were coded as having been influ-

enced by one of the six motivators or eight hygienes. More

than one factor was assigned to a critical incident if appropri-

ate.

Frequency distributions and percentages were computed for

the motivators and hygienes mentioned in the satisfying and

dissatisfying incidents. The chi-square statistic was used to

test 18 hypotheses for the presence of significant differences

xii








between the contributions of motivators and hygienes for each

position, among positions, and between positions at the two

types of institutions.

For each of the positions studied, motivators contributed

significantly more to job satisfaction than did hygienes, there-

by supporting the applicability of Herzberg's theory. Across

the three job positions, the determinants of job satisfaction

included the following motivators (M) and hygienes (H), in order

of significance: achievement (M), recognition (M), the work

itself (M), interpersonal relationships (H), the possibility

of personal growth (M), and responsibility (M). Across the

three positions, the determinants of job dissatisfaction, in

order of significance included the following motivators (M)

and hygienes (H): company policy and administration (H), the

presence or absence of achievement (M), interpersonal relation-

ships (H), salary (11), supervision-technical (H), and the

work itself (M).

No significant difference was found in the relative

contribution of motivators and hygienes to the job satisfaction

and dissatisfaction between community college and university

mid-level administrators for the positions studied. A signifi-

cant difference was found in the relative contribution of

motivators and hygienes to the job satisfaction and dissatis-

faction among the community college positions. A significant

difference was found in the relative contributions of motivators

and hygienes among the university positions.


xiii













CHAPTER I
INTRODUCTION

Employee motivation and job satisfaction have been the

topics of countless studies since Hoppock's original study in

1935 of the relationship between demographic variables and job

satisfaction. The importance of the benefits to be gained by

the institution from motivational research should not be under-

estimated. The effects of a dissatisfied, poorly motivated

work force have been related to low productivity, high turnover,

absenteeism, and counterproductive behavior. In a rapidly

changing, technocratic society, where the individual is dwarfed

by the size of the institutions and jobs have been routinized

for the sake of organizational efficiency, the ability to iden-

tify the determinants of job satisfaction is paramount.

,In 1957, Herzberg, Mausner, Peterson, and Capwell present-

ed a review of literature on job attitudes which covered more

than 2,000 articles spread over a period of approximately 50

years. Based on the results of this review, Herzberg, Mausner,

and Snyderman began to develop a theory of job satisfaction and

job dissatisfaction which came to be known as Herzberg's

Motivator-Hygiene (M-H) Theory. Unlike the traditional theory

of job satisfaction, which assumed that the opposite of job sa-

tisfaction was job dissatisfaction, Herzberg et al., theorized

that "the factors involved in producing job satisfaction (and

motivation) are separate and distinct from the factors that lead






2
to job dissatisfaction" (Herzberg, Mausner, & Snyderman, 1959,

p. 56). According to Herzberg's theory, the opposite of job

satisfaction is not job dissatisfaction; it is an absence of

job satisfaction. Conversely, the opposite of job dissatisfac-

tion is not job satisfaction; it is an absence of job dissatis-

faction.

During the 1970s, Herzberg's Motivator-Hygiene (M-I1) Theory

of job satisfaction and job dissatisfaction was applied exten-

sively to different target populations in different educational

settings. Avakian (1971) identified the factors relating to

the job satisfaction and dissatisfaction of faculty members se-

lected from two liberal-arts colleges and two universities in

northeastern New York. Aebi (1973) tested two different method-

ologies to determine the applicability of Herzberg's theory

to collegiate administrators. Jackson (1975) conducted a com-

parative study of university administrators' perceptions related

to Herzberg's theory to identify the job factors that may pro-

vide for the job satisfaction of administrators according to

their job level. More recently, Carey (1979) identified moti-

vating and dissatisfying factors for state department of edu-

cation professional staff members.

Several studies have also been conducted to investigate

the determinants of job satisfaction for educational personnel

in Florida. Lyons (1971) investigated the extent to which Flor-

ida public junior college personnel exhibited constellations of

job attitudes consistent with Herzberg's theory. Thomas (1977)

applied Herzberg's theory to the chief academic officer, busi-

ness officer, and student personnel officer at six large and







six small Florida community colleges. Groseth (1978) in-

vestigated job satisfaction among selected student affairs

administrators at seven institutions in the State University

System (SUS) of Florida. Kozal (1979) applied a reformulated

Herzberg theory to selected administrative affairs staff in

the SUS.

The previously cited studies (Aebi, 1973; Avakian, 1971;

Carey, 1979; Groseth, 1978; Jackson, 1975; Kozal, 1979; Lyons,

1971; and Thomas, 1977) limited their investigations to the

job attitudes of individuals employed in comparable positions

at the same type of institution. Therefore, there has been

a lack of information regarding the application of Herzberg's

theory to individuals holding comparable positions in different

educational settings (e.g., the determinants of job satisfaction/

dissatisfaction for directors of admissions in community colleges

compared to directors of admissions in universities). In addi-

tion, the previously cited studies investigated the job attitudes

of individuals who held relatively high positions in a hierarchy.

Only Groseth (1978), Jackson (1975), Lyons (1970), and Kozal

(1979) included in their target populations, sub-populations of

individuals who held positions that have been defined by Scott

as "mid-level" administrative positions (1979, p. 90). There-

fore, there has been a lack of current research regarding the

determinants of job satisfaction/dissatisfaction which focuses

on individuals in an educational setting who are not catego-

rized as upper-level administrators.








The Research Objectives

The purpose of this study was to apply Herzberg's

Motivator-Hygiene Theory to examine job satisfaction and

dissatisfaction factors among the Directors of Admissions, the

Registrars, and the Directors of Placement at selected public

community colleges and four-year institutions in the Florida

State University System (SUS). More specifically, this study

sought to address the following questions:

1. For the positions identified, which of Herzberg's

motivators and hygienes are relevant?

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 for these positions

support lHerzberg's theory?

4. What differences, if any, exist in the frequency

with which Herzberg's motivators and hygienes occur

in the critical incidents for:

a. community college Directors of Admissions com-

pared to their university counterparts,

b. community college Registrars compared to their

university counterparts,

c. community college Directors of Placement com-

pared to their university counterparts,

d. community college positions compared to each

other,

e. university positions compared to each other, and








f. community college administrators as a group

compared to the university administrators as a

group.

Hypotheses

As a means of addressing the many relationships inherent

in the research objectives of this study, data were collected

and analyzed to test the following null hypotheses:

For the Directors of Admissions
1
H0 There is no difference in the contribution of

motivators and hygienes to satisfying situations

associated with the major job functions of the

position.

102 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:

1. selection, supervision, coordination, and

evaluation of staff;

2. responsibility for the recruitment, selection,

and admission of undergraduate and/or graduate

students;

3. participation in the development of admissions

criteria;

4. professional and civic activities;

5. counseling and advising students, parents of







students, and other interested groups or

individuals; and

6. participation in program planning and

budgeting.

For the Registrars

H03 There is no difference in the contribution of

motivators and hygienes to satisfying situations

associated with the major job functions of the

position.
4
H0 There is no difference in the contribution of

motivators and hygienes to dissatisfying situations

associated with the major functions of the position.

Those functions, as identified in the literature,

include:

1. selection, supervision, coordination, and

evaluation of staff;

2. responsibility for student enrollment and

records;

3. undergraduate and/or graduate registration;

scheduling of classes, examinations and class-

room facilities; and maintenance of student re-

cords;

4. professional and civic activities;

5. counseling and advising students, parents of

students, and other interested groups or in-

dividuals; and

6. participation in program planning and

budgeting.









For the Directors of Placement

H0 There is no difference in the contribution

of motivators and hygienes to satisfying situations

associated with the major job functions of the

position.

H06 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:

1. selection, supervision, coordination, and

evaluation of staff;

2. supervision of on-campus recruiting activities

by prospective employers, and maintenance of

related files and records;

3. provision of placement services to undergrad-

uates, graduates, and alumni which may include

part-time jobs within or outside the institution;

4. professional and civic activities;

5. counseling and advising students, parents of

students, and other interested groups or indi-

viduals; and

6. participation in program planning and budgeting.

H07 There is no difference in the contribution of moti-

vators and hygienes to satisfying situations associa-

ted with the major job functions of the positions of








community college Directors of Admissions com-

pared to their university counterparts.

H08 There is no difference in the contribution of

motivators and hygienes to dissatisfying situations

associated with the major job functions of the po-

sitions of community college Directors of Admissions

compared to their university counterparts.

H09 There is no difference in the contribution of

motivators and hygienes to satisfying situations

associated with the major job functions of the

positions of community college Registrars compared

to their university counterparts.

Ho010O There is no difference in the contribution of

motivators and hygienes to dissatisfying situa-

tions associated with the major job functions of

the positions of community college Registrars

compared to their university counterparts.

H011 There is no difference in the contribution of

motivators and hygienes to satisfying situations

associated with the major job functions of the

positions of community college Directors of Place-

ment compared to their university counterparts.

I1ol2 There is no difference in the contribution of

motivators and hygienes to dissatisfying situations

associated with the major job functions of the po-

sitions of community college Directors of Placement

compared to their university counterparts.








t013 For the three community college positions,

there is no difference in the contribution of

motivators and hygienes to satisfying situations

associated with the major job functions of the

positions.

11014 For the three community college positions, there is

no difference in the contribution of motivators

and hygienes to dissatisfying situations associated

with the major job functions of the positions.

11015 For the three university positions, there is no

difference in the contribution of motivators and

hygienes to satisfying situations associated with

the major job functions of the positions.

i016 For the three university positions, there is no

difference in the contribution of motivators and

hygienes to dissatisfying situations associated

with the major job functions of the positions.

H017 For the community college administrators as a

group compared to the university administrators

as a group, there is no difference in the contri-

bution of motivators and hygienes to satisfying

situations associated with the major job functions

of the positions.

H018 For the community college administrators as a group

compared to the university administrators as a group,

there is no difference in the contribution of motiva-

tors and hygienes to dissatisfying situations asso-

ciated with tne major job functions of the positions.








Justification

Unlike the original flerzberg et al. (1959) study of mid-

level administrators, which included interviews with 203 engi-

neers and accountants, educational researchers have concentrated

on the determinants of job satisfaction and dissatisfaction for

top-level administrators. There has been a lack of research

providing a comparison of current data regarding determinants

of job satisfaction and dissatisfaction for mid-level admninis-

trators in Florida's community colleges and SUS institutions.

-I'he need for this type of information will assume increasing

importance in the 1980s as reduced job mobility presents insti-

tutions with administrators who must remain productive in their

present positions for longer periods of time.

The degree to which administrators in Florida's community

colleges and universities in the SUS continue to find job satis-

faction will clearly need to be addressed further in the 1980s.

If the decisions and policies regarding this critical human re-

source are to be effective, they must be based on current, rel-

evant data. The present study aimed to extend prior research

by:

1. adding to the theoretical base of general knowledge

about the determinants of job satisfaction and dis-

satisfaction for mid-level administrators in an edu-

cational setting;

2. providing comparative data to prior research regarding

educational personnel;






11

3. identifying, for the selected sample, job content

and context factors which contribute to their job

attitudes;

4. providing implications for the role of higher-level

administrators regarding employee supervision, work

structure, and participative decision-making; and

by,

5. identifying areas in which further research is

needed.

Definition of Terms

Community college. An educational institution which

offers courses and programs confined to the first two years

of post-secondary education. The institution is supported

by public tax funds and governed by an elected or politically

appointed board.

Critical incident. The identification by the respondent

of specific job events that led to extreme job satisfaction

or dissatisfaction and the resulting description of these

even ts.

Director of Admissions. The administrative official

with principal responsibility for tne recruitment, selection,

and admission of undergraduates. Participates in the develop-

ment of admissions criteria, and coordinates review of, and

decisions on, applications. May also be responsible for the

admission of graduate and professional students or for schol-

arship administrations or similar function. Usually reports

to the Chief Student Life Officer.







12
Director of Placement. Directs the operation of a student

placement office to provide job placement and career counseling

services to undergraduates, graduates, and alumni. Supervises

on-campus recruiting activities by prospective employers, and

the maintenance of related files and records. May also be re-

sponsible for the placement of students in part-time jobs within

or outside the institution. Usually reports to the Chief Stu-

dent Life Officer.

Factors. Any of six motivators or eight hygienes of

described job facets which may contribute to job satisfaction

or dissatisfaction as developed by Herzberg et al. (1959).

Hygienes. Components of the job situation which lead to

job dissatisfaction such as company policy and administration,

supervision, interpersonal relationships, status, job security,

salary, and working conditions.

Major job functions. Those duties of each position iden-

tified by Jones and Drews (1978) as being the most common and

constituting the major work-load of the position.

Motivators. Components of the job situation which lead

to job satisfaction such as achievement, responsibility, the

possibility of growth or advancement, and the work itself.

Registrar. The administrative official with principal

responsibility for student enrollment and records. Functions

typically include undergraduate registration; scheduling of

classes, examinations and classroom facilities; maintenance

of student records and related matters. Usually reports to

the Chief Academic Officer.







Organization of Subsequent Chapters

Chapter II presents a review of literature related to job

satisfaction in terms of: the dichotomy between traditional

theory and Herzberg's theory, an analysis of related research,

major criticisms of Herzberg's theory and Herzberg's (1976)

rebuttal, alternative theories of motivation, and the applica-

tion of Herzberg's theory to individuals in an educational set-

ting. The methodology utilized in this study is presented in

Chapter III. The results of the present study are presented

and discussed in Chapter IV. Chapter V presents a summary

of the findings, conclusions indicated by the results, and

recommendations for further research.














CHAPTER II
REVIEW OF THE LITERATURE

The review of literature related to this study is present-

ed in six sections. The first section discusses the traditional

theory of job satisfaction exemplified by Hoppock's (1935) study.

The second section describes Herzberg's Motivator-Hygiene Theory

(1959), an alternative to Hoppock's traditional theory. An

analysis of research related to Herzberg's theory is presented

in the third section. This is followed by an analysis of major

criticisms of Herzberg's theory and presents the rebuttals by

Herzberg (1976) to those criticisms. Section five describes

two alternative theories of motivation. The final section dis-

cusses the application of Herzberg's theory to individuals in

educational settings.

Traditional Theory--Hoppock's (1935) Study

What is job satisfaction? Beginning with Hoppock's (1935)

study, in which demographic variables were compared to a measure

of overall job satisfaction, research on job satisfaction has

been conducted to:

1. measure job satisfaction in different need areas

(Porter, 1961);

2. develop instruments to measure job satisfaction, e.g.,

Porter's Need Satisfaction Questionnaire (Porter, 1961),

and the Job Descriptive Index developed at Cornell

University in 1963;







3. compare job satisfaction with different variables

such as hierarchical position in the organization

(Ebeling, King, & Rogers, 1979), job seniority (Ronen,

1978), job longevity (Katz, 1978), and discrepancies

between perceived and preferred rewards (Tannenbaum

& Kuleck, 1978); and

4. develop theories of job satisfaction (Herzberg, Mausner,

& Snyderman, 1959; Maslow, 1954; Vroom, 1964).

Two different theoretical perspectives of job satisfaction

can be identified from a review of the related literature:

theories that are unidimensional and theories that are multi-

dimensional. Traditional theory depicts job satisfaction and

job dissatisfaction on a single continuum (Wood & LeBold, 1967,

p. 1). Measured on a single continuum, the opposite of job satis-

faction is job dissatisfaction. A worker would experience job

dissatisfaction if any positive job-related or environmentally

related element offering satisfaction to the worker were to be

removed. 'In contrast to this traditional theory, which is uni-

dimensional, Herzberg's Motivator-Hygiene (M-H) Theory depicts

job satisfaction and job dissatisfaction as two distinct con-

tinua. That is, the opposite of job satisfaction is not job

dissatisfaction; it is an absence of job satisfaction. Con-

versely, the opposite of job dissatisfaction is not job satis-

faction; it is an, absence of job dissatisfaction.

A comparison of the two theories is presented in Figure 1,

which was adapted by the researcher from those presented in a

similar fashion by Herzberg (1976, p. 84), Thomas (1977, p. 22)

and Groseth (1978, p. 25).








Traditional Theory

job satisfaction---needs of man---job dissatisfaction

IIerzberg's Theory

(motivator needs)

job human no job
satisfaction---activity needs---satisfaction

(hygiene needs)

job animal no job
dissatisfaction---avoidance needs---dissatisfaction

Figure 1
A comparison of the traditional continuum to Herzberg's continue.

The essence of traditional theory is incorporated in

Hoppock's (1935) study of employed and unemployed adults in

New Hope, Pennsylvania. Hoppock defined job satisfaction as
"any combination of psychological, physiological, and environ-

mental circumstances that causes a person to truthfully say 'I

am satisfied with my job'" (1935, p. 47). On the basis of res-

ponses to his survey instrument, adults were categorized into

three groups: satisfied, indifferent or uncertain, and dissatis-

fied. Hoppock, who has been described as the pioneer in the

study of job satisfaction, viewed job satisfaction and job dis-

satisfaction as components on the same continuum. This single-

continuum construct has been identified as "global" satisfaction

and is a fundamental tenet of traditional theories of job satis-

faction (Yoder, 1975, p. 6.27). According to Hoppock,

a person may be satisfied, dissatisfied, indifferent
or uncertain. Hle may be satisfied with some aspects
of his job and dissatisfied with others; he may combine
such specific satisfactions and dissatisfactions into
a composite satisfaction with the job as a whole. Such
satisfaction may vary from day to day, and it may be
rationalized; it is not identical with interest. The








mechanics of satisfaction may eventually be
explained by physiological chemistry, but
external stimuli in the job situation will
probably help to determine the result. Com-
plete satisfaction may be both impossible and
undesirable. (Hoppock, 1935, p. 44)

A person who experiences job dissatisfaction, according

to Hoppock, is "one who has indicated a distinct and conscious

discontent with his job as a whole" (1935, p. 6). In a com-

parative study of satisfied and dissatisfied teachers, Hoppock

identified the following discriminants:

1. The satisfied showed fewer indications of emotional

maladjustment;

2. The satisfied were more religious;

3. The satisfied enjoyed better human relationships with

superiors and associates;

4. More of the satisfied were teaching in cities that

had a population greater than 10,000;

5. The difference in salaries was not statistically

significant;

6. The satisfied felt more successful;

7. No measurement of aptitude or proficiency was attempted;

8. Family influence and social status were more favorable

among the satisfied;

9. More of the satisfied "selected" their vocation;

10. No teacher "disliked" children, and four-fifths of

the dissatisfied found their work "interesting";

11. Monotony and fatigue were reported more frequently

by the dissatisfied; and

12. The satisfied were 7.5 years older than the dissatisfied.

(Hoppock, 1935, pp. 25-40)








In Hoppock's study, respondents expressed overall job

satisfaction directly by answering questions designed to in-

vestigate their global attitudes toward the job; whether the

respondent liked or disliked it. The primary usefulness of

this approach, according to Herzberg et al. (1959, p. 5), is

in the investigation of the relationships between the demo-

graphic variables. In Hoppock's study, for example, the over-

all job satisfaction of individuals was compared to the demo-

graphic variables of age, sex, educational level, social class,

occupation, earnings, marital status, and IQ scores.

Herzberg's (M-H) Theory

Unlike Hoppock, who advocated research on the measurement

of the sources of global satisfaction, other theorists such

as Herzberg, Mausner, Peterson, and Capwell (1957), discerned

two sources of job satisfaction: intrinsic and extrinsic. Yoder

summarized the distinction between these two sources of job

satisfaction as

an intrinsic source pertaining to the "substance" of
the job (i.e., the kind of job it is, the type of work
that is done, what the job entails) and an extrinsic
source pertaining to the "accidents" of the job (i.e.,
pay, co-workers, supervision, location, etc.). (Yoder,
1975, p. 6.27)

Herzberg, Mausner, Peterson and Capwell (1957) reviewed

the literature on job attitudes, covering more than 2,000 arti-

cles written over a period of approximately 50 years. Based

on the results of this review, Herzberg, Mausner and Snyderman

began to develop a theory of job satisfaction and job dissatis-

faction which has come to be known as Herzberg's Motivator-

Hygiene (M-ii) Theory. AAn important basis of this theory is

the concept that two different sets of needs in man are







19
involved in producing feelings of job satisfaction and job dis-

satisfaction. As described by Herzberg,

one set of needs can be thought of as stemming from
from his animal nature--the built-in drive to avoid
pain from the environment, plus all the learned drives
which become conditioned to the basic biological needs.
For example, hunger, a basic biological drive, makes
it necessary to earn money, and then money becomes a
specific drive. The other set of needs relates to that
unique human characteristic, the ability to achieve
and through achievement, to experience psychological
growth: in the industrial setting, they are the job
content. Contrariwise, the stimuli inducing pain-
avoidance behavior are found in the job environment.
(Herzberg, 1976, p. 58)

,According to Herzberg's 1959 theory, which he developed

further in 1966, job satisfaction and job dissatisfaction can

be measured on two disparate scales such that "the factors

involved in producing job satisfaction (and motivation) are

separate and distinct from the factors that lead to job dis-

satisfaction" (Herzberg, Mausner, & Snyderman, 1959). The

opposite of job satisfaction is not job dissatisfaction; it

is an absence of job satisfaction. Conversely, the opposite

of job dissatisfaction is not job satisfaction, it is an ab-

sence of job dissatisfaction. Job satisfaction, as determined

by the employee, encompasses the feelings that the employee has

toward the job content (intrinsic). In other words, job con-

tent factors are "motivators" which are the personal growth

factors that are intrinsic to the job. These include achieve-

ment, recognition for achievement, responsibility, the possi-

bility of growth or advancement, and the work itself. Job dis-

satisfaction encompasses the employee's feelings toward job

context (extrinsic). Job context factors are "hygienes" which








are the factors that are extrinsic to the job such as company

policy and administration, supervision, interpersonal relation-

ships, status, job security, salary, and working conditions.

*The primary function of "hygienes" is to prevent or avoid pain

or hunger or to fulfill the other basic biological needs of man.

Herzberg used the term "hygienes" to describe factors in the

work context that act "in a manner analogous to the principles

of medical hygiene" (Herzberg, Mausner, & Snyderman, 1959, p.

113). That is, hygiene is preventative, not curative, in re-

moving health hazards from the environment of man. In compari-

son, "motivators" function to provide the individual with per-

sonal psychological growth.? Herzberg compared the dynamics of

hygiene to the dynamics of motivators as follows:

The dynamics of hygiene

The psychological basis of hygiene needs is the

avoidance of pain from the environment.

There are infinite sources of pain in the environment.

Hygiene needs are cyclical in nature.

Hygiene needs have an escalating zero point.

Hygiene improvements have short-term effects.

There is no final answer to hygiene needs.

The dynamics of motivation

The psychological basis of motivation is the need

for personal growth.

There are limited sources of motivator satisfaction.

Motivator improvements have long-term effects.

Motivators are additive in nature.








Motivator needs have a non-escalating zero point.

There are answers to motivator needs
(Herzberg, Mausner, & Snyderman, 1959, p. 101)


Herzberg's (M-H) theory is based on the original Herzberg

et al. study in 1959 of 203 male, mid-level managers who were

engineers and accountants selected from companies in Pittsburgh.

In addition to demographic data, information was collected from

the respondents in the form of their responses to a semi-struc-

tured interview. This interview technique was similar to Flana-

gan's "critical-incident" interview technique. In selecting

this technique, Herzberg et al. criticized alternative method-

ologies because, as they stated:

A major failing of most previous work in job attitudes
has been its fragmentary nature. Studies in which fac-
tors affecting a worker's attitude toward his job were
intensively investigated rarely included any information
as to the effects of these attitudes. Studies of effects,
similarly, rarely included any data as to the origin of
the attitudes. In most cases in which either factors
or effects were studied there was inadequate information
about the individuals concerned, their perceptions, their
needs, their patterns of learning. The primary need that
emerged was one for an investigation of job attitudes in
toto, a study in which factors, attitudes, and effects
would be investigated simultaneously. The basic concept
was that the factors-attitudes-effects (F-A-E) complex
needs study as a unit. (Herzberg, Mausner, & Snyderman,
1959, p. 11)

Herzberg's interview technique differed from Flanagan's

in that lHerzberg's goal was to determine the respondent's judge-

ment of his or her psychological state during a critical event

(an internal criterion) whereas Flanagan's goal was to evaluate

job performance or the development of a selection device which

was external to the psychological processes of the individual

reporting (Herzberg, Mausner, & Snyderman, 1959, p. 12). A







"critical event" or "critical incident" is the respondent's

description of a time period when the respondent felt particu-

larly good or bad about his or her job. For example, respon-

dents are asked to

think of a time when you felt exceptionally good or
exceptionally bad about your job either in your pres-
ent job or any other you have had. This can be either
the "long-range" or the "short-range" kind of situation,
as I have just described it. Tell me what happened.
(Herzberg, Mausner, & Snyderman, 1959, p. 141)

-.The modified "critical-incident" method yielded responses

from the respondents that were verbal descriptions of their

satisfactions and dissatisfactions regarding specific events

that they had identified in their jobs. The term "sequence

of events" was applied by Herzberg et al. to all responses

given by the respondents (Herzberg, Mausner, & Snyderman, 1959,

p. 23). A sequence of events could be short-range or long-

range. A short-range sequence of events "was applied to anec-

dotal, narrowly delimited sets of events during which exception-

al feelings were reported" (Herzberg et al., 1959, p. 23). On

the other hand, the feelings in a long-range sequence of events

lasted for longer period of time and were "consistently high

or low, despite possible fluctuations of feelings or even minor

inversions within these periods" (Herzberg et al., 1959, p. 23).

Eight possible permutations of an attitude's duration

existed from three dimensions: (1) high or low feelings, (2) the

duration of the feelings, and (3) the relationship between the

range or the sequence and the duration of the feelings (Herzberg

et al., 1959, p. 43). The four groups of attitude duration re-

ported by Herzberg were:









1. long duration of feelings from high long-range
sequences, high short-range sequences;

2. long duration of feelings from low long-range
sequences, low short-range sequences;

3. short duration of feelings from high short-range
sequences; and

4. short duration of feelings from low short-range
sequences. (Herzberg et al., 1959, p. 43)



The two fundamental hypotheses tested by Herzberg et al.

in their 1959 study were that:



1. factors leading to positive attitudes and those
leading to negative attitudes would differ, and

2. the factors and effects involved in long-range
sequences of events would differ from those in
short-range sequences. (p. 29)



Specifically, Herzberg et al. wanted to identify the

relationships among the variables that they defined as "first-

level factors," "second-level factors," and "effects" (Herz-

berg et al., 1959, p. 28). They based their selection of

variables on the following criteria:


1. First-level factors: a description of the objective
occurrences during the sequence of events, with
special emphasis on those identified by the respon-
dent as being related to his attitudes. Example: a
promotion.

2. Second-level factors: these categorize the reasons
given by the respondents for their feelings; they
may be used as a basis for inferences about the
drives or needs which are met or which fail to be
met during the sequence of events. Example: a
respondent's answer, "I felt good because the promo-
tion meant I was being recognized."








3. Effects: the sole change was the introduction
of probe questions searching into attitudinal
effects beyond the behavioral level involved
in productivity, turnover, or interpersonal
relations. Specification of mental health
effects was also attempted. (Herzberg et al.,
1959, p. 28)

,First-level factors as "an objective element of the sit-

uation in which the respondent finds a source for his good

or bad feelings about the job" (Herzberg et al., 1959, p. 44)

include: recognition, achievement, possibility of growth,

advancement, salary, interpersonal relations, supervision-

technical, responsibility, company policy and administration,

working conditions, the work itself, factors in personal life,

status, and job security. As defined by Herzberg et al. (1959,

p. 44), the criteria for each category of the job attitude

factors can be described as follows:

1. Recognition. The major criterion for this factor

was some act of recognition (notice, praise, or blame) toward

the respondent by some other individual in the work environment

such as a client, a peer, a professional colleague, or the gen-

eral public.

2. Achievement. This factor included successful comple-

tion of a job, solutions to problems, vindication, and seeing

the results of one's work. Conversely, this factor also in-

cluded failure or the absence of achievement.

3. Possibility of growth. This factor included any

mention by the respondent of the likelihood that the individual

would be able to move onward or upward in the organization or

that the personal skills of the individual could be advanced.









4. Advancement. This factor was used only when there

was an actual change in the status or position of the respon-

dent in the company.

5. Salary. This factor included all sequences of events

in which compensation played a role.

6. Interpersonal relations. This factor included in-

stances involving some actual verbalizations about the charac-

teristics of the interaction between the person speaking and

some other individual. Three categories were included in this

factor: those involving superiors, those involving subordinates,

and those involving peers.

7. Supervision-technical. This factor included a se-

quence of events in which the competence, incompetence, fair-

ness, or unfairness of the supervisor was mentioned. For

example, statements about the supervisor's willingness or

unwillingness to delegate responsibility or to teach were

classified under this factor.

8. Responsibility. This factor included a sequence of

events in which the respondent reported that he derived satis-

faction from being given responsibility for his own work or

for the work of others or from being given a new responsibility.

9. Company policy and administration. This factor in-

cluded a sequence of events in which some overall aspect of

the company was a factor. Two types of overall company pol-

icies and administrative characteristics were identified by

Herzberg: (1) the adequacy or inadequacy of company management

or organization, and (2) the positive or negative effects of

the company's personnel policies.









10. Working conditions. This factor included any reports

in which the physical conditions of work, the amount of work,

or the facilities available for doing the work were mentioned

in the sequence of events described by the respondent.

11. The work itself. This factor included any reports

in which the work itself was mentioned as a source of the re-

spondent's good or bad feelings about actually doing the work.

12. Factors in personal life. This factor included any

situations in which some aspect of the job affected the re-

spondent's personal life in such a way that the effect was

related to the respondent's feelings about the job.

13. Status. This factor was coded only when the respon-

dent actually mentioned some sign or appurtenance of status

as a factor in the feelings about the job (e.g., being

allowed to drive a company car, etc.).

14. Job security. This factor included objective signs

of the presence or absence of job security such as company

stability or instability or tenure.

Second-level factors are the respondents' own verbal

accounts of the feelings, needs, and value systems that led to

their attitudes toward their jobs at the time the events were

being described (IIerzberg et al., 1959, pp. 49-50). Thus,

the second-level factors described by Ilerzberg et al. were:

1. Feelings of recognition.

2. Feelings of achievement.

3. Feelings of possible growth, blocks to growth, first-
level factors perceived as evidence of actual growth.









4. Feelings of responsibility, lack of responsibility
or diminished responsibility.

5. Group feelings: feelings of belonging or isolation,
socio-technical or purely social.

6. Feelings of interest or lack of interest in the
performance of the job.

7. Feelings of increased or decreased status.

8. Feelings of increased or decreased security.

9. Feelings of fairness or unfairness.

10. Feelings of pride, inadequacy, or guilt.

11. Feelings about salary. (llerzberg, 1968, p. 50)



The final component under analysis in Herzberg's theory

was the effect of job attitudes on the criterion measures of

performance, turnover, mental health, interpersonal relation-

ships, and attitude. Three types of performance effects were

identified by the respondents: (1) work was either better or

poorer than usual; (2) changes in the rate of work, but not

its quality; or (3) changes in the quality of work (Herzberg

et al., 1959, pp. 51-54).

The effect of job attitudes on turnover ranged from indi-

viduals who reported that they were so satisfied with their

jobs that they turned down attractive offers elsewhere to indi-

viduals who felt so dissatisfied that they quit (Herzberg et al.,

1959, p. 52). The effect of job situations on mental health fell

into two categories: positive or negative. The positive effects

included "statements of improvement in tensions or symptoms, of

gaining weight when underweight, or of a cessation of suchharmful







activities as excessive drinking and smoking" (Herzberg et

al., 1959, p. 53). The negative mental health effects were clas-

sified into three categories based on reports by the respondents:

(1) the diagnosis of a pathology by a physician which the respon-

dent related to the tensions of the job; (2) physiological

changes related to job tensions such as headaches, nausea, etc.;

and (3) diffuse symptoms resulting from tension (Herzberg et al.,

1959, p. 53). The respondents reported that their interpersonal

relationships were affected by their job attitudes (i.e., "as a

result of good feelings about his job, he had become 'more bear-

able at home' and found new pleasure in his relationship with

his children") (Herzberg et al., 1959, p. 54). Regarding atti-

tudinal effects, Herzberg et al. reported that "a person's feel-

ings about his job led to changed attitudes toward himself, his

colleagues, his profession, or the company for which he worked"

(1959, p. 54).

With respect to the fulfullment of needs or wants, Herzberg

et al. stated that

Afor the kind of population that we sampled, and pro-
Sably for many other populations as well, the wants of
employees divide into two groups. One group revolves
around the need to develop in one's occupation as a
source of personal growth. The second group operates
as an essential base to the first and is associated
with fair treatment in compensation, supervision,
work conditions, and administrative practices. The
fulfullment of the needs of the second group does not
motivate the individual to high levels of job satis-
faction, and, . to extra performance on the job.
All we can expect from satisfying the needs for hygiene
is the prevention of dissatisfaction and poor job per-
formance. (Herzberg et al., 1959, p. 115)







29
Ilerzberg summarized the results of his study of job atti-

tudes as follows:

When our respondents reported feeling happy with their
jobs, they most frequently described factors related to
their tasks, to events that indicated to them that they
were successful in the performance of their work, and
to the possibility of professional growth. Conversely,
when feelings of unhappiness were reported, they were
not associated with the job itself but with conditions
that "surround" the doing of the job. (Herzberg et al.,
1959, p. 113)

The relationships demonstrated by Herzberg et al. in 1959

were supported further by an analysis of factors affecting job

attitudes in 12 additional investigations (Herzberg, 1968, p.

57). The 1,685 employees interviewed in those studies included

lower-level supervisors, professional women, agricultural admini-

strators, men about to retire from management positions, hospi-

tal maintenance personnel, manufacturing supervisors, nurses,

food handlers, military officers, engineers, scientists, house-

keepers, teachers, technicians, female assembly-line workers,

accountants, Finnish foreman, and Hungarian engineers (Herzberg,

1968, p. 57). \Herzberg reported that 81% of the 1,753 events

on the job that led to extreme satisfaction were identified as

motivators compared to 19% that were hygienes (1968, p. 57).

In addition, 69% of the 1,844 events on the job that led to

extreme dissatisfaction were identified as hygienes compared to

31% that were motivators (Herzberg, 1968, p. 57).

AAs can be expected, the "fit" between the motivators and

job satisfaction or the hygienes and job dissatisfaction is not

perfect. Motivators are mentioned sometimes by respondents in

terms of job dissatisfaction and hygienes sometimes are







30
mentioned by respondents in terms of job satisfaction. To il-

lustrate, the job factor achievement (a motivators) was charac-

terized in 41% of the 1,753 events on the job that led to

extreme satisfaction. However, the same factor was also

characterized in 11% of the 1,844 events on the job that led

to extreme dissatisfaction. rThe job factor salary, which is

categorized as a hygiene, is paradoxical because it was

mentioned by respondents with approximately the same frequency

in critical incidents related to job satisfaction as it was

mentioned relative to job dissatisfaction. Upon closer

examination, HIerzberg et al. explained that salary sometimes

was found to contribute to job satisfaction because salary often

accompanied a person's achievement or was related to recognition

(Herzberg et al., 1959, p. 83). On the other hand, when salary

was mentioned by the respondents in terms of job dissatisfaction,

salary was related to company policy and administration. This

occurred primarily when the respondents believed that increases

in salary were not administered properly.

Herzberg's analysis of these 12 investigations further dem-

onstrated that the respondents' feelings of job satisfaction

could be attributed to the job content factors (motivators),

which include achievement, recognition, the work itself, respon-

sibility, advancement, and growth. The respondents' feelings of

job dissatisfaction could be attributed to the job context factors

(hygienes) which include company policy and administration, super-

vision, relationships with supervisors, working conditions, salary,

relationships with peers, personal life, relationships with sub-

ordinates, status, and job security (Herzberg, 1968, p. 57).










The major themes inherent in Herzberg's Motivator-Hygiene

(M-H) Theory are that

1. Man has two distinct systems of needs;

a. biological needs, and

b. psychological needs;

2. Job satisfaction and job dissatisfaction relate to

the fulfullment of these two distinct systems of

needs;

a. job satisfaction is related to the fulfillment

of the psychological growth needs in the job

content (motivators)

b. job dissatisfaction is related to the failure

to fulfill the biological needs in the job con-

text (hygienes);

3. The dynamics of motivators and hygienes are different

because:

a. the presence of motivators tends to boost job

satisfaction, however,

b. when workers are not satisfied with hygienes,

this becomes the major source of job dissatis-

faction, but satisfaction with hygienes does not

lead to job satisfaction; and

4. Job satisfaction and job dissatisfaction are not

polar opposites on the same continuum;

a. the opposite of job satisfaction is not job dis-

satisfaction; it is an absence of job satisfaction,

whereas







32

b. the opposite of job dissatisfaction is not job satis-

faction; it is an absence of job dissatisfaction.

Analysis of Research Related to
Herzberg's (M-H) Theory

Herzberg's theory can be considered to be controversial.

It has been one of the most frequently investigated theories in

the literature on motivation and job satisfaction. The present

section discusses the controversy surrounding Herzberg's theory

through an analysis of related research. Major criticisms of

Herzberg's theory and rebuttals by Herzberg et al. to those

criticisms are discussed in the next section.

According to Kerlinger, "the basic aim of science is theory."

Kerlinger defined theory as

a set of interrelated constructs(concepts), definitions,
and propositions that present a systematic view of phe-
nomena by specifying relations among variables, with the
purpose of explaining and predicting phenomena. (Kerlinger,
1973, p. 8)

Traditionally, the "value" of a theory is often determined

by its ability to explain, predict, control, and generate further

research. If this is true, the value of Herzberg's theory is

evidenced in part by the volume and different types of research

that have been conducted to investigate the theory. For example,

attempts have been made by researchers to "reconcile" Herzberg's

theory with traditional theory (Hazer, 1976; Soliman, 1970).

Herzberg's theory has also been applied to different populations

of employees in different job settings and countries (Herzberg,

1968, p. 57).

Of special interest to the present study have been the ap-

plications of Herzberg's theory to populations selected from







33
different educational settings. Herzberg's theory has been

applied to teachers and to faculty members (Bishop, 1970;

Avakian, 1971); to undergraduate students (Gluskinos & Wainer,

1971); to adult and vocational students (Magoon & James, 1978;

Walsh, 1971); to state department educational staff (Carey, 1979);

and to university and community college administrators (Aebi,

1973; Groseth, 1978; Jackson, 1975; Kozal, 1979; Lyons, 1971;

Ohanesian, 1975; Thomas, 1977). These educational applications

are described in the final section of this chapter.

In addition, there has been a great deal of research re-

ported in the literature which can be classified as critical

analyses of Herzberg's theory (e.g., Bobbitt & Behling, 1972a,

1972b; Ewen, 1964; Ewen, Smith, Hulin, & Locke, 1966; Fried-

lander, 1964; Graen, 1966; ilalpern, 1966; Hinrichs & Misch-

kind, 1967; Locke, 1972; Szura & Vermillion, 1975; Wood &

Le3old, 1967). The primary focus of this type of research,

summarized below, has been to prove, disprove, or to test dif-

ferent aspects of Herzberg's Theory.

Ewen (1964) conducted an exploratory study to determine

the generality of Herzberg's (M-1l) theory. Responses from two

groups of full-time life-insurance agents (total N= 1,021) to

a four-point anonymous attitude scale were obtained and factor-

analyzed. Ewen's results were inconclusive because, while he

identified partial support for Herzberg's theory, Ewen concluded

that "there is as yet no justification for generalizing the

Herzberg results beyond the situation in which they were ob-

tained" (p. 163). yEwen was critical of Herzberg's methodology







34

because of what he described as "the narrow range of jobs in-

vestigated, the use of only one measure of job attitudes, the

absence of any validity and reliability data, and the absence

of any measure of overall job satisfaction" (p. 161).

Friedlander (1964) administered two questionnaires to

80 subjects in which the importance of various job character-

istics to satisfaction and dissatisfaction was compared.

Friedlander's results indicated that "satisfaction and dis-

satisfaction are, for the most part, unrelated and not comple-

mentary functions, rather than negatively related poles on a

single bipolar continuum" (p. 388). Therefore, Friedlander

concluded that the results of studies and theories which uti-

lized a single satisfaction-dissatisfaction continuum were

questionable.

Ewen, Smith, Hulin, and Locke (1966) reported the results

of an "empirical" test of Herzberg's (M-H) theory. Several

hypotheses for which HLerzberg's theory and traditional theory

make different predictions were tested. The Job Descriptive

Index (JDI) had been developed by this group of researchers

at Cornell University in 1963. -.The JDI was used as the basis

to test these different predictions. However, neither Herzberg's

theory nor the traditional theory was supported by the data.

Graen (1966) performed a two-way analysis of variance on

selected a priori contrasts on the data from the study by Ewen,

Smith, Hulin, and Locke (1966). Graen concluded that the re-

sults supported the traditional theory and argued against Herz-

berg's theory.






35

Hlalpern (1966) tested the ratings of four motivator job

aspects, four hygiene aspects and overall job satisfaction

which were obtained from 93 male subjects who were equally

satisfied with both the motivator and hygiene aspects of their

jobs.-iHalpern found support for Herzberg's theory in that

"two of the job aspects (work itself and the opportunity for

achievement), both motivators, were sufficient to account for

the variance in overall satisfaction" (1966, p. 198). Although

Halpern tested ratings of satisfaction,'ie did not test ratings

of dissatisfaction.

;I1Iinrichs and Mischkind (1967) did not find support for

Herzberg's theory when they used his theoretical framework to

compare the salient reasons for current job satisfaction for

high- and low-satisfaction respondents. Specifically, they

tested two hypotheses: (1) that motivators would be mentioned

primarily in both cases by people with high overall satisfaction

when asked to identify things in their jobs that influence

them in positive and negative ways; and (2) that hygiene fac-

tors would be mentioned primarily in both cases by people low

on overall job satisfaction. 'Crigaliunas and Wiener (1976, p.

278) criticized this study on the grounds that Hinrichs and

Mischkind attempted to use Herzberg's theoretical framework

to measure "overall job satisfaction"--a concept that does not

exist in Herzberg's theory.

Darrow (1972) tested Herzberg's theory within a closed

organization by administering the Job Factor Questionnaire

(an instrument designed to measure the contribution of the







36

motivator and hygiene factors to positive and negative job

attitudes) and the Job Descriptive Index (an instrument de-

signed to measure overall job satisfaction) to 160 military

officers.' Darrow's results partially supported Herzberg's

theory. However, Darrow's use of the Job Descriptive Index

as a measure of "overall job satisfaction" may not have been

appropriate.

Bobbitt and Behling (1972a) tested two hypotheses de-

rived from Vroom's explanation of Herzberg's theory. Vroom

(1964, p. 129) offered an alternative to Herzberg's findings

by explaining that defensive processes within the individual

respondent could account for the obtained differences between

stated sources of satisfaction and dissatisfaction and that

individuals are more likely to attribute the causes of satis-

faction to their achievements and to attribute their dissatis-

factions to the work environment. Bobbitt and Behling (1972a)

tested these hypotheses on three groups of supervisors by

establishing conditions that would evoke defensive reactions

to half of each group and examining their responses to deter-

mine if they varied in the manner predicted by Vroom when com-

pared to control groups. \.B3obbitt and Behling concluded that

"neither of Vroom's hypotheses was supported indicating that

Vroom's explanation is not a tenable alternative to that of

Herzberg" (1972a, p. 24).

Locke criticized Bobbitt and Behling's (1972a) study

which rejected Vroom's explanation because of what hle de-

scribed as

1. an inadequate definition of defensiveness;






37
2. their a priori assumption of the validity of Herzberg's
categorization system;

3. the lack of evidence regarding how their subjecJs per-
ceived the questionnaire task; and

4. the failure to integrate their results with previous
findings on the subject of defensiveness. (Locke, 1972,
p. 297)

Bobbitt and Behling defended their study by explaining that

1. they had recognized that Herzberg's definition is
idiosyncratic but pointed out the need for further
research based on the definition of defense preferred
by Locke;

2. Herzberg's methodology is adequate until an alterna-
tive methodology that explains Herzberg's results can
be identified;

3. the subjects did interpret the experimental and control
conditions as providing varying opportunities to look
good; and

4. the failure to integrate their results with previous
findings on the subject of defensiveness is a func-
tion of the differences between the two definitions
of defense mechanisms. (1972b, pp. 299-300)

Major Criticisms of Herzberg's Theory

It is difficult to draw definitive conclusions based on

prior research which sometimes supports, partially supports, or

fails to support Herzberg's theory. However, Aebi (1973) found

Herzberg's theory to be supported by the majority of 156 studies

of job satisfaction that he reviewed. Due to its non-traditional

nature and inconclusive results from the research findings, Herz-

berg's theory has generated many criticisms.

Initially, Herzberg's theory was criticized because of the

narrow range of jobs investigated, the use of only one measure

of job attitudes, the absence of validity and reliability data,

and the absence of any measure of overall job satisfaction (Ewen,

1964). Due to the number of studies that have since replicated








Herzberg's original study of engineers and accountants studying

different populations in different work settings, most of these

criticisms are moot (Herzberg et al., 1959). -However, an apparent

discrepancy exists because studies that have used the critical-

incident technique tend to support Herzberg's theory while those

that use a different method do not (Soliman, 1970, p. 453). This

has caused Herzberg's critics to claim that his theory is bound

by its methodology; that only one method, the critical-incident

method, could provide empirical support for his theory.

Herzberg's response to this criticism is that

when the critics employed another method (different
variants of the rating-scale procedure) to test the
theory, the results were not supportive. Since their
own method has not supported the Motivation-Hygiene
Theory, the critics have claimed that the theory is
wrong. This claim of course, is illogical. The fact
that another method of testing Motivation-Hygiene
Theory has not supported it is meaningless unless
it can be demonstrated that such a method is valid
and appropriate. One cannot logically employ, for
example, a typing skill test to measure IQ and use
the results to evaluate a theory of intellectual
development. (Herzberg, 1976, p. 246)

Herzberg's methodology was also criticized by Vroom (1964)

who claimed that the results of the critical-incident method

were due to defensive processes within the individual respon-

dent. Vroom said that

it is . possible that obtained differences between
stated sources of satisfaction and dissatisfaction
stem from defensiveness processes within the indivi-
dual respondent. Personsmay be more likely to attri-
bute the causes of satisfaction to their own achieve-
ments and accomplishments on the job. On the other
hand, they may be more likely to attribute their dis-
satisfaction not to personal inadequacies or deficien-
cies, but to factors in the work environment, i.e.,
obstacles presented by company policy or supervision.
(Vroom, 1964, p. 129)






39
Vroom's criticism of Herzberg's methodology was supported

by Dunnette, Campbell, and Hakel, who said that

interviews provide no safeguard against defensive
replies from the respondents; many respondents might
quite naturally tend to attribute good job events
to things they themselves had done (e.g., achieve-
ment, recognition, responsibility) and bad job events
to things outside or extrinsic to themselves (e.g.,
working conditions, supervision, company policies
and practices). If such were the case, the findings
of Herzberg, et al. speak more clearly to a basic
aspect of human nature (tendency to want to "look
good" in the eyes of others) than to motivational
or satisfying effects of different types of job
situations or environments. (Dunnette, Campbell,
& Hakel, 1967, p. 148)

Grigaliunas and Wiener (1976, pp. 290-295) contend that the

research conducted by Bobbitt and Behling (1972a) does

not substantiate the "defensiveness processes" nor the

"socialdesirability" argument as an alternative explanation

to Herzberg's theory.

A third major criticism of Herzberg's theory reported in

the literature is the theory's lack of ability to measure "over-

all job satisfaction" (Ewen, 1964; Ewen, Smith, Hulin, & Locke,

1966). Whitsett and Winslow (1976) identified this type of

criticism as the problem of evaluating one theory from a dif-

ferent theoretical perspective. They feel the Ewen et al.

criticized Herzberg's two-factor theory by trying to evaluate

it from a traditional or single-factor theory perspective.

Whitsett and Winslow explained that

the problem here is one of semantics. The essence
of the motivation-hygiene concept is that motivator
factors and hygiene factors are independent, operate
on different needs, and cannot be combined. There-
fore, M-H Theory makes no prediction about overall
anything. But let us suppose, for the sake of dis-
cussion, that M-H Theory did make predictions about
overall job satisfaction. What would it predict?








If we avoid the semantic error made in equating
satisfaction in the M-H sense and satisfaction
in the overall job satisfaction sense, it becomes
evident that M-H Theory would predict that both
motivator factors and hygiene factors contribute
to overall satisfaction. It makes no sense to
say that if a man is unhappy with his working
conditions, this will not have a negative effect
on his overall feeling toward his job. M-H Theory
would not predict this and neither, we hope, would
anybody else. (Whitsett & Winslow, 1976, p. 254)

Grigaliunas and Wiener (1976) identified three main prob-

lems from their review of the literature on the criticisms

of Herzberg's theory:

1. An apparent lack of success in developing an
appropriate technique to measure or demonstrate
bidimensionality of job feelings as an alterna-
tive to Herzberg's critical-incident approach.
The research critical of M-H Theory has relied
upon the rating-scale score --often a one-item
scale --to assess complex motivational and emo-
tional phenomena.

2. Conclusions about the validity of the M-H Theory
were made by testing hypotheses that could not
be logically derived from this theory (e.g.,
"overall satisfaction" and "importance" hypoth-
eses).

3. The results of several studies are inconclusive
and can be interpreted in alternative ways that
are not unsupportive of M-H Theory. (1976, p. 295)

Grigaliunas and Wiener conclude that "as a whole, the design,

rationale, and findings of the critical studies do not pro-

vide a strong case for refuting M-H Theory" (1976, p. 295).

Two Alternative Theories of Motivation
Related to Job Satisfaction

Sanzotta (1977) identified two general types of motiva-

tion: extrinsic and intrinsic (p. 17). Under this taxonomy,

the distinction between types of motivation is simple to

discern. Motivation is either internal to, or motivation






41
come from outside of, the organism. Therefore, according to

Sanzotta (1977) it is possible to fit the various models of

motivation into this intrinsic-extrinsic distinction (p. 18).

Models or theories of motivation which are concerned with needs,

drives, drive reduction, etc. would fit into the first catego-

ry while models or theories derived from classical and operant

conditioning would fit into the latter. This section discusses

two alternative theories of motivation related to job satisfac-

tion that fit into Sanzotta's (1977) intrinsic-extrinsic dis-

tinction and compares these theories to Herzberg's theory.

An example of need theories is Maslow's (1954) Need Hier-

archy. Maslow's theory of human motivation is a holistic-dynam-

ic theory in the "functionalist tradition of James and Dewey,

and is fused with the holism of Wertheimer, Goldstein, and Ges-

talt psychology, and with the dynamicism of Freud and Adler"

(Maslow, 1954, p. 80). In Maslow's theory, man's needs are

arranged in order in the hierarchy of prepotency as 1) physio-

logical, 2) safety, 3) belongingness and love, 4) esteem, and

5) self-actualization. Maslow (1954) theorized that the physio-

logical needs were the most prepotent. He said that "a person

who is lacking food, safety, love, and esteem would probably

hunger for food more strongly than for anything else" (Maslow,

1954, p. 82). As the physiological needs of man are met, "at

once other (and higher) needs emerge and these, rather than

physiological hungers, dominate the organism" (Maslow, 1954,

p. 83). The emerging needs become the motivators of behavior.

As soon as the needs on a lower level in the hierarchy are







42
reasonably satisfied, those on the next level will emerge as the

dominant need to be satisfied. Therefore, the satisfaction of

man's needs proceeds from the physiological needs to the need

for self-actualization. The concept of self-actualization as

defined by Maslow is "man's desire for self-fulfullment, namely,

to the tendency for him to become actualized in what he is poten-

tially" or, as more succinctly stated by Maslow, "what a man

'can' become, he 'must' be" (Maslow, 1954, pp. 91-92). Maslow's

theory is "holistic" in that: 1) needs are rarely found in iso-

lation but are found in a variety of combinations; 2) Maslow re-

jected the atomistic classification of independent needs--rather

needs are interwoven clusters; and, 3) the order of needs in the

hierarchy is different from one individual to another and from

one culture to another (Chung, 1977, p. 41).

Although attempts have been made to test Maslow's theory

empirically, Chung described the major shortcomings to be that

the multiplicity, interrelatedness, and flexibility
of the need system seems to make it difficult to ex-
perimentally test the prediction that the satisfaction
of one need causes the strength of its next higher-
order need. (1977, p. 42)

However, Chung did suggest that the hierarchical concept could

be researched using a longitudinal data-collection method.

Porter (1961) studied the perceived need satisfactions in

bottom-and middle-management jobs. Porter used a questionnaire

which was based in part on the classification system used by

Maslow. Porter's categories were arranged in approximate hier-

archical order from the lowest-order to the highest-order. How-

ever, the questionnaire did not contain the most prepotent needs

(physiological needs) because it was assumed that these needs








were adequately satisfied for managers. A second deviation

from Maslow's hierarchy was the insertion of the category

"autonomy needs" between the categories of "esteem needs" and

"self-actualization needs." The following results were reported

by Porter:

1. The vertical location of management positions
appears to be an important variable in deter-
mining the extent to which psychological needs
are fulfilled.

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

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

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

5. The higher-order need of self-actualization is
the most critical need area of those studied,
in terms of both perceived deficiency in ful-
fillment and perceived importance to the individual,
in both bottom- and middle-management. This need
is not perceived as significantly more satisfied
at the middle-management level than at the bottom-
management level. (1961, pp. 9-10)

Centers and Bugental (1966) interviewed a selected cross-

section of the working population (N= 692) with respect to their

job motivations to determine the extent to which extrinsic or

intrinsic job components were valued. Specifically, it was their

intention to

extend the available information on the role of intrin-
sic and extrinsic job factors as motivators by studying
the motivational "strength" of intrinsic and extrinsic









job factors in a sample of the "entire" working
population (men and women at all occupational
levels). (p. 193)

Centers and Bugental (1966) found that the extent to which ex-

trinsic or intrinsic job components were valued by the respon-

dents was related to their occupational level. Intrinsic job

components (opportunities for self-expression, etc.) were valued

more at higher occupational levels. Extrinsic job components

(pay, security, etc.) were more valued at lower occupational

levels. Centers and Bugental interpreted their results in terms

of Maslow's theory when they concluded that

individuals in lower-level occupations are more
likely to be motivated by lower-order needs (pay,
security, etc.) because these are not sufficiently
gratified to allow higher-order needs (the self-
fulfillment possible in the job itself) to become
prepotent. (1966, p. 197)

Chung (1977, p. 42) identified only 10 studies directly or

indirectly related to the hierarchical concept. Despite the lack

of empirical support, the influence of Maslow's theory can be

seen in Herzberg's theory and comparisons between these two theo-

ries have been made. However, Herzberg discerns differences be-

tween the two theories and the weaknesses in Maslow's theory in

that

the Maslow system, then, does seem appropriate, but
it has holes in it. Lower-order needs never get satis-
fied, as witness the constant demand for physiological
and security guarantees, the continuing socialization
for our society, and the never-ending search for sta-
tus symbols. This is evident even though we have re-
cognized the importance of self-actualization as a
potent force in the motivational makeup of people.

The Maslow system stresses the material needs
of man as primary to his more "human" moral motives.
The system has not worked in application because the
biological and psychological needs of man are parallel







systems, rather than either one assuming initial
importance. A new theory of how the material and
moral motives of man act together in work motiva-
tion is needed. (Herzberg, 1976, p. 48)

Although these theories occupy a central position in mo-

tivational studies, there are behavioral determinants other

than needs that relate to theories of motivation and job satis-

faction (Chung, 1977, p. 57). The theoretical framework of

classical and operant conditioning form the basis of Sanzotta's

extrinsic theories of motivation. The focus of extrinsic theo-

ries is different from that of need theories. The focus of

need theories is on the internal mechanisms within the organ-

ism (such as needs, drives, etc.) which are used to describe

motivation. The theoretical framework of extrinsic theories

places the emphasis on the environmental factors (such as the

effects of schedules of reinforcement, size of reward, etc.)

on behavior for this purpose.

Pavlov's classical conditioning in B. F. Skinner's oper-

ant conditioning form the theoretical framework of extrinsic

theories (Sanzotta, 1977, p. 18). In his research on classical

conditioning, Pavlov identified two types of respondent behavior:

the unconditioned response and the conditioned response. Uncon-

ditioned responses are involuntary and result from unconditioned

reflexes which do not have to be learned. In the classical con-

ditioning paradigm, the conditioned responses are learned as a

result of the repeated pairing of a neutral stimulus with an

unconditioned stimulus which produces an unconditioned response.

The neutral stimulus, which as a result of these pairings be-

comes a conditioned stimulus, is then able to produce a

conditioned response by itself.






46

Unlike Pavlov's classical conditioning paradigm,which is

concerned with behavioral responses elicited by prior stimula-

tion, Skinner's operant conditioning is concerned with behavior

that is controlled by its consequences. Behavior that operates

on the environment to produce consequences is operant behavior.

The distinction between operant behavior and respondent behav-

ior is that the former is "voluntary behavior controlled by

its consequences while the latter is involuntary reflexes emit-

ted by stimuli" (Chung, 1977, pp. 60-61).

Operant behavior occurs through the process called operant

conditioning in which the organism operates on the environment

to produce a consequence and behavior having this kind of con-

sequence becomes more likely to occur in the future. That is,

the future probability of the response occurring is controlled

by the temporal relationship between the behavior and the con-

sequence and whether the response is reinforced positively,

negatively, or punished. Both positive and negative reinforce-

ment increase the future probability of a response occurring.

As described by Skinner,

when a hungry organism exhibits behavior that "pro-
duces" food, the behavior is reinforced by that con-
sequence and is therefore more likely to recur. Be-
havior that "reduces" a potentially damaging condition,
such as an extreme of temperature, is reinforced by
that consequence and therefore tends to recur on simi-
lar occasions. (Skinner, 1974, pp. 39-40)

While punishment that is contingent on specific behavior

has the effect of reducing that behavior, it will also elicit

sweating, increased heart rate, etc., in the respondent (Holland

& Skinner, 1961, p. 248). Extinction or the contingency of








withholding reinforcement has an effect similar to that of

punishment on behavior in that it decreases the frequency of

a behavior.

An understanding of operant conditioning is important to

management in that "most behaviors in organizations are operant

behaviors that are learned, controlled, and altered by the con-

sequences that follow them" (Chung, 1977, p. 61). The organi-

zational application of reinforcement is different from the

reward and punishment used by most organizations to influence

their employees to attain organizational goals (Chung, 1977,

p. 82). Examples of the latter "carrot and stick" approach

are found in the management strategies of piece-rate incentives,

performance appraisal, promotion, demotion, etc. The organiza-

tional application of reinforcement is the deliberate and sys-

tematic application of positive reinforcement to attain organi-

zational goals (Chung, 1977, pp. 83-84).

Employee job satisfaction can be deduced from this theor-

etical framework as the employee's evaluation of the effective-

ness of management's application of organizational incentives.

Although the basic datum for behaviorists is "non-mentalistic"

such as the frequency of a response, Skinner described the

"feelings of reinforcers" as follows:

According to the philosophy of hedonism, people
act to achieve pleasure and escape from or avoid
pain, and the effects referred to in Edward L.
Thorndike's famous Law of Effect were feelings:
"satisfying" or "annoying." The verb "to like"
is a synonym of "to be pleased with"; we can say
"if you like" and "if you please" more or less
interchangeably.

Some of these terms refer to other effects of
reinforcers--satisfying, for example, is related to








satiation--but most refer to the bodily states gen-
erated by reinforcers. It is sometimes possible to
discover what reinforces a person simply by asking
him what he likes or how he feels about things. What
we learn is similar to what we learn by testing the
effect of a reinforcer: he is talking about what
has reinforced him in the past or what he sees him-
self "going for." But, tilis does not mean that his
feelings are causally effective; his answer reports
a collateral effect (1974, p. 48).

Sanzotta analyzed Maslow's theory and Herzberg's theory

through a behavioristic extrinsic motivation model and concluded

that

for most people, satisfying a hunger drive is con-
siderably easier than satisfying a need for self-
esteem. A tangible primary reinforcement is in-
volved in one, while an intangible set of conditions
(secondary reinforcements) prevail in the other. In
fact, we may extend ourselves a bit and say that, in
general, a primary reinforcement satiates (a lower
level need) more easily than a secondary reinforce-
ment satiates (a higher level need). At the same
time, though, we cannot deny the maintenance nature
and power of primary reinforcers. The point here is
that if Herzberg's motivator-hygiene theory were
viewed in a slightly different manner, it could fit
into a behaviorist's model. (Sanzotta, 1977, p. 108)

It is not unreasonable to put Herzberg's hygiene
factors under the high satiability dimension and the
motivator factors at the other end of the continuum
of low satiability.... Rather, satiation should be
considered idiosyncratic, based on individual sub-
jective histories and perceptions of reinforcement.
A reinforcer that may have a high satiability quality
for one person may be an open-end factor for another.
(Sanzotta, 1977, pp. 54-55)

Chung (1977) identified the major weaknesses of motiva-

tional theories that are based on classical and operant condi-

tioning to be that

1. reinforcers cannot be applied to all people
under all circumstances;

2. an incentive may appeal to one person but not
to another;








3. an incentive may appeal to one person under
some circumstances but not under other cir-
cumstances;

4. the differences in the need structures of individuals
and the change in the need structure of a person
may alter the motivational value of incentives;
and

5. the external approach does not recognize the
differences in perceptual patterns among indi-
viduals.

To summarize, the major criticism with extrinsic motiva-

tion theories is that they are mechanistic and oversimplistic.

The major criticism with intrinsic motivation theories is that

there is a lack of empirical evidence and support. Herzberg's

theory cannot readily be classified as an intrinsic or extrin-

sic motivation theory because it accounts for both intrinsic

(job content) and extrinsic (job context) factors.

The Application of Hlerzberg's Theory
to Individuals in Educational Settings

There is a growing body of research related to the utili-

zation of Herzberg's theory to identify the determinants of job

satisfaction and dissatisfaction for students, faculty members,

and administrators in different settings.

Herzberg's theory has been applied to investigate student

motivation and the determinants of student satisfaction and

dissatisfaction in different educational settings. Herzberg's

theory was applied to undergraduate students relative to academ-

ic motivation (Norton & Wims, 1974; Magoon & James, 1978) and

relative to student satisfaction and dissatisfaction in a col-

lege setting (Gluskinos & Wainer, 1971; Walsh, 1971). The

school satisfaction of adult vocational and technical students







50
was investigated using Herzberg's theory by Milliken (1971)

and by Turman (1977).

Lyons (1971) developed a questionnaire which employed a

semantic differential format to determine the extent to which

junior college personnel exhibited constellations of job at-

titudes consistent with IHerzberg' theory when a methodological

approach different from a sequence of events was employed to

determine the existence of job factors. Lyons'(1970) study

did not support Herzberg's theory but did provide strong sup-

port for the existence of specific job factors.

Avakian (1971) conducted an analysis of the factors re-

lating to the job satisfaction and dissatisfaction of 50 fac-

ulty members who had been selected from two liberal-arts col-

leges and two universities in northeastern New York State. Sub-

jects were asked to describe incidents associated with satis-

fying and dissatisfying job situations. The reported incidents

were sorted independently by three coders into the categories

of job-content or job-context factors developed by Herzberg et

al. (1959). Support or non-support of Herzberg's theory was

dependent upon whether subjects emphasized the job-content

factors or job-context factors in the incidents the subjects

described. A subject was classified as supportive of the theory

if more than half of the factors identified in a satisfying

job incident were job-content factors or if more than half of

the factors identified in a dissatisfying job incident were

job-context factors. If either of these cases were not true,

the subject was classified as non-supportive. Frequencies






51
were then tested for significance. Avakian (1971) found sup-

port for Herzberg's theory in that

1. there were significantly more faculty members
who emphasized the job-content factors than
there were those who did not relative to their
job satisfaction, and

2. there were significantly more faculty members
who emphasized the job-context factors than
there were those who did not relative to
their job dissatisfaction.

Job satisfaction for the sample of faculty members was

rated significantly to the job factors of achievement, recog-

nition, and the work itself. In addition, a trend in the di-

rection of faculty job satisfaction was indicated by the job-

content factors of possibility of growth and responsibility.

Job dissatisfaction was related significantly to the job-context

factors of institutional policy and administration, supervision-

technical, salary, and interpersonal relations with administra-

tors.

For the selected sample, Avakian (1971) found a shift a-

way from the predicted direction of the factors of 1) advance-

ment, which was related to job dissatisfaction; and 2) inter-

personal relations with students, status, and job security,

which were related to job satisfaction. In addition, the fac-

tors of working conditions and personal life appeared with e-

qual frequency in incidents associated with job satisfaction

and job dissatisfaction.

Aebi (1973) applied two different methodologies to test

the applicability of Herzberg's theory to faculty and admini-

strators in 15 private church-related, liberal-arts colleges






52

in 11 states. The traditional forced-choice structured-item

and Herzberg's free-choice critical-incidents were used to:

(1) test the job attitudes of the same subjects during the

same time periods, and (2) determine whether the differences

between these two methods were due to methodology. As a part

of his study, Aebi (1973) also reviewed 156 job-satisfaction

studies which supported, partially supported, or did not sup-

port Herzberg's theory. A survey instrument was developed

that accurately represented both methodologies and a pilot

study was conducted to test the instrument. In general, Aebi

(1973) found support for Herzberg's theory. Although the dif-

ferent methodologies resulted in different findings for sources

of dissatisfaction (more often than for sources of satisfaction),

the greatest source of satisfaction was the work itself and

the greatest source of dissatisfaction was working conditions.

Aebi (1973) did find significant differences between subgroups

of college educators relative to type of work, age, sex, salary,

and degree held. In addition, Herzberg's theory was more ap-

plicable to faculty members than to administrators and to male

faculty members more than to female faculty members. IHerzberg's

theory was least applicable to those faculty members who were

60 years of age or older and to those who earned less than

$6,000 annually.

Jackson (1975) investigated the 14 related factors of

Herzberg's theory to determine the degree to which they could

be identified among a population of 422 middle-management

administrators and vice-presidents from five different col-

leges and universities. A forced-choice questionnaire which







53
employed 14 of Herzberg's motivator and hygiene factors was

utilized. Jackson (1975) found that, relative to job satis-

faction, the middle-management administrators selected Herz-

berg's motivators more often than they selected the hygiene

factors.

Ohanesian (1975) and Groseth (1978) examined the job sa-

tisfaction and dissatisfaction factors among college student

personnel workers. Groseth (1978) tested the applicability

of Herzberg's theory to determine the specific job satisfac-

tion and dissatisfaction factors for the chief student person-

nel administrator, the director of the union, the director of

housing, and the director of counseling at each of the seven

institutions in Florida's SUS. A semi-structured interview

guide was developed for each position, similar to the instru-

ment used by Thomas (1977). The major job functions for each

position had been identified from the literature and were in-

corporated into the specific interview guides. Each respon-

dent was interviewed and described, for each major job function,

an incident that had occurred in their present position when

they had been particularly satisfied and one when they had

been particularly dissatisfied. The critical incidents were

classified accordingly as having been influenced by one of

six motivators or eight hygienes.

Of the 196 satisfying incidents identified in Groseth's

(1978) study, 68.3% were classified as motivators. For

the 181 dissatisfying incidents identified, 81.3% were

classified as hygienes. Groseth found a difference in the







54

support for Herzberg's theory relative to the different posi-

tions. For example, the data for the chief student personnel

officers supported Herzberg's theory for satisfying, but not

for dissatisfying, incidents 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 directors of counseling supported

Herzberg's theory for both types of incidents. Groseth (1978)

found that recognition, achievement, and the work itself were

the most frequently mentioned motivators and that company

policy and administration, interpersonal relationships, and

work conditions were the most frequently mentioned hygienes.

Thomas (1977) applied Herzberg's theory to selected com-

munity college administrative positions. Twelve chief aca-

demic officers, 12 chief business officers, and 12 chief stu-

dent personnel officers from six large and six small communi-

ty colleges in Florida were interviewed. Thomas (1977) used

the critical-incident technique to identify job satisfaction

and job dissatisfaction factors of the respondents relative

to specific job functions for each position that had been

identified from the literature.

Thomas (1977) found strong support for Herzberg's theory

in that, for the three types of administrators, motivators

contributed significantly more to role satisfaction than did

hygienes. In addition, hygienes contributed significantly

more to role dissatisfaction than did motivators. Thomas

(1977) found that, for these three types of administrators,






55
achievement was the chief motivator mentioned relative to job

satisfaction and that company policy and interpersonal relation-

ships were the chief hygienes related to job dissatisfaction.

Institutional size was not significantly related to the job

satisfaction or dissatisfaction for these three types of

administrators.

Kozal (1979) applied the reformulated (Herzberg) theory

of job satisfaction to selected administrative staff members

in the Florida SUS. The focus of his study was to test the

applicability of Hoy and Miskel's Reformulated (Herzberg)

Theory to selected administrative staffers to examine job

satisfaction and dissatisfaction related to the major job tasks

for the directors of purchasing, security and safety, personnel

relations, physical plant, and to university controllers. The

reformulated theory is different from Herzberg's theory in that

the former includes three distinct groups of factors which con-

tribute to an individual's job satisfaction and/or job dissatis-

faction: motivators, hygienes, and ambients. The third category

includes those factors which occur with equal frequency in sa-

tisfying as well as dissatisfying job incidents. Specifically,

the job factors included as ambients are salary, status, growth

possibility, risk opportunity, and relationships with super-

ordinates. Kozal (1979) could not find support for Hoy and

Miskel's theory in that the data regarding the third classifi-

cation--ambients--did not prove accurate. Of the 494 factors

used to classify the critical incidents in the study, Kozal

(1979) identified only 25 as ambients.








Summary

A review of the literature related to Herzberg's theory

has been presented which

1. compares Herzberg's Motivator-Hygiene Theory to

the traditional theory of job satisfaction;

2. describes the theoretical framework of IHerzberg's

theory which is fundamental to the present study;

3. investigates critical analyses and research related

to Hlerzberg's theory;

4. describes the major criticisms of Herzberg's theory

and the rebuttal by Herzberg et al. to those criti-

cisms; and

5. presents a review of related research which has

applied Herzberg's theory to investigate job satis-

faction and job dissatisfaction for individuals in

different educational settings.

Based on this review of the literature, the researcher

feels that Herzberg's theoretical framework was the appropriate

basis for examining the factors related to the job satisfaction

and dissatisfaction of the present sample. The literature

supports:

1. the utility of Herzberg's theory to identify the

determinants of job satisfaction and job dissatis-

faction;

2. that, although the research regarding Herzberg's theory

is inconclusive, the majority of studies support or

partially support his theory;









3. that the advantages to be gained by using this

theoretical framework outweigh the disadvantages;

4. that the major criticisms of Herzberg's theory

can be refuted; and

5. that there is a growing body of literature which

has applied llerzberg's theory to different popula-

tions in different educational settings.

Prior research has included some of the variables under

examination in the present study. However, no studies were

identified which address the job satisfaction of mid-level

community college administrators compared to their counter-

parts at the university level. In addition, no studies were

identified which specifically address the job satisfaction

determinants of the Registrar, Director of Admissions and

Director of Placement, three positions which have potential

impact from projected declining enrollments in the 1980s.














CHAPTER III
METHODOLOGY

The major focus of this study was to examine the determi-

nants of job satisfaction and dissatisfaction among the Directors

of Admissions, Registrars, and the Directors of Placement at

community colleges and universities in Florida. Their attitudes

were measured within the theoretical framework of Herzberg's

1959 Motivator-Hygiene Theory and were classified using the

job factor definitions developed by Herzberg et al. (1959).

Data were collected using the critical-incident methodology

developed by Flanagan (1954) and adapted by Herzberg et al.

Selection of Sample

Four Directors of Admissions, eight Registrars, and five

Directors of Placement were selected and interviewed. Indivi-

duals were interviewed who were currently holding the positions

of Directors of Admissions, Registrar, or Director of Placement

at three Florida community colleges and three state universities

in Florida's State University System (SUS). The three largest

community colleges and universities that demonstrated a willing-

ness to participate were selected for this study. Institutional

size as measured by FTE was selected as the selection criterion

to ensure, for the selected positions, a close similarity in

terms of intrinsic and extrinsic job factors. The positions

of Director of Admissions, Registrar, and Director of Placement

were chosen because they exemplify mid-level administrative

positions in an educational setting.








Instrumentation

Three parallel instruments similar to those used by Herz-

berg et al. (1959), Thomas (1977), and Groseth (1978) were

designed for the positions of Director of Admissions, Registrar,

and Director of Placement. Each instrument was specifically

designed to solicit from the respondent:

1. demographic data;

2. verification of the major job functions identified by

Jones and Drews(1978) for that position; and

3. identification of the motivators and hygienes associ-

ated with the critical incidents in which the respon-

dent was satisfied or dissatisfied relative to the

specific job functions.

Copies of these instruments are in Appendices A, B, and C.

The instruments were used by the researcher to conduct semi-

structured interviews. Respondents had a free choice in relating

the critical incident related to each job function specified on

the instrument.

In addition, each respondent was given a handout describing

the job functions identified by Jones and Drews (1978) for the

position which was utilized in verifying these functions in

response to section. II of the interview instrument. Copies

of these handouts are in Appendices D, E, and F.

Data Collection

A letter was sent to the president of each institution

selected requesting authorization for the institution to par-

ticipate in this study. Follow-up phone calls were made to

establish appointments for the interviews.








During the interviews, data were collected utilizing

the structured questionnaire developed for each position.

The researcher recorded the respondent's responses on the

instrument during the interview. A separate copy of the appro-

priate instrument was used by the researcher for each inter-

view. Demographic data were recorded as specified by the

respondent. As the respondent related the critical incidents,

the researcher recorded key phrases which denoted motivators

or hygienes. To ensure accurate responses, each respondent

was assured that no person would be identified in the study by

name or institution.

Data Analysis

Following the interviews, the data were analyzed by coding

the responses recorded by the researcher for each critical

incident which might have been influenced by one of six moti-

vators (achievement, recognition, the work itself, opportunity

for advancement, or responsibility) or by one of eight hygienes

(salary, company policy and administration, supervision, inter-

personal relationships, personal life, job security, status, or

work conditions). The codings followed those developed by Herz-

berg et al. and cited in Thomas (1977) and Groseth (1978). More

than one factor was assigned to a critical incident if appropriate.

The chi square test for statistical significance has been

determined to be an appropriate statistical test for the analy-

sis of data assessing the significance of Herzberg's motivator-

hygiene factors (Groseth, 1978; Thomas, 1977). This statistical

test was used to determine whether the observed contribution of









motivators and hygienes on the critical incidents as identi-

fied by the administrators was different from that which would

have been expected by chance at the .05 level of significance.

Assumptions

For the purposes of this study, the underlying assumptions

were that:

1. the procedures used would achieve the purposes of

the study;

2. the critical-incident interview guides used in the

study would yield valid and reliable data;

3. the factors that were identified related to the job

satisfaction and dissatisfaction of the administrators;

4. the job functions as identified were accurate for each

position; and

5. the verbal descriptions of critical incidents by the

respondents were accurately classified for coding by

the researcher according to Herzberg's motivators

and hygienes.

Delimitations and Limitations

In seeking to answer the questions and to test the hypo-

theses of interest, the following delimitations were inherent

in the present study:

1. Positions and institutions were not randomly selected.

The sample included the Director of Admissions, the

Registrar, and the Director of Placement at three

Florida public community colleges and three four-year

institutions in the State University System (SUS). The








largest institutions (based on FTE) that were willing

to participate were selected for this study.

2. Separate interview guides were designed for each of

the three positions studied. The interview guides

limited the interviews to questions concerning job

satisfaction and dissatisfaction associated with the

major job functions of each of the positions studied.

In addition, the following limitations were inherent in

the results of the data collected:

1. This study was conducted as six institutions, three

community colleges and three universities, all of

which are in Florida. It is therefore not possible to

generalize from the findings of this study to the

general populations of Directors of Admissions, Regis-

trars, and Directors of Placement.

2. All data collected in this study consisted of verbal

reports by the respondents. Therefore, the data were

subject to the perceptions of the respondents even

through every effort was made to encourage honesty by

telling each of the respondents that they would not

be identified by name or institution in the study.

3. The data collected from the critical-incident method-

ology were subject to threats to internal validity

because the incidents were collected and categorized

according to Herzberg's theory by the researcher.















CHAPTER IV
PRESENTATION AND ANALYSIS OF DATA

Data were collected from semi-structured interviews with

four Directors of Admissions, eight Registrars, and five

Directors of Placement from the three largest public community

colleges and the three largest state universities in Florida.

Incidents relating to job satisfaction and dissatisfaction

reported by the respondents during the interviews were

recorded on interview guides designed for each position

(see Appendices A, B, and C). During the interviews, re-

spondents were asked to recall and describe specific incidents

in which they had felt exceptionally good or exceptionally

bad about their present job relative to the major functions

of the job as described in the literature (see Appendices

D, E, and F).

Components of the critical incidents described by the

respondents were then categorized according to Herzberg's

motivator-hygiene classifications. Respondents' statements

regarding their job satisfaction and job dissatisfaction

were coded as having been influenced by one or a combination

of six motivators (achievement, recognition, the work itself,

responsibility, advancement, or possibility of growth) or one

of eight hygienes (company policy and administration, super-

vision-technical, work conditions, salary, interpersonal

relationships, personal life, status, or job security). The









motivators and hygienes indicated by each critical incident

were listed and counted.

The data were then analyzed to test the 18 hypotheses

of interest to this study as described in Chapter I. The

chi-square one-sample test (Siegel, 1956, pp. 42-47) and the

chi-square test for independent samples (Siegel, 1956, pp. 104-

111) were used to determine whether significant differences

existed in the contribution of motivators and hygienes to

the satisfying and dissatisfying incidents reported by the

administrators at the .05 level of significance.

Within the present chapter, data and analyses are presented

in the following order:

1. For each position, demographic data are presented

and data concerning the contribution of motivators

and hygienes are presented for the major job functions

of the position. Results of the data analyses are

then presented which compare the relative contribu-

tions of motivators and hygienes to satisfying and

dissatisfying incidents for each position as addressed

in the first six hypotheses of interest to this

study (H 1 H 6).
0 0
2. Results of data analyses are then presented which

compare the relative contribution of motivators and

hygienes to satisfying and dissatisfying incidents

between positions at the community college and

university levels as addressed in hypotheses 7

through 12 (H 7 H 012).









3. Results of data analyses are then presented which

compare the relative contribution of motivators and

hygienes to the satisfying and dissatisfying incidents

among the community college positions and among the

university positions as addressed in hypotheses 13

through 16 (I 13- H 16).

4. Finally, results of data analyses are presented which

compare the contributions of motivators and hygienes

to the satisfying and dissatisfying incidents between

the community college administrators as a group and

the university administrators as a group as addressed
17 18
in hypotheses 17 and 18 (H -17 H 1).
0 -0
Data Relating to Positions

The present section presents, for each position, demo-

graphic data and data concerning the contribution of motivators

and hygienes for the major job functions of the position. Re-

sults of data analyses are presented which compare the relative

contributions of motivators and hygienes to satisfying and

dissatisfying incidents for each position.

Directors of Admissions

Demographic data collected from the Directors of Admissions

indicate that these respondents had served in their present

positions for from 2 to 10 years, with an average of 6.5 years.

They had served in their prior positions for from 1 to 8 years,

with an average of 5 years. All but one of the Directors of

Admissions had been promoted from within their present orga-

nizations. The highest degree held by a Director of Admissions









in the present sample was the Ph.D. Undergraduate majors

included education, social sciences, and management.

The job functions for Director of Admissions presented

to the respondents (see Appendix D) were confirmed as accurate

by all respondents. One respondent added the utilization

of computers as a major job function.

Tables 1 through 6 summarize the relative contribution

of motivators and hygienes to the satisfying and dissatisfying

incidents related to the major job functions for the Directors

of Admissions. Percentages indicate the degree to which

motivators or hygienes were related as contributing to the

satisfying or dissatisfying incidents described by the

respondents.

Selection, supervision, coordination,
and evaluation of staff

The relative contribution of motivators and hygienes

to job satisfaction and job dissatisfaction for the Directors

of Admissions in the selection, supervision, coordination, and

evaluation of staff is summarized in Table 1. Motivators

contributed 100% to the satisfying incidents. For the

dissatisfying incidents, hygienes contributed 87.5% and

motivators contributed 12.5%.

Motivators which contributed to the satisfying incidents

for the Directors of Admissions related to this function

were achievement (37.5%), possibility of growth (25%),

responsibility (25%), and recognition (12.5%). No hygienes

were reported as contributing to the satisfying incidents.








For the dissatisfying incidents, the Directors of

Admissions mentioned the following hygienes as contributing

to job dissatisfaction: company policy and administration (25%),



Table 1
Contribution of Motivators and Hygienes for
Directors of Admissions in Selecting,
Supervising, Coordinating, and Evaluating Staff



Type of Incident
Type of Satisfying Dissatisfying
Classification (% of satisfying) (% of dissatisfying)


Motivators 8 1
(100) (12.5)

Hygienes 0 7
(0) (87.5)





interpersonal relationships (25%), supervision technical (25%),

and salary (12.5%). The motivator achievement (12.5%) was

also cited as contributing to job dissatisfaction. It should

be noted that the motivator achievement, as defined by Herzberg

et al. (1959, p. 44), includes lack of achievement.

Recruitment, selection, and admission of
undergraduate and/or graduate students

The relative contribution of motivators and hygienes to

the job satisfaction and job dissatisfaction for the Directors

of Admissions in the recruitment, selection, and admission of

undergraduate and/or graduate students is summarized in Table 2.









Motivators contributed 87.5% to the satisfying incidents,

while hygienes contributed 12.5% for this job function. For

the dissatisfying incidents, hygienes contributed 77.8%

and motivators contributed 22.2%.



Table 2
Contribution of Motivators and Hygienes for Directors
of Admissions in Recruitment, Selection, and Admission
of Undergraduate and/or Graduate Students



Type of Incident
Type of Satisfying Dissatisfying
Classification (% of satisfying) (% of dissatisfying)


Motivators 7 2
(87.5) (22.2)


Hygienes 1 7
(12.5) (77.8)


Directors of Admissions mentioned the following motiva-

tors as contributing to job satisfaction relating to this

job function: achievement (37.5%), recognition (25%),

responsibility (12.5%), and the work itself (12.5%). The

hygiene interpersonal relationships (12.5%) was also cited

as contributing to job satisfaction.

In describing dissatisfying incidents, the Directors

of Admissions mentioned the following hygienes as contributing

to job dissatisfaction: interpersonal relationships (33.3%),







69
company policy and administration (22.2%), and supervision-

technical (22.2%). The motivator achievement (22.2%) was

also cited as contributing to job dissatisfaction related

to this job function.

Development of admissions criteria

The relative contribution of motivators and hygienes to

job satisfaction and job dissatisfaction for the Directors

of Admissions in participation in the development of admissions

criteria is summarized in Table 3. Motivators contributed 87.5%

to the satisfying incidents for this job function while

hygienes contributed 12.5%. For the dissatisfying incidents,

hygienes contributed 60% while motivators contributed 40%.



Table 3
Contribution of Motivators and Hygienes
for Directors of Admissions
in the Development of Admissions Criteria



Type of Incident

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


Motivators 7 2
(87.5) (40)


Hygienes 1 3
(12.5) (60)









The Directors of Admissions mentioned the following

motivators as contributing to job satisfaction related to

this job function: achievement (25%), responsibility (25%),

the work itself (12.5%), and recognition (25%). The

hygiene interpersonal relationships (12.5%) was also cited

as contributing to job satisfaction.

In describing the dissatisfying incidents, the Directors

of Admissions mentioned the following hygienes as contributing

to job dissatisfaction: company policy and administration

(40%) and interpersonal relationships (20%). The motivator

achievement (40%) was also cited as contributing to job

dissatisfaction related to this job function.

Professional and civic activities

The relative contribution of motivators and hygienes to

job satisfaction and job dissatisfaction for the Directors

of Admissions in professional and civic activities is sum-

marized in Table 4. Motivators contributed 88.9% to the

satisfying incidents for this job function while hygienes

contributed 11.1%. For the dissatisfying incidents, hygienes

and motivators contributed 50% each.

The Directors of Admissions mentioned the following

motivators as contributing to job satisfaction related to

this job function: achievement (33.3%), the possibility of

growth (22.2%), recognition (22.2%), and the work itself

(11.1%). The hygiene interpersonal relationships (11.1%) was

also cited as contributing to job satisfaction.









Table 4
Contribution of Motivators and Hygienes
for Directors of Admissions
in Professional and Civic Activities


Type of Incident

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


Motivators 8 1
(88.9) (50)


Hygienes 1 1
(11.1) (50)


In describing the dissatisfying incidents related to

this job function, the Directors of Admissions mentioned the

motivator achievement (50%) and the hygiene company policy

and administration (50%) as contributing to job dissatisfaction.

The motivator achievement includes its opposite, lack of

achievement. Only two respondents could recall dissatisfying

incidents related to this job function.

Counseling and advising students, parents of students,
and other interested groups or individuals

The relative contribution of motivators and hygienes

to job satisfaction and job dissatisfaction for the Directors

of Admissions in counseling and advising students, parents

of students, and other interested groups or individuals

is summarized in Table 5. Motivators contributed 60% to the

satisfying incidents for this job function while hygienes







72
contributed 40%. For the dissatisfying incidents, hygienes

contributed 60% while motivators contributed 40%.

The Directors of Admissions mentioned the following

motivators as contributing to job satisfaction related to

this job function: recognition (20%), achievement (20%),

and the work itself (20%). The hygiene interpersonal

relationships (40%) was also cited as contributing to job

satisfaction.

In describing dissatisfying incidents related

to this job function, the Directors of Admissions mentioned

the hygienes interpersonal relationships (40%) and company



Table 5
Contribution of Motivators and Hygienes
for Directors of Admissions in Counseling
and Advising Students, Parents, and Others



Type of Incident

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


Motivators 3 2
(60) (40)

Hygienes 2 3
(40) (60)





policy and administration (20%) as contributing to job

dissatisfaction. The motivators recognition (20"') and







73

achievement (20%) were also cited as contributing to job

dissatisfaction. This job function did not apply to one

Director of Admissions.

Program planning and budgeting

The relative contribution of motivators and hygienes

to job satisfaction and job dissatisfaction for the Directors

of Admissions in program planning and budgeting is summarized

in Table 6. For the satisfying incidents, motivators con-

tributed 83.3% while hygienes contributed 16.6%. For the

dissatisfying incidents, hygienes contributed 88.9% and

motivators contributed 11.1%.

The Directors of Admissions mentioned the motivators

achievement (50%) and recognition (33.3%) as contributing to

job satisfaction related to this job function. The hygiene



Table 6
Contribution of Motivators and Hygienes
for Directors of Admissions
in Program Planning and Budgeting




Type of Incident

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


Motivators 5 1
(83.3) (11.1)


Hygienes 1 8
(16.7) (88.9)









working conditions (16.7%) was also cited as contributing

to job satisfaction related to this job function. One

Director of Admissions could not recall a satisfying incident

related to this job function.

In describing the dissatisfying incidents related to

this job function, the Directors of Admissions mentioned the

following hygienes as contributing to job dissatisfaction:

company policy and administration (33.3%), work conditions

(22.2%), salary (22.2%), and supervision-technical (11.1%).

The motivator achievement (11.1%) was also cited as con-

tributing to job dissatisfaction related to this job function.

Overall contributions to satisfying incidents

The overall contribution of motivators and hygienes to

job satisfaction for Directors of Admissions across all six

major job functions is summarized in Table 7. Motivators

contributed 86.7% to satisfying incidents while hygienes

contributed 13.3%.

Overall, the motivators that contributed to job satis-

faction for the Directors of Admissions were achievement (35.6%),

recognition (22.2%), responsibility (11.1%), possibility of

growth (8.9%), and the work itself (8.9%(). Respondents

indicated that the hygienes interpersonal relationships (11.1%)

and work conditions (2.2%) also contributed to their job

satisfaction.

The data in Table 7 were utilized to test the following

null hypothesis:










Table 7
Relative Contribution of Motivators and Hygienes
to Satisfying Incidents for Directors of
Admissions Across Job Functions


% of Total
Factor Frequency (K=45)


Motivators

Achievement 16 35.6

Recognition 10 22.2

Responsibility 5 11.1

Possibility of Growth 4 8.9

Work Itself 4 8.9
39 86.7


Hygienes

Interpersonal Relationships 5 11.1

Work Conditions 1 2.2
6 13.3




Total Motivators 39 86.7

Total Hygienes 6 13.3


if For the Directors of Admissions, there is
no difference in the contribution of moti-
vators and hygienes to satisfying incidents
associated with the major job functions of
the position.







76
These data indicate that motivators contributed more

than did hygienes to the job satisfaction of the Directors

of Admissions interviewed. The chi-square test revealed

a significant difference between the contributions of

2
motivators and hygienes (x =24.2, df=l, p<.05) causing the

null hypothesis to be rejected.

Overall contributions to dissatisfying incidents

The overall contribution of motivators and hygienes to

job dissatisfaction for Directors of Admissions across all

six major job functions is summarized in Table 8. Hygienes

contributed 76.9%, while motivators contributed 23.1%.

The hygienes that contributed to the job dissatisfaction

for the Directors of Admissions were company policy and

administration (30.8.), interpersonal relationships (23.1%),

supervision-technical (12.8%), salary (7.7%), and work

conditions (2.6%). The motivators achievement (20.5") and

recognition (2.6%) were also cited as contributing to job

dissatisfaction.

The data in Table 8 were utilized to test the following

null hypothesis:
2
H For the Directors of Admissions, there is
no difference in the contribution of moti-
vators and hygienes to dissatisfying incidents
associated with the major job functions of
the position.

These data indicate that hygienes contributed more than

did motivators to the job dissatisfaction of the Directors

of Admissions interviewed. The chi-square test revealed a

significant difference between the contributions of hygienes










Table 8
Relative Contribution of Motivators and Hygienes
to Dissatisfying Incidents for Directors
of Admissions Across Job Functions




% of Total
Factor Frequency (K=39)


Motivators

Recognition 1 2.6

Achievement 8 20.5
9 23.1


Hygienes

Company Policy & Administration 12 30.8

Interpersonal Relationships 9 23.0

Supervision-Technical 5 12.8

Salary 3 7.7

Work Conditions 1 2.6
30 76.9




Total Motivators 9 23.1

Total Hygienes 30 76.9





2
and motivators (x =11.3, df=], p<.05) causing the null

hypothesis to be rejected.

Registrars

Demographic data collected from the Registrars indicated

that the length of time these respondents had served in their









78
present positions ranged from 1 to 12 years with an average

of 5.5 years. They had served in their prior positions for

from 1 to 9 years, with an average of 4 years. All but one

of the Registrars had been promoted from within their present

organization. Most of the Registrars held Master's degrees

in economics, educational administration and supervision,

business education, or math education. Undergraduate majors

included economics, social studies, psychology, English,

business, chemical engineering, and business education.

The job functions for Registrars presented to the respon-

dents (as described in Appendix E) were verified as generally

accurate by all respondents. One respondent added the

evaluation of transfer credit and the readmission of students

as major job functions.

Tables 9 through 14 summarize the relative contributions

of motivators and hygienes mentioned by the Registrars as

contributing to the satisfying and dissatisfying incidents

related to their major job functions. The degree to which

motivators or hygienes contributed to job satisfaction or

dissatisfaction is represented by percentages.

Selection, supervision, coordination,
and evaluation of staff

The relative contribution of motivators and hygienes to

job satisfaction and job dissatisfaction for Registrars in

selecting, supervising, coordinating, and evaluating staff

is summarized in Table 9. Motivators contributed 89K to

the satisfying incidents while hygienes contributed 11%.









Table 9
Contribution of Motivators and Hygienes
for Registrars in the Selection, Supervision,
Coordination, and Evaluation of Staff


Type of Incident

Type of Satisfying Dissatisfying
Classification (_ of satisfying) (' of dissatisfying)


Motivators 8 2
(89) (15.4)


Hygienes 1 11
(11) (84.6)


For the dissatisfying incidents, hygienes contributed 84.6'.,

and motivators contributed 15.4%.

The Registrars mentioned the following motivators as

contributing to job satisfaction related to this job function:

achievement (77.8%) and responsibility (11.1%). The hygiene

interpersonal relationships (11.1C) was also cited as

contributing to job satisfaction for this job function.

In describing the dissatisfying incidents, the Registrars

mentioned the following hygienes as contributing to job

dissatisfaction: interpersonal relationships (38.5%),

company policy and administration (23%), salary (15.4%), and

personal life (7.7%). The motivators recognition (7.7%) and

achievement (7.7'"-) were also cited as contributing to job

dissatisfaction related to this job function.









Enrollment and records

The relative contribution of motivators and hygienes to

job satisfaction and dissatisfaction for Registrars in their

responsibility for student enrollment and records is sum-

marized in Table 10. Motivators contributed 18.3% to the

satisfying incidents for this job function while hygienes

contributed 16.7%. For the dissatisfying incidents, hygienes

contributed 41.7% and motivators contributed 58.3%.



Table 10
Contribution of Motivators and IHygienes
for Registrars in their Responsibility
for Student Enrollment and Records



Type of Incident

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


Motivators 10 7
(83.3) (58.3)


Hygienes 2 5
(16.7) (41.7)





Registrars mentioned the motivators recognition (41.7%)

and achievement (41.7%) as contributing to their job satis-

faction relative to this job function. The hygiene inter-

personal relationships (16.6%) was also cited as contributing

to job satisfaction. One respondent could not recall a

satisfying incident related to this job function.







81

In describing dissatisfying incidents related to this

job function, the Registrars mentioned the following hygienes

as contributing to job dissatisfaction: interpersonal re-

lationships (16.7%), supervision-technical (8.3%), company

policy and administration (8.3%), and work conditions (8.3%).

The motivators achievement (33.3%), the work itself (16.7%),

and responsibility (8.3%) were also cited as contributing

to job dissatisfaction. One Registrar could not recall a

dissatisfying incident related to this job function.

Registration; scheduling;
and record maintenance

The relative contribution of motivators and hygienes to

job satisfaction and job dissatisfaction for Registrars in

registering undergraduate and/or graduate students; scheduling

classes, exmainations, and classroom facilities; and maintaining

student records, is summarized in Table 11. Motivators con-

tributed 82% to the satisfying incidents, while hygienes

contributed 18% for this job function. For the dissatisfying

incidents, hygienes contributed 56%, and motivators contrib-

uted 44%.

Registrars mentioned the motivators achievement (55%),

recognition (18%), and responsibility (9%) as contributing

to their job satisfaction related to this job function. The

hygienes interpersonal relationships (9%) and work conditions

(9%) were also mentioned as contributing to job satisfaction.









Table 11
Contribution of Motivators and Hygienes
for Registrars in Registration,
Scheduling, and Record Maintenance


Type of Incident

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


Motivators 9 4
(82) (44)


Hygienes 2 5
(18) (56)





In describing dissatisfying incidents related to this

job function, the Registrars mentioned the hygienes work

conditions (33.3%), supervision-technical (11.1%), and salary

(11.1%) as contributing to job dissatisfaction. The moti-

vators achievement (22.2%), recognition (11.1%), and the

work itself (ll.l%) were also cited as contributing to job

dissatisfaction. Two Registrars were unable to recall dis-

satisfying incidents related to this job function.

Professional and civic activities

The relative contribution of motivators and hygienes to

job satisfaction and job dissatisfaction for the Registrars

in their participation in professional and civic activities

is summarized in Table 12. Motivators contributed 91% to

satisfying incidents for this job function, while hygienes









contributed 9%. For the dissatisfying incidents, hygienes

and motivators contributed 50% each.



Table 12
Contribution of Motivators and Hygienes for Registrars
in Professional and Civic Activities




Type of Incident
Type of Satisfying Dissatisfying
Classification (% of satisfying) (% of dissatisfying)


Motivators 10 2
(91) (50)

Hygienes 1 2
(9) (50)


The Registrars mentioned the following motivators as

contributing to their job satisfaction related to this job

function: recognition (45%), achievement (36%), and per-

sonal growth (9%). The hygiene interpersonal relationships

(9%) was also mentioned as contributing to job satisfaction.

Two Registrars could not recall satisfying incidents relating

to this job function.

In describing dissatisfying incidents relating to this

job function, the Registrars mentioned the hygienes company

policy and administration (25%) and interpersonal relation-

ships (25%) as contributing to job dissatisfaction. The

motivators achievement (25%) and the work itself (25%) were









also cited as contributing to job dissatisfaction. Four

Registrars could not recall dissatisfying incidents related

to this job function.

Counseling and advising students,
parents, and others

The relative contribution of motivators and hygienes

to job satisfaction and job dissatisfaction for the Registrars

in counseling and advising students, parents of students, and

other interested groups or individuals, is summarized in

Table 13. Motivators contributed 91% and hygienes contrib-

uted 9% to the satisfying incidents. For the dissatisfying

incidents, hygienes contributed 62.5% and motivators con-

tributed 37.5%.



Table 13
Contribution of Motivators and Hygienes
for Registrars in Counseling and Advising
Students, Parents, and Others



Type of Incident

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


Motivators 10 3
(91) (37.5)


Hygienes 1 5
(9) (62.5)








85
Registrars mentioned the following motivators as contrib-

uting to their job satisfaction relative to this job function:

achievement (36%), recognition (27%), and the work itself

(27%). The hygiene interpersonal relationships (9%) was

also cited as contributing to job satisfaction.

In describing the dissatisfying incidents related to

this job function, the Registrars mentioned the following

hygienes as contributing to job dissatisfaction: interpersonal

relationships (37.5%), supervision-technical (12.5%), and

company policy and administration (12.5%). The motivators

recognition (12.5%), achievement (12.5%), and the work itself

(12.5%) were also cited as contributing to job dissatisfaction.

Program planning and budgeting

The relative contribution of motivators and hygienes to

job satisfaction and job dissatisfaction for Registrars in

program planning and budgeting is summarized in Table 14.

Motivators contributed 83.3% to the satisfying incidents

while hygienes contributed 16.7% for this job function.

For the dissatisfying incidents, hygienes contributed 84.6%

and motivators contributed 15.4%.

Registrars mentioned the following motivators as contrib-

uting to their job satisfaction relative to this job function:

achievement (41.6%), recognition (16.6%), the work itself

(8.3%), personal growth (8.3%), and responsibility (8.3%). The

hygienes work conditions (8.3%) and interpersonal relation-

ships (8.3%) were also mentioned as contributing to job satis-

faction.










Table 14
Contribution of Motivators and Hygienes for
Registrars in Program Planning and Budgeting


Type of Incident

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


Motivators 10 11
(83.3) (84.6)


Hygienes 2 2
(16.7) (15.4)


In describing dissatisfying incidents, the Registrars

mentioned the following hygienes as contributing to their

job dissatisfaction related to this job function: company

policy and administration (38.5.), salary (15.4/), super-

vision-technical (15.4/), work conditions (7.7%), and inter-

personal relationships (7.7%). The motivator recognition

(15.4%) was also cited as contributing to job dissatisfaction.

One Registrar could not recall a dissatisfying incident related

to this job function.

Overall contributions to satisfying incidents

The overall contributions of motivators and hygienes to

job satisfaction for Registrars across all six major job

functions is summarized in Table 15. Motivators contributed

85.5% to satisfying incidents while hygienes contributed

14.5%.








Table 1.5
Relative Contribution of Motivators
and Hygienes to Satisfying Incidents
for Registrars Across Job Functions


% of Total
Factor Frequency (K=69)


Motivators

Achievement 33 47.8

Recognition 17 24.6

Work Itself 4 5.8

Responsibility 3 4.4

Possibility of Growth 2 2.9
59 85.5


Hygienes

Interpersonal Relationships 7 10.2

Work Conditions 2 2.9

Supervision-Technical 1 1.4
10 14.5




Total Motivators 59 85.5

Total Hygienes 10 14.5






Overall, the motivators that contributed to job satis-

faction for Registrars were achievement (47.8%), recognition

(24.6%), the work itself (5.8%), responsibility (4.4%), and

personal growth (2.9%). Registrars indicated that the




Full Text
50
was investigated using Herzberg's theory by Milliken (1971)
and by Turman (1977).
Lyons (1971) developed a questionnaire which employed a
semantic differential format to determine the extent to which
junior college personnel exhibited constellations of job at
titudes consistent with Herzberg' theory when a methodological
approach different from a sequence of events was employed to
determine the existence of job factors. Lyons'(1970) study
did not support Herzberg's theory but did provide strong sup
port for the existence of specific job factors.
Avakian (1971) conducted an analysis of the factors re
lating to the job satisfaction and dissatisfaction of 50 fac
ulty members who had been selected from two liberal-arts col
leges and two universities in northeastern New York State. Sub
jects were asked to describe incidents associated with satis
fying and dissatisfying job situations. The reported incidents
were sorted independently by three coders into the categories
of job-content or job-context factors developed by Herzberg et
al. (1959). Support or non-support of Herzberg's theory was
dependent upon whether subjects emphasized the job-content
factors or job-context factors in the incidents the subjects
described. A subject was classified as supportive of the theory
if more than half of the factors identified in a satisfying
job incident were job-content factors or if more than half of
the factors identified in a dissatisfying job incident were
job-context factors. If either of these cases were not true,
the subject was classified as non-supportive. Frequencies


96
achievement (12.5%), and the work itself (12.5%). The
hygiene company policy and administration (12.5%) was also
cited as contributing to job satisfaction.
In describing dissatisfying incidents related to this
job function, the Directors of Placement mentioned the
hygienes supervision-technical (20%) and company policy and
administration (20%) as contributing to job dissatisfaction.
The motivators recognition (20%) and achievement (40%) were
also cited as contributing to job dissatisfaction. One
Director of Placement could not recall any dissatisfying
incidents related to this job function.
Counseling and advising students,
parents, and others
The relative contribution of motivators and hygienes
to job satisfaction and dissatisfaction for Directors of
Placement in counseling and advising students, parents of
students, and other interested groups or individuals, is
summarized in Table 21. Motivators contributed 88.9% to
the satisfying incidents for this job function, while
hygienes contributed 11.1%. For the dissatisfying incidents,
hygienes contributed 55.6%, and motivators contributed
44.4%.
Directors of Placement mentioned the following motivators
as contributing to their job satisfaction related to this
job function: achievement (44.4%), recognition (11.1%), the
possibility of growth (11.1%), and the work itself (22.2%).


APPENDIX 13
INTERVIEW GUIDE FOR
REGISTRAR
I.Personal Data
1. Name of institution:
2. Title of present position:
3. Length of time in present position:
4. Most-recent past position:
5. Length of time in past position:
6. Highest degree held:
7. Area of specialization:
II. Verification of Major Job Functions
The following tasks have been identified in the literature
as major responsibilities typical of the registrar in post
secondary educational institutions. Please review them
carefully, and, if there are others you wish to add or
some you wish to delete, do so. If you have any questions
please ask.
1. Selection, supervision, coordination, and evaluation
of staff
2. Responsibility for student enrollment and records
3. Undergraduate and/or graduate registration; scheduling
of classes, examinatioas, and classroom facilities; and
maintenance of student records
4. Professional and civic activities
5. Counseling and advising students, parents of students,
and other interested groups or individuals
6. Participation in program planning and budgeting
140


Table 38 (continued)
128


101
Overall contributions to dissatisfying incidents
The overall contribution of motivators and hygienes to
job dissatisfaction for Directors of Placement across all
six major job functions is summarized in Table 24. Hygienes
contributed 52.2% while motivators contributed 47.8%.
The hygienes that contributed to job dissatisfaction
for the Directors of Placement were interpersonal relation
ships (19.6%), company policy and administration (17.4%),
supervision-technical (8.7%), salary (4.3%), and work
conditions (2.2%). The motivators achievement (30.4%),
the work itself (10.9%), and recognition (6.5%) were also
cited as contributing to job dissatisfaction.
The data in Table 24 were utilized to test the null
hypothesis:
6
H For the Directors of Placement, there is no
o
difference in the contribution of motivators
and hygienes to dissatisfying situations
associated with the major functions of the
position.
These data indicate that hygienes and motivators
contributed equally to the job dissatisfaction of the
Directors of Placement interviewed. The chi-square test
did not reveal a significant difference between the con-
2
tributions of hygienes and motivators (x =.087, df=l, p>.05).
Therefore, the null hypothesis is not rejected.


89
Table 16
Relative Contribution of Motivators
and Hygienes to Dissatisfying Incidents
for Registrars Across Job Functions .
Factor
Frequency
% of Total
(K=59)
Motivators
Achievement
7
11.8
Work Itself
5
8.5
Recognition
5
8.5
Responsibility
1
1.7
18
30.5
Hygienes
Interpersonal Relationships
13
22
Company Policy & Administration 12
20.3
Salary
6
10.2
Work Conditions
5
8.5
Supervision-Technical
4
6.8
Personal Life
1
1.7
41
69.5
Total
Motivators
18
30.5
Total
Hygienes
41
69.5
The data in Table 16 were utilized to test the following
null hypothesis:


137
3. A cross-sectional study to determine if there are
differences in the contribution of motivators and
hygienes to job satisfaction and job dissatisfaction
for mid-level administrators in educational settings
who have been in their positions for varying lengths
of time.
4. An examination of the specific job parameters that
can be manipulated to account for the presence of
motivators and hygienes in ways that will provide
increasing opportunities for satisfying incidents
and decreasing opportunities for dissatisfying incidents.


This dissertation was submitted to the Graduate Faculty of
the Department of Educational Administration and Supervision
in the College of Education and to the Graduate Council, and
was accepted as partial fulfillment of the requirements for
the degree of Doctor of Philosophy.
August 1980
Dean, Graduate School


LIST OF TABLES (continued)
Page
TABLE
22. Contribution of Motivators and Hygienes for
Directors of Placement in Program Planning
and Budgeting 98
23. Relative Contribution of Motivators and Hygienes
to Satisfying Incidents for Directors of Place
ment across Job Functions 100
24. Relative Contribution of Motivators and Hygienes
to Dissatisfying Incidents for Directors of
Placement across Job Functions 102
25. Comparison of Motivators and Hygienes in the
Satisfying Incidents for Community College
and University Directors of Admissions 104
26. Comparison of Motivators and Hygienes in the
Dissatisfying Incidents for Community College
and University Directors of Admissions 106
27. Comparison of Motivators and Hygienes in the
Satisfying Incidents for Community College
and University Registrars 107
28. Comparison of Motivators and Hygienes in the
Dissatisfying Incidents for Community College
and University Registrars 109
29. Comparison of Motivators and Hygienes in the
Satisfying Incidents for Community College
and University Directors of Placement 110
30. Comparison of Motivators and Hygienes in the
Dissatisfying Incidents for Community College
and University Directors of Placement 112
31. Comparison of Motivators and Hygienes in the
Satisfying Incidents among Community College
Positions ....114
IX


70
The Directors of Admissions mentioned the following
motivators as contributing to job satisfaction related to
this job function: achievement (25%), responsibility (25%),
the work itself (12.5%), and recognition (25%). The
hygiene interpersonal relationships (12.5%) was also cited
as contributing to job satisfaction.
In describing the dissatisfying incidents, the Directors
of Admissions mentioned the following hygienes as contributing
to job dissatisfaction: company policy and administration
(40%) and interpersonal relationships (20%). The motivator
achievement (40%) was also cited as contributing to job
dissatisfaction related to this job function.
Professional and civic activities
The relative contribution of motivators and hygienes to
job satisfaction and job dissatisfaction for the Directors
of Admissions in professional and civic activities is sum
marized in Table 4. Motivators contributed 88.9% to the
satisfying incidents for this job function while hygienes
contributed 11.1%. For the dissatisfying incidents, hygienes
and motivators contributed 50% each.
The Directors of Admissions mentioned the following
motivators as contributing to job satisfaction related to
this job function: achievement (33.3%), the possibility of
growth (22.2%), recognition (22.2%), and the work itself
(11.1%). The hygiene interpersonal relationships (11.1%) was
also cited as contributing to job satisfaction.


83
contributed 9%. For the dissatisfying incidents, hygienes
and motivators contributed 50% each.
Table 12
Contribution of Motivators and Hygienes for Registrars
in Professional and Civic Activities
Type of Incident
Type of
Classification
Satisfying
(% of satisfying)
Dissatisfying
(% of dissatisfying)
Motivators
10
2
(91)
(50)
Hygienes
1
2
(9)
(50)
The Registrars mentioned the following motivators as
contributing to their job satisfaction related to this job
function: recognition (45%), achievement (36%), and per
sonal growth (9%). The hygiene interpersonal relationships
(9%) was also mentioned as contributing to job satisfaction.
Two Registrars could not recall satisfying incidents relating
to this job function.
In describing dissatisfying incidents relating to this
job function, the Registrars mentioned the hygienes company
policy and administration (25%) and interpersonal relation
ships (25%) as contributing to job dissatisfaction. The
motivators achievement (25%) and the work itself (25%) were


44
job factors in a sample of the "entire" working
population (men and women at all occupational
levels). (p. 193)
Centers and Bugental (1966) found that the extent to which ex
trinsic or intrinsic job components were valued by the respon
dents was related to their occupational level. Intrinsic job
components (opportunities for self-expression, etc.) were valued
more at higher occupational levels. Extrinsic job components
(pay, security, etc.) were more valued at lower occupational
levels. Centers and Bugental interpreted their results in terms
of Maslow's theory when they concluded that
individuals in lower-level occupations are more
likely to be motivated by lower-order needs (pay,
security, etc.) because these are not sufficiently
gratified to allow higher-order needs (the self-
fulfillment possible in the job itself) to become
prepotent. (1966, p. 197)
Chung (1977, p. 42) identified only 10 studies directly or
indirectly related to the hierarchical concept. Despite the lack
of empirical support, the influence of Maslow's theory can be
seen in Herzberg's theory and comparisons between these two theo
ries have been made. However, Herzberg discerns differences be
tween the two theories and the weaknesses in Maslow's theory in
that
the Maslow system, then, does seem appropriate, but
it has holes in it. Lower-order needs never get satis
fied, as witness the constant demand for physiological
and security guarantees, the continuing socialization
for our society, and the never-ending search for sta
tus symbols. This is evident even though we have re
cognized the importance of self-actualization as a
potent force in the motivational makeup of people.
The Maslow system stresses the material needs
of man as primary to his more "human" moral motives.
The system has not worked in application because the
biological and psychological needs of man are parallel


APPENDIX E
VERIFICATION OF MAJOR JOB FUNCTIONS
REGISTRAR
1. Selection, supervision, coordination, and evaluation
of staff
2. Responsibility for student enrollment and records
3. Undergraduate and/or graduate registration; scheduling
of classes, examinations, and classroom facilities;
and maintenance of student records
4. Professional and civic activities
5. Counseling and advising students, parents of students,
and other interested groups or individuals
6. Participation in program planning and budgeting
145


121
Table 35
Comparison of Motivators and Hygienes
in Satisfying Incidents for Community
College and University Groups
Institutions, Positions
Type of Classification
Frequency
% Of
Group Total
Community College
Directors of Admissions
Motivators
10
83.3
Hygienes
2
16.7
Registrars
Motivators
36
83.7
Hygienes
7
16.3
Directors of Placement
Motivators
20
91
Hygienes
2
9
Total Motivators
66
85.7
Total Hygienes
11
14.3
University
Directors of Admissions
Motivators
29
87.8
Hygienes
4
12.2
Registrars
Motivators
23
88.5
Hygienes
3
11.5
Directors of Placement
Motivators
28
93.3
Hygienes
2
6.7
Total Motivators
80
89.9
Total Hygienes
9
10.1


75
Table 7
Relative Contribution of Motivators and Hygienes
to Satisfying Incidents for Directors of
Admissions Across Job Functions
% of Total
Factor
Frequency
(K=45)
Motivators
Achievement
16
35.6
Recognition
10
22.2
Responsibility
5
11 1
Possibility of Growth
4
8.9
Work Itself
4
8.9
39
86.7
Hygienes
Interpersonal Relationships
5
11. 1
Work Conditions
1
2.2
6
13.3
Total
Motivators
39
86.
. 7
Total
Hygienes
6
13.
, 3
H
o
For the Directors of Admissions, there is
no difference in the contribution of moti
vators and hygienes to satisfying incidents
associated with the major job functions of
the position.
1


15
3. compare job satisfaction with different variables
such as hierarchical position in the organization
(Ebeling, King, & Rogers, 1979), job seniority (Ronen,
1978), job longevity (Katz, 1978), and discrepancies
between perceived and preferred rewards (Tannenbaum
& Kuleck, 1978); and
4. develop theories of job satisfaction (Herzberg, Mausner,
& Snyderman, 1959; Maslow, 1954; Vroom, 1964).
Two different theoretical perspectives of job satisfaction
can be identified from a review of the related literature:
theories that are unidimensional and theories that are multi
dimensional. Traditional theory depicts job satisfaction and
job dissatisfaction on a single continuum (Wood & LeBold, 1967,
p. 1). Measured on a single continuum, the opposite of job satis
faction is job dissatisfaction. A worker would experience job
dissatisfaction if any positive job-related or environmentally
related element offering satisfaction to the worker were to be
removed. J^In contrast to this traditional theory, which is uni
dimensional, Herzberg's Motivator-Hygiene (M-H) Theory depicts
job satisfaction and job dissatisfaction as two distinct con
tinua. That is, the opposite of job satisfaction is not job
dissatisfaction; it is an absence of job satisfaction. Con
versely, the opposite of job dissatisfaction is not job satis
faction; it is an absence of job dissatisfaction.
A comparison of the two theories is presented in Figure 1,
which was adapted by the researcher from those presented in a
similar fashion by Herzberg (1976, p. 84), Thomas (1977, p. 22)
and Groseth (1978, p. 25).


149
Herzberg, F., Mausner, B., Peterson, R. A., & Capwell, D. F.
Job attitudes: Review of research and opinion. Pitts
burgh, Pennsylvania: Psychological Services of Pitts
burgh, 1957.
Herzberg, F., Mausner, B., & Snyderman, B. The motivation to
work. New York: Wiley Press, 1959.
Hinrichs, J. R., & Mischkind, L. A. Empirical and theoretical
limitations of the two-factor hypothesis of job satis
faction. Journal of Applied Psychology, 1967, 51,
191-200.
Holland, J. G., & Skinner, B. F. The analysis of behavior.
New York: McGraw-Hill, 1961.
Hoppock, R. Job satisfaction. New York: Harper, 1935.
Jackson, D. R. A study of university administrators' percep
tions related to the factors of Herzberg's motivation-
hygiene theory (Doctoral Dissertation, Northern Illinois
University, 1974). Dissertation Abstracts International,
1975, 35, 7560A.
Jones, D. P., & Drews, T. H. A manual for budgeting and
accounting for manpower resources in postsecondary educa
tion. In A. Podolsky & C. R. Smith, Education directory,
colleges and universities 1977-1978. National Center for
Education Statistics. Washington, D. C.: U.S. Government
Printing Office, 1978.
Katz, R. The influence of job longevity on employee reactions
to task characteristics. Human Relations, 1978, 31,
703-725.
Kerlinger, F. N. Foundations of behavioral research. New
York: Holt, Rinehart, and Winston, Inc., 1973.
Kozal, A. P. An application of the reformulated (Herzberg)
theory of job satisfaction to selected administrative
affairs staff in the Florida State University System
(Doctoral Dissertation, University of Florida, 1979).
Dissertation Abstracts International, 1979, 40, 1788A.
Locke, E. A. What is job satisfaction? Speech presented at
the American Psychological Association Convention, San
Francisco, August 1968. (ERIC Document Reproduction
Service No. ED 023 138).
Locke, E. A. In "defense" of defense mechanism: Some comments
on Bobbitt and Behling. Journal of Applied Psychology,
1972, 56, 297-298.


52
in 11 states. The traditional forced-choice structured-item
and Herzberg's free-choice critical-incidents were used to:
(1) test the job attitudes of the same subjects during the
same time periods, and (2) determine whether the differences
between these two methods were due to methodology. As a part
of his study, Aebi (1973) also reviewed 156 job-satisfaction
studies which supported, partially supported, or did not sup
port Herzberg's theory. A survey instrument was developed
that accurately represented both methodologies and a pilot
study was conducted to test the instrument. In general, Aebi
(1973) found support for Herzberg's theory. Although the dif
ferent methodologies resulted in different findings for sources
of dissatisfaction (more often than for sources of satisfaction),
the greatest source of satisfaction was the work itself and
the greatest source of dissatisfaction was working conditions.
Aebi (1973) did find significant differences between subgroups
of college educators relative to type of work, age, sex, salary,
and degree held. In addition, Herzberg's theory was more ap
plicable to faculty members than to administrators and to male
faculty members more than to female faculty members. Herzberg's
theory was least applicable to those faculty members who were
60 years of age or older and to those who earned less than
$6,000 annually.
Jackson (1975) investigated the 14 related factors of
Herzberg's theory to determine the degree to which they could
be identified among a population of 422 middle-management
administrators and vice-presidents from five different col
leges and universities. A forced-choice questionnaire which


28
activities as excessive drinking and smoking" (Herzberg et
al., 1959, p. 53). The negative mental health effects were clas
sified into three categories based on reports by the respondents
(1) the diagnosis of a pathology by a physician which the respon
dent related to the tensions of the job; (2) physiological
changes related to job tensions such as headaches, nausea, etc.;
and (3) diffuse symptoms resulting from tension (Herzberg et al
1959, p. 53). The respondents reported that their interpersonal
relationships were affected by their job attitudes (i.e., "as a
result of good feelings about his job, he had become 'more bear
able at home' and found new pleasure in his relationship with
his children") (Herzberg et al., 1959, p. 54). Regarding atti-
tudinal effects, Herzberg et al. reported that "a person's feel
ings about his job led to changed attitudes toward himself, his
colleagues, his profession, or the company for which he worked"
(1959, p. 54).
With respect to the fulfullment of needs or wants, Herzberg
et al. stated that
^.for the kind of population that we sampled, and pro-
ably for many other populations as well, the wants of
emplyees divide into two groups. One group revolves
around the need to develop in one's occupation as a
source of personal growth. The second group operates
as an essential base to the first and is associated
with fair treatment in compensation, supervision,
work conditions, and administrative practices. The
fulfullment of the needs of the second group does not
motivate the individual to high levels of job satis
faction, and, ... to extra performance on the job.
All we can expect from satisfying the needs for hygiene
is the prevention of dissatisfaction and poor job per
formance. (Herzberg et al., 1959, p. 115)


104
Table 25
Comparison of Motivators and Hygienes in the
Satisfying Incidents for Community College and
University Directors of Admissions
Type of Institution, Position
Type of Classification
Frequency
% Of
Group Total
Community College
Directors of Admissions

Motivators
10
83.3
Hygienes
2
16.7
University
Directors of Admissions
Motivators
29
87.8
Hygienes
4
12.2
The data in Table 25 were compared to test the null
hypothesis:
7
There is no difference in the contribution
of motivators and hygienes to satisfying
incidents associated with the major job
functions of the positions of community
college Directors of Admissions compared
to their university counterparts.
These data indicate no significant difference in the
contribution of motivators and hygienes to the job satis
faction of community college Directors of Admissions compared
to their university counterparts. The chi-square test


LIST OF TABLES (continued)
Page
TABLE
32. Comparison of Motivators and Hygienes in the
Dissatisfying Incidents among Community College
Positions 116
33. Comparison of Motivators and Hygienes in the
Satisfying Incidents among University Positions .... 118
34. Comparison of Motivators and Hygienes in the
Dissatisfying Incidents among University Posi
tions 119
35. Comparison of Motivators and Hygienes in Satis
fying Incidents for Community College and Univer
sity Groups 121
36. Comparison of Motivators and Hygienes in Dissatis
fying Incidents for Community College and Univer
sity Groups.' 123
37. Frequency Distribution of Motivators for Satis
fying and Dissatisfying Incidents 126
38. Frequency Distribution of Hygienes for Satisfying
and Dissatisfying Incidents 127
x


133
satisfaction and dissatisfaction for the community
college positions as a group compared to the univer
sity positions as a group.
Conclusions
Conclusions that can be drawn from this study are
that:
1. Herzberg's theory is applicable as a theoretical
framework to study the determinants of job satis
faction and dissatisfaction for community college
and state university Directors of Admissions, Regis
trars, and Directors of Placement in Florida. For
each of the positions studied, motivators contribute
significantly more to job satisfaction than do hygienes.
2. Hygienes generally contribute more to job dissatis
faction than do motivators for community college and
university Directors of Admissions, Registrars, and
Directors of Placement.
3. Across these three job positions, determinants of
job satisfaction include the following motivators,
in order of significance: achievement, recognition,
the work itself, responsibility, and the possibility
of growth.
4. For the community college administrators, the deter
minants of job satisfaction, in order of significance,
include the Diotivators achievement, the work itself,
recognition, the possibility of growth, and responsi
bility.


APPENDIX F
VERIFICATION OF MAJOR JOB FUNCTIONS
DIRECTOR OF PLACEMENT
1. Selection, supervision, coordination, and evaluation
of staff
2. Supervision of on-campus recruiting activities by
prospective employers, and maintenance of related
files and records
3. Provision of job placement services to undergraduates
graduate students, and alumni, which may include part
time jobs within or outside the institution
4. Professional and civic activities
5. Counseling and advising students, parents of students
and other interested groups or individuals
6. Participation in program planning and budgeting
140


94
jobs within or outside the institution) is summarized in
Table 19. Motivators contributed 100% to the satisfying
incidents. For the dissatisfying incidents, hygienes
contributed 42.9% while motivators contributed 57.1%.
Directors of Placement mentioned the following motivators
as contributing to their job satisfaction related to this
job function: achievement (41.7%), recognition (33.3%),
and the work itself (25%). No hygienes were cited as con
tributing to job satisfaction.
Table 19
Contribution of Motivators and Hygienes
for Directors of Placement in Providing Job
Placement Services
Type of Incident
Type of
Classification
Satisfying
(% of satisfying)
Dissatisfying
(% of dissatisfying)
Motivators
12
4
(100)
(57.1)
Hygienes
0
3
(0)
(42.9)
In describing dissatisfying incidents, Directors of
Placement mentioned the following hygienes as contributing
to job dissatisfaction: interpersonal relationships (28.6%)
and company policy and administration (14.3%). The motivators


78
present positions ranged from 1 to 12 years with an average
of 5.5 years. They had served in their prior positions for
from 1 to 9 years, with an average of 4 years. All but one
of the Registrars had been promoted from within their present
organization. Most of the Registrars held Master's degrees
in economics, educational administration and supervision,
business education, or math education. Undergraduate majors
included economics, social studies, psychology, English,
business, chemical engineering, and business education.
The job functions for Registrars presented to the respon
dents (as described in Appendix E) were verified as generally
accurate by all respondents. One respondent added the
evaluation of transfer credit and the readmission of students
as major job functions.
Tables 9 through 14 summarize the relative contributions
of motivators and hygienes mentioned by the Registrars as
contributing to the satisfying and dissatisfying incidents
related to their major job functions. The degree to which
motivators or hygienes contributed to job satisfaction or
dissatisfaction is represented by percentages.
Selection, supervision, coordination,
and evaluation of staff
The relative contribution of motivators and hygienes to
job satisfaction and job dissatisfaction for Registrars in
selecting, supervising, coordinating, and evaluating staff
is summarized in Table 9. Motivators contributed 89% to
the satisfying incidents while hygienes contributed 11%.


148
Ebeling, J., King, M., & Rogers, M. Hierarchical positions
in the work organization and job satisfaction: Findings
in a national survey data. Human Relations, 1979, 32,
387-393.
Ewen, R. B. Some determinants of job satisfaction: A study
of the generality of Herzberg's theory. Journal of
Applied Psychology. 1964, 48, 161-163.
Ewen, R. B., Smith, P. C., Hulin, C. L., & Locke, E. A. An
empirical test of the Herzberg two-factor theory. Jour
nal of Applied Psychology, 1966, 5C), 544-550.
Flanagan, J. C. The critical incident technique. Psycholog
ical Bulletin, 1954, 51, 327-358.
Friedlander, F. Job characteristics as satisfiers and dis-
satisfiers. Journal of Applied Psychology, 1964, 48,
388-392.
Gluskinos, U. M., & Wainer, A. A multidimensional analysis
of school satisfaction. American Educational Research
Journal. 1971, 8, 423-434.
Graen, G. B. Addendum to "an empirical test of the Herzberg
two-factor theory." Journal of Applied Psychology,
1966, 50, 551-555.
Grigaliunas, B., & Wiener, U. Has the research challenge to
motivation-hygiene theory been conclusive? An analysis
of critical studies. In F. Herzberg (Ed.) The managerial
choice: To be efficient and to be human. Homewood,
Illinois: Dow Jones-Irwin, 1976.
Groseth, R. S. An investigation of the motivator-hygiene
theory of job satisfaction among selected student affairs
administrators (Doctoral Dissertation, University of
Florida, 1978). Dissertation Abstracts International,
1978, 39, 1952A.
Halpern, G. Relative contributions of motivator and hygiene
factors to overall job satisfaction. Journal of Applied
Psychology, 1966, 50, 198-200.
Hazer, J. T. Job satisfaction: A possible integration to
two theories. Training and Development Journal, 1976,
30, 12-14.
Herzberg, F. One more time: How do you motivate employees?
Harvard Business Review, 1968, 46, 82-91. (5*^.kV)
Herzberg, F. The managerial choice: To be efficient and to
be human. Homewood, Illinois: Dow Jones-Irwin, 1976.


14.1
III. Satisfaction-Dissatisfaction
We are going to go down the same itemsone by one. I
will first ask you to describe a specific incident (a
particular experience you have had) when you felt ex
ceptionally good about your present job in a particular
task area (e.g., professional and civic activities). Then
I will ask you to describe an incident when you felt ex
ceptionally bad about your job in the same area. Please
try to recall these events in as much detail as possible.
If it is impossible for you to recall such an incident,
or if there has not been one that really stands out as
exceptionally good or bad, please tell me. However, I
would appreciate your utmost cooperation in recalling as
many of these events as you can. All information will
be kept confidential and you will in no way be identified.
Incidents:
la. Selection, supervision, coordination, and evaluation of
staff (satisfying)
lb. same (dissatisfying)
2a. Responsibility for student enrollment and records
(satisfying)
2b. same (dissatisfying)
3a. Undergraduate and/or graduate registration; scheduling of
classes, examinations,and classroom facilities; and main
tenance of student records (satisfying)
3b. same (dissatisfying)
4a. Professional and civic activities (satisfying)
4b. same (dissatisfying)
5a. Counseling and advising students, parents of students, and
other interested groups or individuals (satisfying)
5b. same (dissatisfying)
6a. Participation in program planning and budgeting
(satisfying)
6b. same (dissatisfying)


REFERENCES
Aebi, C. J. The applicability of Herzberg's motivation-
hygiene theory to college administration as tested
by two different methodologies(Doctoral Dissertation,
Ohio University, 1972). Dissertation Abstracts Inter
nal ioriul i 97.';, 33, 3379A-3930 A.
Avakian, A. N. An analysis of factors relating to job satis
faction and dissatisfaction of faculty members in insti
tutions of higher education (Doctoral Dissertation, State
University of New York at Albany, 1971). Dissertation
Abstracts International, 1971, 32, 1765A.
Bishop, T. S. Factors affecting job satisfaction and job
dissatisfaction among Iowa public school teachers (Doc
toral Dissertation, University of Iowa, 1969). Disser
tation Abstracts International, 1970, 30, 3661A.
Bobbitt, II. R. & Behling, 0. Defense mechanisms as an alter
native explanation of Herzberg's motivator-hygiene results.
Journal of Applied Psychology, 1972, 56, 24-27. (a)
Bobbitt, H. R., Si Behling, 0. In "defense" of defense mechan
isms: A reply to Locke's comments. Journal of Applied
Psychology, 1972, 56, 299-300. (b)
Carey, D. E. Motivating and dissatisfying factors in a staff
of professional educators (Doctoral Dissertation, Univer
sity of Southern California, 1979). Dissertation Abstracts
International, 1979, 40, 3645A.
Centers, R., & Bugental, D. E. Intrinsic and extrinsic job
motivations among different segments of the working pop
ulation. Journal of Applied Psychology, 1966, 50, 193-197.
Chung, K. H. Motivational theories and practices. Columbus,
Ohio: Grid Inc., 1977.
Darrow, L. E. An empirical test of the Herzberg two-factor
theory of job satisfaction (Doctoral Dissertation, East
Texas State University, 1971). Dissertation Abstracts
International, 1972, 32, 6094B-6095B.
Dunnette, M. D., Campbell, J. P., & Ilakel, M. D. Factors con
tributing to job satisfaction and job dissatisfaction in
six occupational groups. Organizational Behavior and
Human Performance, 1967, 2, 143-174.
147


57
3. that the advantages to be gained by using this
theoretical framework outweigh the disadvantages;
4. that the major criticisms of Herzberg's theory
can be refuted; and
5. that there is a growing body of literature which
has applied Herzberg's theory to different popula
tions in different educational settings.
Prior research has included some of the variables under
examination in the present study. However, no studies were
identified which address the job satisfaction of mid-level
community college administrators compared to their counter
parts at the university level. In addition, no studies were
identified which specifically address the job satisfaction
determinants of the Registrar, Director of Admissions and
Director of Placement, three positions which have potential
impact from projected declining enrollments in the 1980s.


To my loving parents,
Russell K.
of Camano
Burr and Gladys M.
Island, Washington
Burr


115
among the three community college positions. The chi-square
2
test revealed a significant difference (x =39.62, df=2, p<.05)
causing the null hypothesis to be rejected.
Determinants of job dissatisfaction:
community college positions compared
The relative contribution of motivators and hygienes
to job dissatisfaction among the three community college
positions is summarized in Table 32. For community college
Directors of Admissions, the hygienes interpersonal relation
ships, company policy and administration, and supervision-
technical contributed 100% to their job dissatisfaction;
no motivators were cited. For the community college Regis
trars, the hygienes company policy and administration,
interpersonal relationships, salary, and supervision-technical
contributed 66% to their job dissatisfaction. The motivators
achievement and recognition contributed 33%. For the com
munity college Directors of Placement, the hygienes inter
personal relationships and company policy and administration
contributed 53% to their dissatisfaction. The motivator
achievement contributed 47%.
The data in Table 32 were compared to test the null
hypothesis:
14
For the three community college positions,
there is no difference in the contribution
of motivators and hygienes to dissatisfying
incidents associated with the major job
functions of the positions.
These data indicate a significant difference in the
contribution of motivators and hygienes to the job


39
Vroom's criticism of Herzberg's methodology was supported
by Dunnette, Campbell, and Hakel, who said that
interviews provide no safeguard against defensive
replies from the respondents; many respondents might
quite naturally tend to attribute good job events
to things they themselves had done (e.g., achieve
ment, recognition, responsibility) and bad job events
to things outside or extrinsic to themselves (e.g.,
working conditions, supervision, company policies
and practices). If such were the case, the findings
of Herzberg, et al. speak more clearly to a basic
aspect of human nature (tendency to want to "look
good" in the eyes of others) than to motivational
or satisfying effects of different types of job
situations or environments. (Dunnette, Campbell,
& Hakel, 1967, p. 148)
Grigaliunas and Wiener (1976, pp. 290-295) contend that the
research conducted by Bobbitt and Behling (1972a) does
not substantiate the "defensiveness processes" nor the
"social desirability" argument as an alternative explanation
to Herzberg's theory.
A third major criticism of Herzberg's theory reported in
the literature is the theory's lack of ability to measure "over
all job satisfaction" (Ewen, 1964; Ewen, Smith, Hulin, & Locke,
1966). Whitsett and Winslow (1976) identified this type of
criticism as the problem of evaluating one theory from a dif
ferent theoretical perspective. They feel the Ewen et al.
criticized Herzbergs two-factor theory by trying to evaluate
it from a traditional or single-factor theory perspective.
Whitsett and Winslow explained that
the problem here is one of semantics. The essence
of the motivation-hygiene concept is that motivator
factors and hygiene factors are independent, operate
on different needs, and cannot be combined. There
fore, M-H Theory makes no prediction about overall
anything. But let us suppose, for the sake of dis
cussion, that M-H Theory did make predictions about
overall job satisfaction. What would it predict?


95
achievement (42.9%) and the work itself (14.3%) were also
cited as contributing to job dissatisfaction related to this
job function.
Professional and civic activities
The relative contribution of motivators and hygienes
to job satisfaction and dissatisfaction for the Directors of
Placement in their professional and civic activities is
summarized in Table 20. Motivators contributed 87.5% to
the satisfying incidents for this job function while hygienes
contributed 12.5%. For the dissatisfying incidents, hygienes
contributed 40% and motivators contributed 60%.
Table 20
Contribution of Motivators and Hygienes for Directors
of Placement in Professional and Civic Activities
Type
of
Incident
Type of
Classification
Satisfying
(% of satisfying)
(%
Dissatisfying
of dissatisfying)
Motivators
7
(87.5)
3
(60)
Hygienes
1
(12.5)
2
(40)
Directors of Placement mentioned the following motivators
as contributing to their job satisfaction related to this
job function: recognition (35.7%), possibility of growth (25%),


CHAPTER I
INTRODUCTION
Employee motivation and job satisfaction have been the
topics of countless studies since Iloppock's original study in
1935 of the relationship between demographic variables and job
satisfaction. The importance of the benefits to be gained by
the institution from motivational research should not be under
estimated. ^The effects of a dissatisfied, poorly motivated
work force have been related to low productivity, high turnover,
absenteeism, and counterproductive behavior. In a rapidly
changing, technocratic society, where the individual is dwarfed
by the size of the institutions and jobs have been routinized
for the sake of organizational efficiency, the ability to iden
tify the determinants of job satisfaction is paramount.
^ In 1957, Ilerzberg, Mausner, Peterson, and Capwell present
ed a review of literature on job attitudes which covered more
than 2,000 articles spread over a period of approximately 50
years. Based on the results of this review, Herzberg, Mausner,
and Snyderman began to develop a theory of job satisfaction and
job dissatisfaction which came to be known as Herzberg's
Motivator-Hygiene (M-H) Theory. Unlike the traditional theory
of job satisfaction, which assumed that the opposite of job sa
tisfaction was job dissatisfaction, Herzberg et al., theorized
that "the factors involved in producing job satisfaction (and
motivation) are separate and distinct from the factors that lead
1


18
In Hoppock's study, respondents expressed overall job
satisfaction directly by answering questions designed to in
vestigate their global attitudes toward the job; whether the
respondent liked or disliked it. The primary usefulness of
this approach, according to Herzberg et al. (1959, p. 5), is
in the investigation of the relationships between the demo
graphic variables. In Hoppock's study, for example, the over
all job satisfaction of individuals was compared to the demo
graphic variables of age, sex, educational level, social class,
occupation, earnings, marital status, and IQ scores.
Herzberg's (M-H) Theory
Unlike Hoppock, who advocated research on the measurement
of the sources of global satisfaction, other theorists such
as Herzberg, Mausner, Peterson, and Capwell (1957), discerned
two sources of job satisfaction: intrinsic and extrinsic. Yoder
summarized the distinction between these two sources of job
satisfaction as
an intrinsic source pertaining to the "substance" of
the job (i.e., the kind of job it is, the type of work
that is done, what the job entails) and an extrinsic
source pertaining to the "accidents" of the job (i.e.,
pay, co-workers, supervision, location, etc.). (Yoder,
1975, p. 6.27)
Herzberg, Mausner, Peterson and Capwell (1957) reviewed
the literature on job attitudes, covering more than 2,000 arti
cles written over a period of approximately 50 years. Based
on the results of this review, Herzberg, Mausner and Snyderman
began to develop a theory of job satisfaction and job dissatis
faction which has come to be known as Herzberg's Motivator-
Hygiene (M-H) Theory. ^An important basis of this theory is
the concept that two different sets of needs in man are


46
Unlike Pavlov's classical conditioning paradigm, which is
concerned with behavioral responses elicited by prior stimula
tion, Skinner's operant conditioning is concerned with behavior
that is controlled by its consequences. Behavior that operates
on the environment to produce consequences is operant behavior.
The distinction between operant behavior and respondent behav
ior is that the former is "voluntary behavior controlled by
its consequences while the latter is involuntary reflexes emit
ted by stimuli" (Chung, 1977, pp. 60-61).
Operant behavior occurs through the process called operant
conditioning in which the organism operates on the environment
to produce a consequence and behavior having this kind of con
sequence becomes more likely to occur in the future. That is,
the future probability of the response occurring is controlled
by the temporal relationship between the behavior and the con
sequence and whether the response is reinforced positively,
negatively, or punished. Both positive and negative reinforce
ment increase the future probability of a response occurring.
As described by Skinner,
when a hungry organism exhibits behavior that "pro
duces" food, the behavior is reinforced by that con
sequence and is therefore more likely to recur. Be
havior that "reduces" a potentially damaging condition,
such as an extreme of temperature, is reinforced by
that consequence and therefore tends to recur on simi
lar occasions. (Skinner, 1974, pp. 39-40)
While punishment that is contingent on specific behavior
has the effect of reducing that behavior, it will also elicit
sweating, increased heart rate, etc., in the respondent (Holland
& Skinner, 1961, p. 248). Extinction or the contingency of


135
10. There is a significant difference in the relative
contributions of motivators and hygienes to the job
satisfaction and job dissatisfaction among positions
at the same type of educational institution.
11. Community college and university Directors of Admis
sions, Registrars, and Directors of Placement in com
munity colleges and state universities in Florida are
typically promoted to their present positions from
within their same organization after a short time in
their prior positions.
Implications
The salient implications inherent in these findings are
that:
1. The opportunity to achieve individual and/or organiza
tional goals is a primary contributor to job satis
faction. Job functions for the mid-level administra
tors analyzed in the present study should be designed
to incorporate opportunities for achievement. For
example, job functions should be structured in a manner
that facilitates the successful application of existing
skills and/or the acquisition of new skills.
2. The specific factors related to job satisfaction and
job dissatisfaction can be determined for mid-level
college and university administrators. These determi
nants should then be utilized in the development of
personnel practices and policies.


61
motivators and hygienes on the critical incidents as identi
fied by the administrators was different from that which would
have been expected by chance at the .05 level of significance.
Assumptions
For the purposes of this study, the underlying assumptions
were that:
1. the procedures used would achieve the purposes of
the study;
2. the critical-incident interview guides used in the
study would yield valid and reliable data;
3. the factors that were identified related to the job
satisfaction and dissatisfaction of the administrators;
4. the job functions as identified were accurate for each
position; and
5. the verbal descriptions of critical incidents by the
respondents were accurately classified for coding by
the researcher according to Herzberg's motivators
and hygienes. .
Delimitations and Limitations
In seeking to answer the questions and to test the hypo
theses of interest, the following delimitations were inherent
in the present study:
1. Positions and institutions were not randomly selected.
The sample included the Director of Admissions, the
Registrar, and the Director of Placement at three
Florida public community colleges and three four-year
institutions in the State University System (SUS). The


32
b. the opposite of job dissatisfaction is not job satis
faction; it is an absence of job dissatisfaction.
Analysis of Research Related to
Herzberg's (M-H) Theory
Herzberg's theory can be considered to be controversial.
It has been one of the most frequently investigated theories in
the literature on motivation and job satisfaction. The present
section discusses the controversy surrounding Herzberg's theory
through an analysis of related research. Major criticisms of
Herzberg's theory and rebuttals by Herzberg et al. to those
criticisms are discussed in the next section.
According to Kerlinger, "the basic aim of science is theory."
Kerlinger defined theory as
a set of interrelated constructs(concepts), definitions,
and propositions that present a systematic view of phe
nomena by specifying relations among variables, with the
purpose of explaining and predicting phenomena. (Kerlinger,
1973, p. 8)
Traditionally, the "value" of a theory is often determined
by its ability to explain, predict, control, and generate further
research. If this is true, the value of Herzberg's theory is
evidenced in part by the volume and different types of research
that have been conducted to investigate the theory. For example,
attempts have been made by researchers to "reconcile" Herzberg's
theory with traditional theory (Hazer, 1976; Solimn, 1970).
Herzberg's theory has also been applied to different populations
of employees in different job settings and countries (Herzberg,
1968, p. 57).
Of special interest to the present study have been the ap
plications of Herzberg's theory to populations selected from


90
4
H For the Registrars, there is no difference in
the contribution of motivators and hygienes
to dissatisfying situations associated with
the major functions of the position.
These data indicate that hygienes contributed more than
did motivators to the job dissatisfaction of the Registrars
interviewed. The chi-square test revealed a significant
difference between the contributions of hygienes and motivators
2
(x =8.97, df=l, p<.05) causing the null hypothesis to be
rejected.
Directors of Placement
Demographic data collected from the Directors of Place
ment indicated that the length of time these respondents
had served in their present positions ranged from 2 years to
13 years with an average of 7.6 years. They had served in
their prior positions for from 1 to 4 years, with an average
of 2.2 years. All but one of the Directors of Placement had
been promoted from within their present organizations. All
of the Directors of Placement held Masters degrees which
included the disciplines of guidance and counseling, industrial
management, and educational administration and supervision.
Undergraduate majors included education, military science,
and biology.
The job functions for the Directors of Placement pre
sented to the respondents (as described in Appendix F) were
verified as accurate by all respondents. Tables 17-22 compare
the relative contributions of the motivators and hygienes
related to the major job functions that were mentioned by
the Directors of Placement as contributing to satisfying


139
III. Satisfaction-Dissatisfaction
We are going to go down the same itemsone by one. I
will first ask you to describe a specific incident (a
particular experience you have had) when you felt ex
ceptionally good about your present job in a particular
task area (e.g., professional and civic activities).
Then I will ask you to describe an incident when you felt
exceptionally bad about your job in the same area. Please
try to recall such an incident, or if there has not been
one that really stands out as exceptionally good or bad,
please tell me. However, I would appreciate your utmost
cooperation in recalling as many of these events as you
can. All information will be kept confidential and you
will in no way be identified.
Incidents:
la. Selection, supervision, coordination, and evaluation of
staff (satisfying)
lb. same (dissatisfying)
2a. Responsibility for the recruitment, selection, and ad
mission of undergraduates and/or graduate students (satis
fying)
2b. same (dissatisfying)
3a. Participation in the development of admissions criteria
(satisfying)
3b. same (dissatisfying)
4a. Professional and civic activities (satisfying)
4b. same (dissatisfying)
5a. Counseling and advising students, parents of students, and
other interested groups or individuals (satisfying)
5b. same (dissatisfying)
6a. Participation in program planning and budgeting (satisfying)
6b. same (dissatisfying)


118
Table 33
Comparison of Motivators and
Hygienes in the Satisfying
Incidents Among University Positions
Type
of
Institution, Position
% Of
Type
of
Classification
Frequency
Group Total
University
Directors of Admissions
Motivators 29 87.8
Hygienes 4 12.2
University Registrars
Motivators 23 88.5
Hygienes 3 11.5
University
Directors of Placement
Motivators 28 93.3
Hygienes 2 6.7
is summarized in Table 34. For university Directors of
Admissions, the hygienes company policy and administration,
interpersonal relationships, salary, supervision-technical,
and work conditions contributed 71.9% to their job dissatis
faction. The motivators achievement and recognition con
tributed 28.1%. For the university Registrars, the hygienes
company policy and administration, interpersonal relationships,


34
because of what he described as "the narrow range of jobs in
vestigated, the use of only one measure of job attitudes, the
absence of any validity and reliability data, and the absence
of any measure of overall job satisfaction" (p. 161).
Friedlander (1964) administered two questionnaires to
80 subjects in which the importance of various job character
istics to satisfaction and dissatisfaction was compared.
Friedlander's results indicated that "satisfaction and dis
satisfaction are, for the most part, unrelated and not comple
mentary functions, rather than negatively related poles on a
single bipolar continuum" (p. 388). Therefore, Friedlander
concluded that the results of studies and theories which uti
lized a single satisfaction-dissatisfaction continuum were
questionable.
Ewen, Smith, Hulin, and Locke (1966) reported the Results
of an "empirical" test of Herzberg's (M-H) theory. Several
hypotheses for which Herzberg's theory and traditional theory
make different predictions were tested. The Job Descriptive
Index (JDI) had been developed by this group of researchers
at Cornell University in 1963. The JDI was used as the basis
to test these different predictions. However, neither Herzberg's
theory nor the traditional theory was supported by the data.
Graen (1966) performed a two-way analysis of variance on
selected a priori contrasts on the data from the study by Ewen,
Smith, Hulin, and Locke (1966). ^Graen concluded that the re
sults supported the traditional theory and argued against Herz
berg's theory.


131
support for the application of Herzberg's theory to an educa
tional setting; and (4) compare the determinants of job
satisfaction and dissatisfaction among positions and across
institutions.
Data for the study were gathered from individual, semi-
structured interviews held at each institution. Respondents
were asked to recall incidents related to their major job
functions in which they felt exceptionally good or bad about
their job. Individual interview guides developed for each
position were used during the interviews (see Appendices A,
B, and C). The critical incidents described by the respondents
were recorded on the interview guides during the interview
process. '.These descriptions were later analyzed to identify
any of Herzberg's six motivators (achievement, recognition,
responsibility, the work itself, possibility of growth, and
advancement) or eight hygienes (company policy and administra
tion, interpersonal relationships, supervision-technical, work
conditions, salary, personal life, status, and job security)
that were applicable.
Frequency^distributions and percentages were computed for
the motivators and hygienes mentioned in the satisfying and
dissatisfying incidents. The chi-square test was used to
determine the presence of significant differences in the data
among the respondents. Eighteen hypotheses were tested for
significant differences at the .05 level of significance.
Major Findings
Results of the data analyses revealed the following major
findings related to the hypotheses of interest:


between the contributions of motivators and hygienes for each
position, among positions, and between positions at the two
types of institutions.
For each of the positions studied, motivators contributed
significantly more to job satisfaction than did hygienes, there
by supporting the applicability of Herzberg's theory. Across
the three job positions, the determinants of job satisfaction
included the following motivators (M) and hygienes (H), in order
of significance: achievement (M), recognition (M), the work
itself (M) interpersonal relationships (H), the possibility
of personal growth (M), and responsibility (M). Across the
three positions, the determinants of job dissatisfaction, in
order of significance included the following motivators (M)
and hygienes (H): company policy and administration (H), the
presence or absence of achievement (M), interpersonal relation
ships (H), salary (H), supervision-technical (H), and the
work itself (M).
No significant difference was found in the relative
contribution of motivators and hygienes to the job satisfaction
and dissatisfaction between community college and university
mid-level administrators for the positions studied. A signifi
cant difference was found in the relative contribution of
motivators and hygienes to the job satisfaction and dissatis
faction among the community college positions. A significant
difference was found in the relative contributions of motivators
and hygienes among the university positions.
xiii


16
Traditional Theory
job satisfaction needs of man job dissatisfaction
Herzberg's Theory
(motivator needs)
job human no job
satisfaction activity needs satisfaction
(hygiene needs)
job animal no job
dissatisfaction avoidance needs dissatisfaction
Figure 1
A comparison of the traditional continuum to Herzberg's continua
The essence of traditional theory is incorporated in
Hoppock's (1935) study of employed and unemployed adults in
New Hope, Pennsylvania. Hoppock defined job satisfaction as
"any combination of psychological, physiological, and environ
mental circumstances that causes a person to truthfully say 'I
am satisfied with my job'" (1935, p. 47). On the basis of res
ponses to his survey instrument, adults were categorized into
three groups: satisfied, indifferent or uncertain, and dissatis
fied. Hoppock, who has been described as the pioneer in the
study of job satisfaction, viewed job satisfaction and job dis
satisfaction as components on the same continuum. This single
continuum construct has been identified as "global" satisfaction
and is a fundamental tenet of traditional theories of job satis
faction (Yoder, 1975, p. 6.27). According to Hoppock,
a person may be satisfied, dissatisfied, indifferent
or uncertain. He may be satisfied with some aspects
of his job and dissatisfied with others; he may combine
such specific satisfactions and dissatisfactions into
a composite satisfaction with the job as a whole. Such
satisfaction may vary from day to day, and it may be
rationalized; it is not identical with interest. The


7
For the Directors of Placement
Hq There is no difference in the contribution
of motivators and hygienes to satisfying situations
associated with the major job functions of the
position.
Hq^ 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:
1. selection, supervision, coordination, and
evaluation of staff;
2. supervision of on-campus recruiting activities
by prospective employers, and maintenance of
related files and records;
3. provision of placement services to undergrad
uates, graduates, and alumni which may include
part-time jobs within or outside the institution
4. professional and civic activities;
5. counseling and advising students, parents of
students, and other interested groups or indi
viduals; and
6. participation in program planning and budgeting.
Hq There is no difference in the contribution of moti
vators and hygienes to satisfying situations associa
ted with the major job functions of the positions of


102
Table 24
Relative Contribution of Motivators and Hygienes
to Dissatisfying Incidents for Directors
of Placement Across Job Functions
Factor
Frequency
% of Total
(K=46)
Motivators
Achievement
14
30.4
Work Itself
5
10.9
Recognition
3
6.5
22
47.8
Hygienes
Interpersonal Relationships
9
19.6
Company Policy & Administration
8
17.4
Supervision-Technical
4
8.7
Salary
2
4.3
Work Conditions
1
2.2
24
52.2
Total
Motivators
22
47.
. 8
Total
Hygienes
24
52.
2


66
in the present sample was the Ph.D. Undergraduate majors
included education, social sciences, and management.
The job functions for Director of Admissions presented
to the respondents (see Appendix D) were confirmed as accurate
by all respondents. One respondent added the utilization
of computers as a major job function.
Tables 1 through 6 summarize the relative contribution
of motivators and hygienes to the satisfying and dissatisfying
incidents related to the major job functions for the Directors
of Admissions. Percentages indicate the degree to which
motivators or hygienes were related as contributing to the
satisfying or dissatisfying incidents described by the
respondents.
Selection, supervision, coordination,
and evaluation of staff
The relative contribution of motivators and hygienes
to job satisfaction and job dissatisfaction for the Directors
of Admissions in the selection, supervision, coordination, and
evaluation of staff is summarized in Table 1. Motivators
contributed 100% to the satisfying incidents. For the
dissatisfying incidents, hygienes contributed 87.5% and
motivators contributed 12.5%.
Motivators which contributed to the satisfying incidents
for the Directors of Admissions related to this function
were achievement (37.5%), possibility of growth (25%),
responsibility (25%), and recognition (12.5%). No hygienes
were reported as contributing to the satisfying incidents.


35
Halpern (1966) tested the ratings of four motivator job
aspects, four hygiene aspects and overall job satisfaction
which were obtained from 93 male subjects who were equally
satisfied with both the motivator and hygiene aspects of their
found support for Herzberg's theory in that
"two of the job aspects (work itself and the opportunity for
achievement), both motivators, were sufficient to account for
the variance in overall satisfaction" (1966, p. 198). Although
Halpern tested ratings of satisfact ion,^he did not test ratings
of dissatisfaction.
'^Hinrichs and Mischkind (1967) did not find support for
Herzberg's theory when they used his theoretical framework to
compare the salient reasons for current job satisfaction for
high- and low-satisfaction respondents. Specifically, they
tested two hypotheses: (1) that motivators would be mentioned
primarily in both cases by people with high overall satisfaction
when asked to identify things in their jobs that influence
them in positive and negative ways; and (2) that hygiene fac
tors would be mentioned primarily in both cases by people low
on overall job satisfaction, ^Qrigaliunas and Wiener (1976, p.
278) criticized this study on the grounds that Hinrichs and
Mischkind attempted to use Herzberg's theoretical framework
to measure "overall job satisfaction"a concept that does not
exist in Herzberg's theory.
Darrow (1972) tested Herzberg's theory within a closed
organization by administering the Job Factor Questionnaire
(an instrument designed to measure the contribution of the


91
and dissatisfying incidents. The degree to which each moti
vator or hygiene contributed to job satisfaction or to job
dissatisfaction is represented by the percentage of the
total for each group that each one contributed.
Selection, supervision, coordination,
and evaluation of staff
The relative contribution of motivators and hygienes to
job satisfaction and dissatisfaction for Directors of Place
ment in the selection, supervision, coordination, and evalua
tion of staff is summarized in Table 17. Motivators contributed
88.9% to the satisfying incidents for this job function while
hygienes contributed 11.1%. For the dissatisfying incidents,
hygienes contributed 42.8% while motivators contributed 57.2%.
Table 17
Contribution of Motivators and Hygienes for
Directors of Placement in the Selection,
Supervision, Coordination, and Evaluation of Staff
Type of Incident
Type of Satisfying Dissatisfying
Classification (% of satisfying) (% of dissatisfying)
Motivators 8 4
(88.9) (57.2)
Hygienes 1 3
(11.1) (42.8)


25
4. Advancement. This factor was used only when there
was an actual change in the status or position of the respon
dent in the company.
5. Salary. This factor included all sequences of events
in which compensation played a role.
6. Interpersonal relations. This factor included in
stances involving some actual verbalizations about the charac
teristics of the interaction between the person speaking and
some other individual. Three categories were included in this
factor: those involving superiors, those involving subordinates,
and those involving peers.
7. Supervision-technical. This factor included a se
quence of events in which the competence, incompetence, fair
ness, or unfairness of the supervisor was mentioned. For
example, statements about the supervisor's willingness or
unwillingness to delegate responsibility or to teach were
classified under this factor.
8. Responsibility. This factor included a sequence of
events in which the respondent reported that he derived satis
faction from being given responsibility for his own work or
for the work of others or from being given a new responsibility.
9. Company policy and administration. This factor in
cluded a sequence of events in which some overall aspect of
the company was a factor. Two types of overall company pol
icies and administrative characteristics were identified by
Herzberg: (1) the adequacy or inadequacy of company management
or organization, and (2) the positive or negative effects of
the company's personnel policies.


120
The data in Table 34 were compared to test the null
hypothesis:
16
H For the three university positions, there
is no difference in the contribution of
motivators and hygienes to dissatisfying
incidents associated with the major job
functions of the positions.
These data indicate a significant difference in the
contribution of motivators and hygienes to job dissatisfaction
among the university positions. The chi-square test re-
2
vealed a significant difference (x =9.68, df=2, p<.05)
causing the null hypothesis to be rejected.
Comparisons Between
Community College and University Groups
Tables 35 and 36 compare the determinants of job
satisfaction and dissatisfaction between the community
college sample as a group and the university sample as a
group. Results are presented from data analyses which were
used to test for significant differences between the groups.
Determinants of job satisfaction:
community college group
compared to university group
The relative contribution of motivators and hygienes to
job satisfaction for the community college administrators
as a group and the university administrators as a group is
presented in Table 35. For the community college adminis
trators as a group, motivators contributed 85.7% to their job
satisfaction and hygienes contributed 14.3%. For the
university administrators as a group, motivators contributed
89.9% to the job satisfaction and hygienes contributed 10.1%.


APPENDIX C
INTERVIEW GUIDE FOR
DIRECTOR OF PLACEMENT
I.Personal Data
1. Name of institution:
2. Title of present position:
3. Length of time in present position:
4. Most-recent past position:
5. Length of time in past position:
6. Highest degree held:
7. Area of specialization:
II. Verification of Major Job Functions
The following tasks have been identified in the literature
as major responsibilities typical of the director of place
ment in post-secondary educational institutions. Please
review them carefully, and, if there are others you wish
to add or some you wish to delete, do so. If you have
any questions, please ask.
1. Selection, supervision, coordination, and evaluation
of staff
2. Supervision of on-campus recruiting activities by
prospective employers, and maintenance of related
files and records
3. Provision of job placement services to undergraduates,
graduate students, and alumni, which may include part-
time jobs within or outside the institution
4. Professional and civic activities
5. Counseling and advising students, parents of students,
and other interested groups or individuals
6. Participation in program planning and budgeting
142


103
Comparisons Between Community
College and University Positions
Tables 25 to 30 compare the determinants of job
satisfaction and dissatisfaction for the Directors of
Admissions, Registrars, and Directors of Placement at the
community colleges with their counterparts at the universities.
Within this section, specific motivators and hygienes are
listed in order of frequency for each position. Results are
presented from data analyses which were used to test for
significant differences between each position at the two
types of institutions.
Determinants of job satisfaction:
community college Directors of Admissions
compared to university Directors of Admissions
The relative contribution of motivators and hygienes
to job satisfaction of community college Directors of
Admissions and university Directors of Admissions is sum
marized in Table 25. For the community college Directors
of Admissions, the motivators achievement, recognition,
the work itself, and the possibility of growth contributed
a total of 83.3% to their job satisfaction. The hygiene
interpersonal relationships contributed 16.7%. For the
university Directors of Admissions, the motivators achieve
ment, recognition, responsibility, the possibility of growth,
and the work itself contributed 87.8% to their job satisfaction.
The hygienes interpersonal relationships and work conditions
contributed 12.2%.


36
motivator and hygiene factors to positive and negative job
attitudes) and the Job Descriptive Index (an instrument de
signed to measure overall job satisfaction) to 160 military
officers.y Darrow's results partially supported Herzberg's
theory. However, Darrow's use of the Job Descriptive Index
as a measure of "overall job satisfaction" may not have been
appropriate.
Bobbitt and Behling (1972a) tested two hypotheses de
rived from Vroom's explanation of Herzberg's theory. Vroom
(1964, p. 129) offered an alternative to Herzberg's findings
by explaining that defensive processes within the individual
respondent could account for the obtained differences between
stated sources of satisfaction and dissatisfaction and that
individuals are more likely to attribute the causes of satis
faction to their achievements and to attribute their dissatis
factions to the work environment. Bobbitt and Behling (1972a)
tested these hypotheses on three groups of supervisors by
establishing conditions that would evoke defensive reactions
to half of each group and examining their responses to deter
mine if they varied in the manner predicted by Vroom when com
pared to control groups. ^Bobbitt and Behling concluded that
"neither of Vroom's hypotheses was supported indicating that
Vroom's explanation is not a tenable alternative to that of
Herzberg" (1972a, p. 24).
Locke criticized Bobbitt and Behling's (1972a) study
which rejected Vroom's explanation because of what he de
scribed as
1. an inadequate definition of defensiveness;


106
Table 26
Comparison of Motivators and Hygienes in the
Dissatisfying Incidents for Community and
University Directors of Admissions
Type of Institution, Position
Type of Classification
% Of
Frequency Group Total
Community College
Directors of Admissions
Motivators
Hygienes
0 0
7 100
University
Directors of Admissions
Motivators
Hygienes
9 28.1
23 71.9
Determinants of job satisfaction:
community college Registrars
compared to university Registrars
The relative contribution of motivators and hygienes
to the job satisfaction of community college Registrars
and the university Registrars is summarized in Table 27.
For community college Registrars, the motivators achievement,
recognition, the possibility of growth, and responsibility
contributed 83.7% to their job satisfaction. The hygienes
interpersonal relationships, work conditions, and supervision-
technical contributed 16.3%. For the university Registrars,


105
2
revealed no significant difference (x =.102, df=l, p>.05).
Therefore, the null hypothesis is not rejected.
Determinants of job dissatisfaction:
community college Directors of Admissions
compared to university Directors of Admissions
The relative contribution of motivators and hygienes
to the job dissatisfaction of community college Directors
of Admissions and university Directors of Admissions is
summarized in Table 26. For community college Directors
of Admissions, the hygienes interpersonal relationships,
company policy and administration, and supervision-technical
contributed 100% to their job dissatisfaction. No motivators
were cited. For the university Directors of Admissions, the
hygienes company policy and administration, interpersonal
relationships, supervision-technical, salary, and work con
ditions contributed 71.9% to their job dissatisfaction.
The motivators achievement and recognition contributed 28.1%.
The data in Table 26 were compared to test the null
hypothesis:
g
H There is no difference in the contribution
of motivators and hygienes to dissatisfying
incidents associated with the major job
functions of the positions of community
college Directors of Admissions compared to
their university counterparts.
These data indicate no significant difference in the
contribution of motivators and hygienes to the job dissatis
faction of community college Directors of Admissions compared
to their university counterparts. The chi-square test revealed
2
no significant difference (x =1.22, df=l, p>.05). Therefore,
the null hypothesis is not rejected.


98
budgeting is summarized in Table 22. Motivators contributed
67% to satisfying incidents for this job function while
hygienes contributed 33%. For the dissatisfying incidents,
hygienes contributed 64% while motivators contributed 36%.
Table 22
Contribution of Motivators and Hygienes for Directors
of Placement in Program Planning and Budgeting
Type of Incident
Type of
Classification
Satisfying
(% of satisfying)
Dissatisfying
(% of dissatisfying)
Motivators
4
4
(67)
(36)
Hygienes
2
7
(33)
(64) .
Directors of Placement mentioned the motivators the
work itself (33%) and achievement (33%) as contributing to
their job satisfaction relating to this function. The
hygiene supervision-technical (33%) was also cited as con
tributing to job satisfaction. One Director of Placement
could not recall a satisfying incident related to this
job function.
In describing dissatisfying incidents, the Directors
of Placement mentioned the following hygienes as contributing


CHAPTER
Page
IV PRESENTATION AND ANALYSIS OF DATA 63
Data Relating to Positions 65
Director of Admissions 65
Registrar 77
Director of Placement 90
Comparisons Between Community College
and University Positions 103
Directors of Admissions:
Determinants of Job Satisfaction 103
Determinants of Job Dissatisfaction 105
Registrars:
Determinants of Job Satisfaction 106
Determinants of Job Dissatisfaction 108
Directors of Placement:
Determinants of Job Satisfaction 109
Determinants of Job Dissatisfaction Ill
Comparisons Among Positions 113
Determinants of Job Satisfaction:
Community College Positions Compared 113
Determinants of Job Dissatisfaction:
Community College Positions Compared 115
Determinants of Job Satisfaction:
University Positions Compared 116
Determinants of Job Dissatisfaction:
University Positions Compared 117
Comparisons Between Community College
and University Groups 120
Determinants of Job Satisfaction: Commu
nity College Compared to University 120
Determinants of Job Dissatisfaction: Commu
nity College Compared to University 122
Discussion 124
V SUMMARY, CONCLUSIONS, IMPLICATIONS, AND
RECOMMENDATIONS FOR FURTHER RESEARCH 130
Major Findings 131
Conclusions 133
Implications 135
Recommendations for Further Research 136
v


129
achievement, recognition, and the work itself, and the hygiene
interpersonal relationships were cited the most often as
contributing to job satisfaction. The hygiene company policy
and administration, the motivator achievement (or its absence),
and the hygienes interpersonal relationships and work conditions
were cited the most often as contributors to job dissatisfaction.
There were several instances in which respondents could
not recall satisfying or dissatisfying incidents related to
specific job functions. The job functions for which no satis
fying incidents could be recalled by one or more respondents
were program planning and budgeting, professional and civic
activities, and responsibility for student enrollment and
records. The job functions for which one or more respondents
could not recall dissatisfying incidents were professional
and civic activities, counseling, program development and
budget planning, and registration. A total of six respondents
could not recall dissatisfying incidents related to professional
and civic activities. Two respondents could not recall satis
fying incidents related to program planning and budgeting.


5
f. community college administrators as a group
compared to the university administrators as a
group.
Hypotheses
As a means of addressing the many relationships inherent
in the research objectives of this study, data were collected
and analyzed to test the following null hypotheses:
For the Directors of Admissions
Hq1 There is no difference in the contribution of
motivators and hygienes to satisfying situations
associated with the major job functions of the
posit ion.
2
Hq There is no difference in the contribution of
motivators and hygienes to dissatisfying situations
associated with the major job functions of the
posit ion.
Those functions, as identified in the literature,
include:
1. selection, supervision, coordination, and
evaluation of staff;
2. responsibility for the recruitment, selection,
and admission of undergraduate and/or graduate
students;
3. participation in the development of admissions
criteria;
4. professional and civic activities;
5. counseling and advising students, parents of


The hygiene interpersonal relationships (11.1%) was also
mentioned as contributing to job satisfaction.
97
Table 21
Contribution of Motivators and Hygienes
for Directors of Placement in Counseling
and Advising Students, Parents, and Others
Type of Incident
Type of
Classification
Satisfying
(% of satisfying)
Dissatisfying
(% of dissatisfying)
Motivators
8
4
(88.9)
(44.4)
Hygienes
1
5
(11.1)
(55.6)
In describing dissatisfying incidents, the Directors
of Placement mentioned the following hygienes as contributing
to job dissatisfaction: company policy and administration
(22.2%), interpersonal relationships (22.2%), and supervision-
technical (11.1%). The motivators the work itself (22.2%)
and achievement (22.2%) were also cited as contributing
to job dissatisfaction related to this job function.
Program planning and budgeting
The relative contribution of motivators and hygienes
to job satisfaction and dissatisfaction for Directors of
Placement in their participation in program planning and


108
These data indicate no significant difference in the
contribution of motivators and hygienes to the job satis
faction of community college Registrars compared to their
university counterparts. The chi-square test revealed no
2
significant difference (x =.035, df=l, p>.05). Therefore,
the null hypothesis is not rejected.
Determinants of job dissatisfaction:
community college Registrars
compared to university Registrars
The relative contribution of motivators and hygienes to
the job dissatisfaction of community college Registrars and
university Registrars is summarized in Table 28. For the
community college Registrars, the hygienes company policy and
administration, interpersonal relationships, salary, and
supervision-technical contributed 66% to their job dissatis
faction. The motivators achievement and recognition
contributed 33%. For the university Registrars, the hygienes
company policy and administration, interpersonal relationships,
and salary contributed 69.6% to their job dissatisfaction.
The motivators achievement and recognition contributed 30.4%.
The data in Table 28 were compared to test the null
hypothesis:
Hq10 There is no difference in the contribution
of motivators and hygienes to dissatisfying
incidents associated with the major job
functions of community college Registrars
compared to their university counterparts.
These data indicate no significant difference in the
contribution of motivators and hygienes to the job dissatis
faction of community college Registrars compared to their


114
Table 31
Comparison of Motivators and
Hygienes in the Satisfying Incidents
Among Community College Positions
Position % Of
Type of Classification Frequency Group Total
Community College
Directors of Admissions
Motivators 10 83.3
Hygienes 2 16.7
Community College
Registrars
Motivators 36 83.7
Hygienes 7 16.3
Community College
Directors of Placement
Motivators 20 91
Hygienes 2 9
The data in Table 31 were compared to test the null
hypothesis:
13
H For the three community college positions,
there is no difference in the contribution
of motivators and hygienes to satisfying
situations associated with the major job
functions of the positions.
These data indicate a significant difference in the
contribution of motivators and hygienes to the job satisfaction


45
systems, rather than either one assuming initial
importance. A new theory of how the material and
moral motives of man act together in work motiva
tion is needed. (Herzberg, 1976, p. 48)
Although these theories occupy a central position in mo
tivational studies, there are behavioral determinants other
than needs that relate to theories of motivation and job satis
faction (Chung, 1977, p. 57). The theoretical framework of
classical and operant conditioning form the basis of Sanzotta's
extrinsic theories of motivation. The focus of extrinsic theo
ries is different from that of need theories. The focus of
need theories is on the internal mechanisms within the organ
ism (such as needs, drives, etc.) which are used to describe
motivation. The theoretical framework of extrinsic theories
places the emphasis on the environmental factors (such as the
effects of schedules of reinforcement, size of reward, etc.)
on behavior for this purpose.
Pavlov's classical conditioning in B. F. Skinner's oper
ant conditioning form the theoretical framework of extrinsic
theories (Sanzotta, 1977, p. 18). In his research on classical
conditioning, Pavlov identified two types of respondent behavior
the unconditioned response and the conditioned response. Uncon
ditioned responses are involuntary and result from unconditioned
reflexes which do not have to be learned. In the classical con
ditioning paradigm, the conditioned responses are learned as a
result of the repeated pairing of a neutral stimulus with an
unconditioned stimulus which produces an unconditioned response.
The neutral stimulus, which as a result of these pairings be
comes a conditioned stimulus, is then able to produce a
conditioned response by itself.


CHAPTER III
METHODOLOGY
The major focus of this study was to examine the determi
nants of job satisfaction and dissatisfaction among the Directors
of Admissions, Registrars, and the Directors of Placement at
community colleges and universities in Florida. Their attitudes
were measured within the theoretical framework of Herzberg's
1959 Motivator-Hygiene Theory and were classified using the
job factor definitions developed by Herzberg et al. (1959).
Data were collected using the critical-incident methodology
developed by Flanagan (1954) and adapted by Herzberg et al.
Selection of Sample
Four Directors of Admissions, eight Registrars, and five
Directors of Placement were selected and interviewed. Indivi
duals were interviewed who were currently holding the positions
of Directors of Admissions, Registrar, or Director of Placement
at three Florida community colleges and three state universities
in Florida's State University System (SUS). The three largest
community colleges and universities that demonstrated a willing
ness to participate were selected for this study. Institutional
size as measured by FTE was selected as the selection criterion
to ensure, for the selected positions, a close similarity in
terms of intrinsic and extrinsic job factors. The positions
of Director of Admissions, Registrar, and Director of Placement
were chosen because they exemplify mid-level administrative
positions in an educational setting.
58


33
different educational settings, Herzberg's theory has been
applied to teachers and to faculty members (Bishop, 1970;
Avakian, 1971); to undergraduate students (Gluskinos & Wainer,
1971); to adult and vocational students (Magoon & James, 1978;
Walsh, 1971); to state department educational staff (Carey, 1979);
and to university and community college administrators (Aebi,
1973; Groseth, 1978; Jackson, 1975; Kozal, 1979; Lyons, 1971;
Ohanesian, 1975; Thomas, 1977). These educational applications
are described in the final section of this chapter.
In addition, there has been a great deal of research re
ported in the literature which can be classified as critical
analyses of Herzberg's theory (e.g., Bobbitt & Behling, 1972a,
1972b; Ewen, 1964; Ewen, Smith, Hulin, & Locke, 1966; Fried-
lander, 1964; Graen, 1966; Halpern, 1966; Hinrichs & Misch-
kind, 1967; Locke, 1972; Szura & Vermillion, 1975; Wood &
LeBold, 1967). The primary focus of this type of research,
summarized below, has been to prove, disprove, or to test dif
ferent aspects of Herzberg's Theory.
Ewen (1964) conducted an exploratory study to determine
the generality of Herzberg's (M-H) theory. Responses from two
groups of full-time life-insurance agents (total N= 1,021) to
a four-point anonymous attitude scale were obtained and factor-
analyzed. Ewen's results were inconclusive because, while he
identified partial support for Herzberg's theory, Ewen concluded
that "there is as yet no justification for generalizing the
Herzberg results beyond the situation in which they were ob
tained" (p. 163). ^Ewen was critical of Herzberg's methodology


APPENDIX D
VERIFICATION OF MAJOR JOB FUNCTIONS
DIRECTOR OF ADMISSIONS
1. Selection, supervision, coordination, and
evaluation of staff
2. Responsibility for the recruitment, selection,
and admission of undergraduates and/or graduate
students
3. Participation in the development of admissions
criteria
4. Professional and civic activities
5. Counseling and advising students, parents of students,
and other interested groups or individuals
6. Participation in program planning and budgeting
144


LIST OF TABLES
Page
TABLE
1. Contribution of Motivators and Hygienes for
Directors of Admissions in Selecting,
Supervising, Coordinating, and Evaluating
Staff
2. Contribution of Motivators and Hygienes
for Directors of Admissions in Recruitment,
Selection, and Admission of Undergraduate
and/or Graduate Students
3. Contribution of Motivators and Hygienes for
Directors of Admissions in the Development
of Admissions Criteria
4. Contribution of Motivators and Hygienes for
Directors of Admissions in Professional and
Civic Activities
67
68
69
71
5. Contribution of Motivators and Hygienes for
Directors of Admissions in Counseling and
Advising Students, Parents, and Others
6. Contribution of Motivators and Hygienes for
Directors of Admissions in Program Planning 73
and Budgeting
7. Relative Contribution of Motivators and
Hygienes to Satisfying Incidents for Directors of 75
Admissions across Job Functions
8. Relative Contribution of Motivators and
Hygienes to Dissatisfying Incidents for
Directors of Admissions across Job Functions
9. Contribution of Motivators and Hygienes for
Registrars in the Selection, Supervision,
Coordination, and Evaluation of Staff
10.Contribution of Motivators and Hygienes for
Registrars in their Responsibility for Student
Enrollment and Records
Vll


13
Organization of Subsequent Chapters
Chapter II presents a review of literature related to job
satisfaction in terms of: the dichotomy between traditional
theory and Herzberg's theory, an analysis of related research,
major criticisms of Herzberg's theory and Herzberg's (1976)
rebuttal, alternative theories of motivation, and the applica
tion of Herzberg's theory to individuals in an educational set
ting. The methodology utilized in this study is presented in
Chapter III. The results of the present study are presented
and discussed in Chapter IV. Chapter V presents a summary
of the findings, conclusions indicated by the results, and
recommendations for further research.


64
motivators and hygienes indicated by each critical incident
were listed and counted.
The data were then analyzed to test the 18 hypotheses
of interest to this study as described in Chapter I. The
chi-square one-sample test (Siegel, 1956, pp. 42-47) and the
chi-square test for independent samples (Siegel, 1956, pp. 104-
111) were used to determine whether significant differences
existed in the contribution of motivators and hygienes to
the satisfying and dissatisfying incidents reported by the
administrators at the .05 level of significance.
Within the present chapter, data and analyses are presented
in the following order:
1. For each position, demographic data are presented
and data concerning the contribution of motivators
and hygienes are presented for the major job functions
of the position. Results of the data analyses are
then presented which compare the relative contribu
tions of motivators and hygienes to satisfying and
dissatisfying incidents for each position as addressed
in the first six hypotheses of interest to this
study (H 1 H ).
o o
2. Results of data analyses are then presented which
compare the relative contribution of motivators and
hygienes to satisfying and dissatisfying incidents
between positions at the community college and
university levels as addressed in hypotheses 7
through 12 (H ^ It ^).
o o '


119
and salary contributed 69.6% to their job dissatisfaction.
The motivators achievement and recognition contributed 30.4%.
For the university Directors of Placement, the hygienes
interpersonal relationships, supervision-technical, and salary
contributed 48.1% to their job dissatisfaction. The motivators
achievement and recognition contributed 51.9%.
Table 34
Comparison of Motivators and
Hygienes in the Dissatisfying
Incidents Among University Positions
Institution, Position
Type of Classification
Frequency
% Of
Group Total
University
Directors of Admissions
Motivators
9
28.1
Hygienes
23
71.9
University Registrars
Motivators
7
30.4
Hygienes
16
69.6
University
Directors of Placement
Motivators
14
51.9
Hygienes
13
48.1


JOB SATISFACTION DETERMINANTS FOR SELECTED ADMINISTRATORS
IN FLORIDA'S COMMUNITY COLLEGES AND UNIVERSITIES:
AN APPLICATION OF HERZBERG'S MOTIVATOR-HYGIENE THEORY
BY
RUSSELL KENNETH BURR
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
1980


22
"critical event" or "critical incident" is the respondent's
description of a time period when the respondent felt particu
larly good or bad about his or her job. For example, respon
dents are asked to
think of a time when you felt exceptionally good or
exceptionally bad about your job either in your pres
ent job or any other you have had. This can be either
the "long-range" or the "short-range" kind of situation,
as I have just described it. Tell me what happened.
(Herzberg, Mausner, & Snyderman, 1959, p. 141)
The modified "critical-incident" method yielded responses
from the respondents that were verbal descriptions of their
satisfactions and dissatisfactions regarding specific events
that they had identified in their jobs. The term "sequence
of events" was applied by Herzberg et al. to all responses
given by the respondents (Herzberg, Mausner, & Snyderman, 1959,
p. 23). A sequence of events could be short-range or long-
range. A short-range sequence of events "was applied to anec
dotal, narrowly delimited sets of events during which exception
al feelings were reported" (Herzberg et al., 1959, p. 23). On
the other hand, the feelings in a long-range sequence of events
lasted for a longer period of time and were "consistently high
or low, despite possible fluctuations of feelings or even minor
inversions within these periods" (Herzberg et al., 1959, p. 23).
Eight possible permutations of an attitude's duration
existed from three dimensions: (1) high or low feelings, (2) the
duration of the feelings, and (3) the relationship between the
range or the sequence and the duration of the feelings (Herzberg
et al., 1959, p. 43). The four groups of attitude duration re
ported by Herzberg were:


84
also cited as contributing to job dissatisfaction. Four
Registrars could not recall dissatisfying incidents related
to this job function.
Counseling and advising students,
parents, and others
The relative contribution of motivators and hygienes
to job satisfaction and job dissatisfaction for the Registrars
in counseling and advising students, parents of students, and
other interested groups or individuals, is summarized in
Table 13. Motivators contributed 91% and hygienes contrib
uted 9% to the satisfying incidents. For the dissatisfying
incidents, hygienes contributed 62.5% and motivators con
tributed 37.5%.
Table 13
Contribution of Motivators and Hygienes
for Registrars in Counseling and Advising
Students, Parents, and Others
Type
of Incident
Type of
Classification
Satisfying
(% of satisfying)
Dissatisfying
(% of dissatisfying)
Motivators
10
(91)
3
(37.5)
Hygienes
1
(9)
5
(62.5)


53
employed 14 of Herzberg's motivator and hygiene factors was
utilized. Jackson (1975) found that, relative to job satis
faction, the middle-management administrators selected Herz-
berg's motivators more often than they selected the hygiene
factors.
Ohanesian (1975) and Groseth (1978) examined the job sa
tisfaction and dissatisfaction factors among college student
personnel workers. Groseth (1978) tested the applicability
of Herzberg's theory to determine the specific job satisfac
tion and dissatisfaction factors for the chief student person
nel administrator, the director of the union, the director of
housing, and the director of counseling at each of the seven
institutions in Florida's SUS. A semi-structured interview
guide was developed for each position, similar to the instru
ment used by Thomas (1977). The major job functions for each
position had been identified from the literature and were in
corporated into the specific interview guides. Each respon
dent was interviewed and described, for each major job function,
an incident that had occurred in their present position when
they had been particularly satisfied and one when they had
been particularly dissatisfied. The critical incidents were
classified accordingly as having been influenced by one of
six motivators or eight hygienes.
Of the 196 satisfying incidents identified in Groseth's
(1978) study, 68.3% were classified as motivators. For
the 181 dissatisfying incidents identified, 81.3% were
classified as hygienes. Groseth found a difference in the


31
The major themes inherent in Herzberg's Motivator-Hygiene
(M-H) Theory are that
1. Man has two distinct systems of needs;
a. biological needs, and
b. psychological needs;
2. Job satisfaction and job dissatisfaction relate to
the fulfullment of these two distinct systems of
needs;
a.
job satisfaction is related to the fulfillment
of the psychological growth needs in the job
content (motivators)
b.
job dissatisfaction is related to the failure
to fulfill the biological needs in the job con
text (hygienes);
3. The
dynamics of motivators and hygienes are different
because
a.
the presence of motivators tends to boost job
satisfaction, however,
b .
when workers are not satisfied with hygienes,
this becomes the major source of job dissatis
faction, but satisfaction with hygienes does not
lead to job satisfaction; and
4. Job
satisfaction and job dissatisfaction are not
polar opposites on the same continuum;
a. the opposite of job satisfaction is not job dis
satisfaction; it is an absence of job satisfaction,
whereas


3
six small Florida community colleges. Groseth (1978) in
vestigated job satisfaction among selected student affairs
administrators at seven institutions in the State University
System (SUS) of Florida. Kozal (1979) applied a reformulated
Herzberg theory to selected administrative affairs staff in
the SUS.
The previously cited studies (Aebi, 1973; Avakian, 1971;
Carey, 1979; Groseth, 1978; Jackson, 1975; Kozal, 1979; Lyons,
1971; and Thomas, 1977) limited their investigations to the
job attitudes of individuals employed in comparable positions
at the same type of institution. Therefore, there has been
a lack of information regarding the application of Herzberg's
theory to individuals holding comparable positions in different
educational settings (e.g., the determinants of job satisfaction/
dissatisfaction for directors of admissions in community colleges
compared to directors of admissions in universities). In addi
tion, the previously cited studies investigated the job attitudes
of individuals who held relatively high positions in a hierarchy.
Only Groseth (1978), Jackson (1975), Lyons (1970), and Kozal
(1979) included in their target populations, sub-populations of
individuals who held positions that have been defined by Scott
as "mid-level" administrative positions (1979, p. 90). There
fore, there has been a lack of current research regarding the
determinants of job satisfaction/dissatisfaction which focuses
on individuals in an educational setting who are not catego
rized as upper-level administrators.


I certify that I have read this study and that in my
opinion it conforms to acceptable standards of scholarly
presentation and is fully adequate, in scope and quality,
as a dissertation for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy.
,/Chai
rJames L. Wattenbarger,/Chairman
Professor of Educational Admin
istration and Supervision
I certify that I have read this study and that in my
opinion it conforms to acceptable standards of scholarly
presentation and is fully adequate, in scope and quality,
as a dissertation for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy.
Robert 0. Stripling, llistinguished
Service Professor of Counselor
Education
I certify that I have read this study and that in my
opinion it conforms to acceptable standards of scholarly
presentation and is fully adequate, in scope and quality,
as a dissertation for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy.
C. Arthur Sandeen, Professor of
Educational Administration and
Supervision


77
Table 8
Relative Contribution of Motivators and Hygienes
to Dissatisfying Incidents for Directors
of Admissions Across Job Functions
% of Total
Factor Frequency(K=39)
Mot Ivators
Recognition 1 2.6
Achievement 8 20.5
9 2371
Hygienes
Company Policy & Administration 12 30.8
Interpersonal Relationships 9 23.0
Supervision-Technical 5 12.8
Salary 3 7.7
Work Conditions 1 2.6
30 7679
Total Motivators 9 23.1
Total Hygienes 30 76.9
hypothesis to be rejected.
Registrars
Demographic data collected from the Registrars indicated
that the length of time these respondents had served in their


79
Table 9
Contribution of Motivators and Hygienes
for Registrars in the Selection, Supervision,
Coordination, and Evaluation of Staff
Type of Incident
Type of
Classification
Satisfying
(% of satisfying)
Dissatisfying
(% of dissatisfying)
Motivators
8
2
(89)
(15.4)
Hygienes
1
11
(ID
(84.6)
For the dissatisfying incidents, hygienes contributed 84.6%,
and motivators contributed 15.4%.
The Registrars mentioned the following motivators as
contributing to job satisfaction related to this job function
achievement (77.8%) and responsibility (11.1%). The hygiene
interpersonal relationships (11.1%) was also cited as
contributing to job satisfaction for this job function.
In describing the dissatisfying incidents, the Registrars
mentioned the following hygienes as contributing to job
dissatisfaction: interpersonal relationships (38.5%),
company policy and administration (23%), salary (15.4%), and
personal life (7.7%). The motivators recognition (7.7%) and
achievement (7.7%) were also cited as contributing to job
dissatisfaction related to this job function.


APPENDICES
Page
A. INTERVIEW GUIDE FOR DIRECTOR OF
ADMISSIONS 138
B. INTERVIEW GUIDE FOR REGISTRAR 140
C. INTERVIEW GUIDE FOR DIRECTOR OF
PLACEMENT 142
D. VERIFICATION OF MAJOR JOB FUNCTIONS:
DIRECTOR OF ADMISSIONS 144
E. VERIFICATION OF MAJOR JOB FUNCTIONS:
REGISTRAR 145
F. VERIFICATION OF MAJOR JOB FUNCTIONS:
DIRECTOR OF PLACEMENT 146
REFERENCES 147
BIOGRAPHICAL SKETCH 152
vi


100
2
and hygienes (x =34.6, df=l, pc.05) causing the null hypothesis
to be rejected.
Table 23
Relative Contribution of Motivators and Hygienes
to Satisfying Incidents for Directors of
Placement Across Job Functions
Factor
Frequency
% of Total
(K=56)
Motivators
Achievement
20
35.7
Work Itself
12
21.4
Recognition
12
21.4
Responsibility
3
5.4
Possibility of Growth
3
50
5.4
89.3
Hygienes
Interpersonal Relationships
3
5.4
Supervision-Technical
2
3.5
Company Policy & Administration 1
~6
1.8
10.7
Total Motivators
50
89.3
Total Hygienes
6
10.7


20
are the factors that are extrinsic to the job such as company
policy and administration, supervision, interpersonal relation
ships, status, job security, salary, and working conditions.
^The primary function of "hygienes" is to prevent or avoid pain
or hunger or to fulfill the other basic biological needs of man.
Herzberg used the term "hygienes" to describe factors in the
work context that act "in a manner analogous to the principles
of medical hygiene" (Herzberg, Mausner, & Snyderman, 1959, p.
113). That is, hygiene is preventative, not curative, in re
moving health hazards from the environment of man. In compari
son, "motivators" function to provide the individual with per
sonal psychological growth. Herzberg compared the dynamics of
hygiene to the dynamics of motivators as follows:
The dynamics of hygiene
- The psychological basis of hygiene needs is the
avoidance of pain from the environment.
- There are infinite sources of pain in the environment.
- Hygiene needs are cyclical in nature.
- Hygiene needs have an escalating zero point.
- Hygiene improvements have short-term effects.
- There is no final answer to hygiene needs.
The dynamics of motivation
- The psychological basis of motivation is the need
for personal growth.
- There are limited sources of motivator satisfaction.
- Motivator improvements have long-term effects.
- Motivators are additive in nature.


116
Table 32
Comparison of Motivators and
Hygienes in Dissatisfying Incidents
Among Community College Positions
Position % Of
Type of Classification Frequency Group Total
Community College
Directors of Admissions
Motivators
0
0
Hygienes
7
100
Community College
Registrars
Motivators
12
33
Hygienes
24
66
Community College
Directors of Placement
Motivators
8
47
Hygienes
9
53
dissatisfaction among the three community college positions.
The chi-square test revealed a significant difference
2
(x =11.06, df=2, p<.05) causing the null hypothesis to be
rej ected.
Determinants of job satisfaction:
university positions compared
The relative contribution of motivators and hygienes to
job satisfaction among the three university positions is


87
Table 15
Relative Contribution of Motivators
and Hygienes to Satisfying Incidents
for Registrars Across Job Functions
Factor
Frequency
% of Total
(K=69)
Motivators
Achievement
33
47.8
Recognition
17
24.6
Work Itself
4
5.8
Responsibility
3
4.4
Possibility of Growth
2
2.9
59
85.5
Hygienes
Interpersonal Relationships
7
10.2
Work Conditions
2
2.9
Supervision-Technical
1
1.4
10
14.5
Total
Motivators
59
85.5
Total
Hygienes
10
14.5
Overall, the motivators that contributed to job satis
faction for Registrars were achievement (47.8%), recognition
(24.6%), the work itself (5.8%), responsibility (4.4%), and
personal growth (2.9%). Registrars indicated that the


117
summarized in Table 33. For university Directors of
Admissions, the motivators achievement, recognition, re
sponsibility, the possibility of growth, and the work itself
contributed 87.8% to their job satisfaction. The hygienes
interpersonal relationships and work conditions contributed
12.2%. For the university Registrars, the motivators achieve
ment, recognition, the work itself, and responsibility
contributed 88.5% to their job satisfaction. The hygiene
interpersonal relationships contributed 11.5%. For the
university Directors of Placement, the motivators achievement
recognition, and the work itself contributed 93.3% to their
job satisfaction. The hygienes interpersonal relationships
and supervision-technical contributed 6.7%.
The data in Table 33 were compared to test the null
hypothesis:
15
H For the three university positions, there
is no difference in the contribution of
motivators and hygienes to satisfying
situations associated with the major job
functions of the positions.
These data indicate a significant difference in the
contribution of motivators and hygienes to job satisfaction
among the three university positions. The chi-square test
2
revealed a significant difference (x =56.85, df=2, p<.05)
causing the null hypothesis to be rejected.
Determinants of job dissatisfaction:
university positions compared
The relative contribution of motivators and hygienes
to job dissatisfaction among the three university positions


3.
49
an incentive may appeal to one person under
some circumstances but not under other cir
cumstances;
4. the differences in the need structures of individuals
and the change in the need structure of a person
may alter the motivational value of incentives;
and
5. the external approach does not recognize the
differences in perceptual patterns among indi
viduals .
To summarize, the major criticism with extrinsic motiva
tion theories is that they are mechanistic and oversimplistic.
The major criticism with intrinsic motivation theories is that
there is a lack of empirical evidence and support. Herzberg's
theory cannot readily be classified as an intrinsic or extrin
sic motivation theory because it accounts for both intrinsic
(job content) and extrinsic (job context) factors.
The Application of Herzberg's Theory
to Individuals in Educational Settings
There is a growing body of research related to the utili
zation of Herzberg's theory to identify the determinants of job
satisfaction and dissatisfaction for students, faculty members,
and administrators in different settings.
Herzberg's theory has been applied to investigate student
motivation and the determinants of student satisfaction and
dissatisfaction in different educational settings. Herzberg's
theory was applied to undergraduate students relative to academ
ic motivation (Norton & Wims, 1974; Magoon & James, 1978) and
relative to student satisfaction and dissatisfaction in a col
lege setting (Gluskinos & Wainer, 1971; Walsh, 1971). The
school satisfaction of adult vocational and technical students


74
working conditions (16.7%) was also cited as contributing
to job satisfaction related to this job function. One
Director of Admissions could not recall a satisfying incident
related to this job function.
In describing the dissatisfying incidents related to
this job function, the Directors of Admissions mentioned the
following hygienes as contributing to job dissatisfaction:
company policy and administration (33.3%), work conditions
(22.2%), salary (22.2%), and supervision-technical (11.1%).
The motivator achievement (11.1%) was also cited as con
tributing to job dissatisfaction related to this job function.
Overall contributions to satisfying incidents
The overall contribution of motivators and hygienes to
job satisfaction for Directors of Admissions across all six
major job functions is summarized in Table 7. Motivators
contributed 86.7% to satisfying incidents while hygienes
contributed 13.3%.
Overall, the motivators that contributed to job satis
faction for the Directors of Admissions were achievement (35.6%),
recognition (22.2%), responsibility (11.1%), possibility of
growth (8.9%), and the work itself (8.9%). Respondents
indicated that the hygienes interpersonal relationships (11.1%)
and work conditions (2.2%) also contributed to their job
satisfaction.
The data in Table 7 were utilized to test the following
null hypothesis:


47
withholding reinforcement has an effect similar to that of
punishment on behavior in that it decreases the frequency of
a behavior.
An understanding of operant conditioning is important to
management in that "most behaviors in organizations are operant
behaviors that are learned, controlled, and altered by the con
sequences that follow them" (Chung, 1977, p. 61). The organi
zational application of reinforcement is different from the
reward and punishment used by most organizations to influence
their employees to attain organizational goals (Chung, 1977,
p. 82). Examples of the latter "carrot and stick" approach
are found in the management strategies of piece-rate incentives,
performance appraisal, promotion, demotion, etc. The organiza
tional application of reinforcement is the deliberate and sys
tematic application of positive reinforcement to attain organi
zational goals (Chung, 1977, pp. 83-84).
Employee job satisfaction can be deduced from this theor
etical framework as the employee's evaluation of the effective
ness of management's application of organizational incentives.
Although the basic datum for behaviorists is "non-mentalistic
such as the frequency of a response, Skinner described the
"feelings of reinforcers" as follows:
According to the philosophy of hedonism, people
act to achieve pleasure and escape from or avoid
pain, and the effects referred to in Edward L.
Thorndike's famous Law of Effect were feelings:
"satisfying" or "annoying." The verb "to like"
is a synonym of "to be pleased with"; we can say
"if you like" and "if you please" more or less
interchangeably.
Some of these terms refer to other effects of
reinforcerssatisfying, for example, is related to


51
were then tested for significance. Avakian (1971) found sup
port for Herzberg's theory in that
1. there were significantly more faculty members
who emphasized the job-content factors than
there were those who did not relative to their
job satisfaction, and
2. there were significantly more faculty members
who emphasized the job-context factors than
there were those who did not relative to
their job dissatisfaction.
Job satisfaction for the sample of faculty members was
rated significantly to the job factors of achievement, recog
nition, and the work itself. In addition, a trend in the di
rection of faculty job satisfaction was indicated by the job-
content factors of possibility of growth and responsibility.
Job dissatisfaction was related significantly to the job-context
factors of institutional policy and administration, supervision-
technical, salary, and interpersonal relations with administra
tors .
For the selected sample, Avakian (1971) found a shift a-
way from the predicted direction of the factors of 1) advance
ment, which was related to job dissatisfaction; and 2) inter
personal relations with students, status, and job security,
which were related to job satisfaction. In addition, the fac
tors of working conditions and personal life appeared with e-
qual frequency in incidents associated with job satisfaction
and job dissatisfaction.
Aebi (1973) applied two different methodologies to test
the applicability of Herzberg's theory to faculty and admini
strators in 15 private church-related, liberal-arts colleges


93
Table 18
Contribution of Motivators and Hygienes for
Directors of Placement in Recruiting Activities
and the Maintenance of Related Files and Records
Type of Incident
Type of
Classification
Satisfying
(% of satisfying)
Dissatisfying
(% of dissatisfying)
Motivators
11
3
(91.7)
(42.9)
Hygienes
1
4
(8.3)
(57.1)
interpersonal relationships (8.3%) was also mentioned as
contributing to job satisfaction.
In describing dissatisfying incidents, the Directors of
Placement mentioned the following hygienes as contributing to
job dissatisfaction: company policy (28.6%) and interpersonal
relationships (28.6%). The motivators the work itself (14.3%),
recognition (14.3%), and achievement (14.3%) were also cited
as contributing to job dissatisfaction related to this job
function.
Provision of job placement
services
The relative contribution of motivators and hygienes to
job satisfaction and dissatisfaction for the Directors of
l
Placement in providing job placement services to undergraduates,
graduate students, and alumni (which may include part-time


4
The Research Objectives
The purpose of this study was to apply Herzberg's
Motivator-Hygiene Theory to examine job satisfaction and
dissatisfaction factors among the Directors of Admissions, the
Registrars, and the Directors of Placement at selected public
community colleges and four-year institutions in the Florida
State University System (SUS). More specifically, this study
sought to address the following questions:
1. For the positions identified, which of Herzberg's
motivators and hygienes are relevant?
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 for these positions
support Herzberg's theory?
4. What differences, if any, exist in the frequency
with which Herzberg's motivators and hygienes occur
in the critical incidents for:
a. community college Directors of Admissions com
pared to their university counterparts,
b. community college Registrars compared to their
university counterparts,
c. community college Directors of Placement com
pared to their university counterparts,
d. community college positions compared to each
other,
e. university positions compared to each other, and


Ill
The data in Table 29 were compared to test the null
hypothesis:
H ^ There is no difference in the contribution
of motivators and hygienes to satisfying
incidents associated with the major job
functions of community college Directors of
Placement compared to their university
counterparts.
These data indicate no significant difference in the
contribution of motivators and hygienes to the job satisfaction
of community college Directors of Placement compared to their
university counterparts. The chi-square test revealed no
2
significant difference (x =.041, df=l, p>.05). Therefore,
the null hypothesis is not rejected.
Determinants of job dissatisfaction:
community college Directors of Placement
compared to university Directors of Placement
The relative contribution of motivators and hygienes
to the job dissatisfaction of community college Directors
of Placement and university Directors of Placement is
summarized in Table 30. For community college Directors
of Placement, the hygienes interpersonal relationships and
company policy and administration contributed 53% to their
job dissatisfaction. The motivator achievement contributed
47%. For the university Directors of Placement, the hygienes
interpersonal relationships, supervision-technical, and
salary contributed 48.1% to their job dissatisfaction. The
motivators achievement and recognition contributed 51.9%.


42
reasonably satisfied, those on the next level will emerge as the
dominant need to be satisfied. Therefore, the satisfaction of
man's needs proceeds from the physiological needs to the need
for self-actualization. The concept of self-actualization as
defined by Maslow is "man's desire for self-fulfullment, namely,
to the tendency for him to become actualized in what he is poten
tially" or, as more succinctly stated by Maslow, "what a man
'can' become, he 'must' be" (Maslow, 1954, pp. 91-92). Maslow's
theory is "holistic" in that: 1) needs are rarely found in iso
lation but are found in a variety of combinations; 2) Maslow re
jected the atomistic classification of independent needsrather
needs are interwoven clusters; and, 3) the order of needs in the
hierarchy is different from one individual to another and from
one culture to another (Chung, 1977, p. 41).
Although attempts have been made to test Maslow's theory
empirically, Chung described the major shortcomings to be that
the multiplicity, interrelatedness, and flexibility
of the need system seems to make it difficult to ex
perimentally test the prediction that the satisfaction
of one need causes the strength of its next higher-
order need. (1977, p. 42)
However, Chung did suggest that the hierarchical concept could
be researched using a longitudinal data-collection method.
Porter (1961) studied the perceived need satisfactions in
bottom-and middle-management jobs. Porter used a questionnaire
which was based in part on the classification system used by
Maslow. Porter's categories were arranged in approximate hier
archical order from the lowest-order to the highest-order. How
ever, the questionnaire did not contain the most prepotent needs
(physiological needs) because it was assumed that these needs


73
achievement (20%) were also cited as contributing to job
dissatisfaction. This job function did not apply to one
Director of Admissions.
Program planning and budgeting
The relative contribution of motivators and hygienes
to job satisfaction and job dissatisfaction for the Directors
of Admissions in program planning and budgeting is summarized
in Table 6. For the satisfying incidents, motivators con
tributed 83.3% while hygienes contributed 16.6%. For the
dissatisfying incidents, hygienes contributed 88.9% and
motivators contributed 11.1%.
The Directors of Admissions mentioned the motivators
achievement (50%) and recognition (33.3%) as contributing to
job satisfaction related to this job function. The hygiene
Table 6
Contribution of Motivators and Hygienes
for Directors of Admissions
in Program Planning and Budgeting
Type of Incident
Type of Satisfying Dissatisfying
Classification (% of satisfying) (% of dissatisfying)
Motivators
5
(83.3)
1
(11.1)
Hygienes
1
(16.7)
8
(88.9)


124
The data in Table 36 were compared to test the null
hypothesis:
18
H For the community college administrators
as a group compared to the university
administrators as a group, there is no
difference in the contribution of motivators
and hygienes to dissatisfying situations
associated with the major job functions
of the positions.
These data indicate no significant difference in the
contribution of motivators and hygienes to the job dissatis
faction of the community college administrators as a group
compared to the university administrators as a group. The
chi-square test revealed no significant difference
2
(x =.050, df=1, p>.05). Therefore, the null hypothesis
is not rejected.
Discussion
The relative frequencies of Herzberg's six motivators
and eight hygienes identified from the respondent's descrip
tions of satisfying and dissatisfying incidents are summarized
by position in Tables 37 and 38. These data support Herzberg's
theory that motivators contribute more to job satisfaction
than do hygienes while hygienes contribute more than do
motivators to job dissatisfaction. In this study, motivators
appeared with greater frequency in the satisfying incidents
than did hygienes; hygienes appeared with greater frequency
in the dissatisfying incidents than did motivators.
For the three administrative positions in the community
college setting (see Table 35), motivators contributed
85.7% to job satisfaction while hygienes contributed 14.3%.


LIST OF TABLES (continued)
Page
TABLE
11. Contribution of Motivators and Hygienes for
Registrars in Registration, Scheduling, and
Record-Maintenance 82
12. Contribution of Motivators and Hygienes for
Registrars in Professional and Civic Activities... 83
13. Contribution of Motivators and Hygienes for
Registrars in Counseling, Advising, Students
Parents, and Others 84
14. Contribution of Motivators and Hygienes for
Registrars in Program Planning and Budgeting 86
15. Relative Contribution of Motivators and Hygienes
to Satisfying Incidents for Registrars across
Job Functions 87
16. Relative Contribution of Motivators and Hygienes
to Dissatisfying Incidents for Registrars across
Job Functions 89
17. Contribution of Motivators and Hygienes for
Directors of Placement in the Selection, Super
vision, Coordination,and Evaluation of Staff 91
18. Contribution of Motivators and Hygienes for
Directors of Placement in Recruiting Activities
and the Maintenance of Related Files and Records . 93
19. Contribution of Motivators and Hygienes for
Directors of Placement in Providing Job Place
ment Services 94
20. Contribution of Motivators and Hygienes for
Directors of Placement in Professional and
Civic Activities 95
21. Contribution of Motivators and Hygienes for
Directors of Placement in Counseling and
Advising Students, Parents and Others 97
viii


125
For the three administrative positions in the university
setting, motivators contributed 89.9% to job satisfaction
while hygienes contributed 10.1%. For the three adminis
trative positions in the community college setting (see
Table 36), hygienes contributed 67% to job dissatisfaction
while motivators contributed 33%. For the three adminis
trative positions in the university setting, hygienes
contributed 63.4% to job dissatisfaction while motivators
contributed 36.6%.
Although these data support Herzberg's theory, there
are idiosyncracies in the data that should be discussed.
The motivator achievement, which appeared in the majority
of the satisfied incidents, also appeared to a lesser degree
in the dissatisfied incidents. For the university Directors
of Admissions (see Table 37), the motivator achievement
appeared with almost equal frequency in satisfied as well as
dissatisfied incidents. This occurred in part due to
Herzberg's definition of achievement which also includes its
opposite, the failure to achieve or the absence of achievement.
A second idiosyncracy appears in the data for the community
college Directors of Placement (see Table 38). The hygiene
supervision-technical appeared with equal frequency in the
satisfying as well as the dissatisfying incidents for these
directors. A third idiosyncracy is that one motivator (the
possibility for advancement) and two hygienes (status and
job security) were not identified as contributing either to
job satisfaction or to job dissatisfaction. The motivators


2
to job dissatisfaction" (Herzberg, Mausner, & Snyderman, 1959,
p. 56). According to Herzberg's theory, the opposite of job
satisfaction is not job dissatisfaction; it is an absence of
job satisfaction. Conversely, the opposite of job dissatisfac
tion is not job satisfaction; it is an absence of job dissatis
faction .
Duriag the 1970s, Herzberg's Motivator-Hygiene (M-H) Theory
of job satisfaction and job dissatisfaction was applied exten
sively to different target populations in different educational
settings. Avakian (1971) identified the factors relating to
the job satisfaction and dissatisfaction of faculty members se
lected from two liberal-arts colleges and two universities in
northeastern New York. Aebi (1973) tested two different method
ologies to determine the applicability of Herzberg's theory
to collegiate administrators. Jackson (1975) conducted a com
parative study of university administrators' perceptions related
to Herzberg's theory to identify the job factors that may pro
vide for the job satisfaction of administrators according to
their job level. More recently, Carey (1979) identified moti
vating and dissatisfying factors for state department of edu
cation professional staff members.
Several studies have also been conducted to investigate
the determinants of job satisfaction for educational personnel
in Florida. Lyons (1971) investigated the extent to which Flor
ida public junior college personnel exhibited constellations of
job attitudes consistent with Herzberg's theory. Thomas (1977)
applied Herzberg's theory to the chief academic officer, busi
ness officer, and student personnel officer at six large and


67
For the dissatisfying incidents, the Directors of
Admissions mentioned the following hygienes as contributing
to job dissatisfaction: company policy and administration (25%),
Table 1
Contribution of Motivators and Hygienes for
Directors of Admissions in Selecting,
Supervising, Coordinating, and Evaluating Staff
Type
of Incident
Type of
Classification
Satisfying
(% of satisfying)
Dissatisfying
(% of dissatisfying)
Motivators
8
1
(100)
(12.5)
Hygienes
0
7
(0)
(87.5)
interpersonal relationships (25%), supervision technical (25%),
and salary (12.5%). The motivator achievement (12.5%) was
also cited as contributing to job dissatisfaction. It should
be noted that the motivator achievement, as defined by Herzberg
et al. (1959, p. 44), includes lack of achievement.
Recruitment, selection, and admission of
undergraduate and/or graduate students
The relative contribution of motivators and hygienes to
the job satisfaction and job dissatisfaction for the Directors
of Admissions in the recruitment, selection, and admission of
undergraduate and/or graduate students is summarized in Table 2.


68
Motivators contributed 87.5% to the satisfying incidents,
while hygienes contributed 12.5% for this job function. For
the dissatisfying incidents, hygienes contributed 77.8%
and motivators contributed 22.2%.
Table 2
Contribution of Motivators and Hygienes for Directors
of Admissions in Recruitment, Selection, and Admission
of Undergraduate and/or Graduate Students
Type
of
Incident
Type of
Classification
Satisfying
(% of satisfying)
(%
Dissatisfying
of dissatisfying)
i
Motivators
7
2
(87.5)
(22.2)
Hygienes
1
7
(12.5)
(77.8)
Directors of Admissions mentioned the following motiva
tors as contributing to job satisfaction relating to this
job function: achievement (37.5%), recognition (25%.),
responsibility (12.5%,), and the work itself (12.5%). The
hygiene interpersonal relationships (12.5%) was also cited
as contributing to job satisfaction.
In describing dissatisfying incidents, the Directors
of Admissions mentioned the following hygienes as contributing
to job dissatisfaction: interpersonal relationships (33.3%),


86
Table 14
Contribution of Motivators and Hygienes for
Registrars in Program Planning and Budgeting
Type of Incident
Type of Satisfying Dissatisfying
Classification (% of satisfying) (% of dissatisfying)
Motivators 10 11
(83.3) (84.6)
Hygienes 2 2
(16.7) (15.4)
In describing dissatisfying incidents, the Registrars
mentioned the following hygienes as contributing to their
job dissatisfaction related to this job function: company
policy and administration (38.5%), salary (15.4%), super-
vision-technical (15.4%), work conditions (7.7%), and inter
personal relationships (7.7%). The motivator recognition
(15.4%) was also cited as contributing to job dissatisfaction.
One Registrar could not recall a dissatisfying incident related
to this job function.
Overall contributions to satisfying incidents
The overall contributions of motivators and hygienes to
job satisfaction for Registrars across all six major job
functions is summarized in Table 15. Motivators contributed
85.5% to satisfying incidents while hygienes contributed
14.5%.


38
Herzberg's original study of engineers and accountants studying
different populations in different work settings, most of these
criticisms are moot (Herzberg et al., 1959). ^However, an apparent
discrepancy exists because studies that have used the critical-
incident technique tend to support Herzberg's theory while those
that use a different method do not (Solimn, 1970, p. 453). This
has caused Herzberg's critics to claim that his theory is bound
by its methodology; that only one method, the critical-incident
method, could provide empirical support for his theory.
Herzberg's response to this criticism is that
when the critics employed another method (different
variants of the rating-scale procedure) to test the
theory, the results were not supportive. Since their
own method has not supported the Motivation-Hygiene
Theory, the critics have claimed that the theory is
wrong. This claim of course, is illogical. The fact
that another method of testing Motivation-Hygiene
Theory has not supported it is meaningless unless
it can be demonstrated that such a method is valid
and appropriate. One cannot logically employ, for
example, a typing skill test to measure IQ and use
the results to evaluate a theory of intellectual
development. (Herzberg, 1976, p. 246)
Herzberg's methodology was also criticized by Vroom (1964)
who claimed that the results of the critical-incident method
were due to defensive processes within the individual respon
dent. Vroom said that
it is . possible that obtained differences between
stated sources of satisfaction and dissatisfaction
stem from defensiveness processes within the indivi
dual respondent. Persons.may be more likely to attri
bute the causes of satisfaction to their own achieve
ments and accomplishments on the job. On the other
hand, they may be more likely to attribute their dis
satisfaction not to personal inadequacies or deficien
cies, but to factors in the work environment, i.e.,
obstacles presented by company policy or supervision.
(Vroom, 1964, p. 129)


112
Table 30
Comparison of Motivators and Hygienes in
the Dissatisfying Incidents for Community
College and University Directors of Placement
Type of Institution, Position
Type of Classification Frequency
% Of
Group Total
Community College
Directors of Placement
Motivators
8
47
Hygienes
9
53
University
Directors of Placement
Motivators
14
51.9
Hygienes
13
48.1
The data in Table 30 were compared to test the null
hypothesis:
12
Hq There is no difference in the contribution
of motivators and hygienes to dissatisfying
incidents associated with the major job
functions of the positions of community
college Directors of Placement compared to
their university counterparts.
These data indicate no significant difference in the
contribution of motivators and hygienes to the job dissatis
faction of community college Directors of Placement compared
to their university counterparts. The chi-square test revealed


132
1. For each of the three administrative positions, in
both educational settings, motivators contributed
significantly more to job satisfaction than did
hygienes.
2. With the exception of the Directors of Placement,
hygienes contributed significantly more to job
dissatisfaction than did motivators for each of the
other two administrative positions in both educational
settings.
3. No significant difference was found between the
relative contributions of motivators and hygienes
to. job satisfaction and job dissatisfaction for the
community college positions compared to their univer
sity counterparts.
4. A significant
difference was found between the relative
contributions
of motivators and hygienes to job satis-
faction among
the community college positions.
5. A significant
difference was found between the relative
contributions
of motivators and hygienes to job dissatis
faction among
the community college positions.
6. A significant
difference was found between the relative
contributions
of motivators and hygienes to job satis-
faction among
the university positions.
7. A significant
difference was found between the relative
contributions of motivators and hygienes to job dis
satisfaction among the university positions.
8. No significant difference was found between the relative
contributions of motivators and hygienes to job


143
III. Satisfaction-Dissatisfaction
We are going to go down the same itemsone by one. I
will first ask you to describe a specific incident (a
particular experience you have had) when you felt ex
ceptionally good about your present job in a particular
task area (e.g., professional and civic activities). Then
I will ask you to describe an incident when you felt ex
ceptionally bad about your job in the same area. Please
try to recall these events in as much detail as possible.
If it is impossible for you to recall such an incident,
or if there has not been one that really stands out as
exceptionally good or bad, please tell me. However, I
would appreciate your utmost cooperation in recalling as
many of these events as you can. All information will
be kept confidential and you will in no way be identified.
Incidents:
la. Selection, supervision, coordination, and evaluation
of staff (satisfying)
lb. same (dissatisfying)
2a. Supervision of on-campus recruiting activities by
prospective employers, and maintenance of related
files and records (satisfying)
2b. same (dissatisfying)
3a. Provision of job placement services to undergraduates,
graduate students, and alumni, which may include part-
time jobs within or outside the institution (satisfying)
3b. same (dissatisfying)
4a. Professional and civic activities (satisfying)
4b. same (dissatisfying)
5a. Counseling and advising students, parents of students,
and other interested groups or individuals (satisfying)
5b. same (dissatisfying)
6a. Participation in program planning and budgeting
(satisfying)
6b. same (dissatisfying)


24
3. Effects: the sole change was the introduction
of probe questions searching into attitudinal
effects beyond the behavioral level involved
in productivity, turnover, or interpersonal
relations. Specification of mental health
effects was also attempted. (Herzberg et al.,
1959, p. 28)
V irst-level factors as "an objective element of the sit
uation in which the respondent finds a source for his good
or bad feelings about the job" (Herzberg et al., 1959, p. 44)
include: recognition, achievement, possibility of growth,
advancement, salary, interpersonal relations, supervision-
technical, responsibility, company policy and administration,
working conditions, the work itself, factors in personal life,
status, and job security. As defined by Herzberg et al. (1959,
p. 44), the criteria for each category of the job attitude
factors can be described as follows:
1. Recognition. The major criterion for this factor
was some act of recognition (notice, praise, or blame) toward
the respondent by some other individual in the work environment
such as a client, a peer, a professional colleague, or the gen
eral public.
2. Achievement. This factor included successful comple
tion of a job, solutions to problems, vindication, and seeing
the results of one's work. Conversely, this factor also in
cluded failure or the absence of achievement.
3. Possibility of growth. This factor included any
mention by the respondent of the likelihood that the individual
would be able to move onward or upward in the organization or
that the personal skills of the individual could be advanced.


27
4. Feelings of responsibility, lack of responsibility
or diminished responsibility.
5. Group feelings: feelings of belonging or isolation,
socio-technical or purely social.
6. Feelings of interest or lack of interest in the
performance of the job.
7. Feelings of increased or decreased status.
8. Feelings of increased or decreased security.
9. Feelings of fairness or unfairness.
10. Feelings of pride, inadequacy, or guilt.
11. Feelings about salary. (Herzberg, 1968, p. 50)
The final component under analysis in Herzberg's theory
was the effect of job attitudes on the criterion measures of
performance, turnover, mental health, interpersonal relation
ships, and attitude. Three types of performance effects were
identified by the respondents: (1) work was either better or
poorer than usual; (2) changes in the rate of work, but not
its quality; or (3) changes in the quality of work (Herzberg
et al., 1959, pp. 51-54).
The effect of job attitudes on turnover ranged from indi
viduals who reported that they were so satisfied with their
jobs that they turned down attractive offers elsewhere to indi
viduals who felt so dissatisfied that they quit (Herzberg et al.,
1959, p. 52). The effect of job situations on mental health fell
into two categories: positive or negative. The positive effects
included "statements of improvement in tensions or symptoms, of
gaining weight when underweight, or of a cessation of such harmful


10
Justification
Unlike the original Herzberg et al. (1959) study of mid
level administrators, which included interviews with 203 engi
neers and accountants, educational researchers have concentrated
on the determinants of job satisfaction and dissatisfaction for
top-level administrators. There has been a lack of research
providing a comparison of current data regarding determinants
of job satisfaction and dissatisfaction for mid-level adminis
trators in Florida's community colleges and SUS institutions.
)t-The need for this type of information will assume increasing
importance in the 1980s as reduced job mobility presents insti
tutions with administrators who must remain productive in their
present positions for longer periods of time.
The degree to which administrators in Florida's community
colleges and universities in the SUS continue to find job satis
faction will clearly need to be addressed further in the 1980s.
If the decisions and policies regarding this critical human re
source are to be effective, they must be based on current, rel
evant data. The present study aimed to extend prior research
by:
1. adding to the theoretical base of general knowledge
about the determinants of job satisfaction and dis
satisfaction for mid-level administrators in an edu
cational setting;
2. providing comparative data to prior research regarding
educational personnel;


26
10. Working conditions. This factor included any reports
in which the physical conditions of work, the amount of work,
or the facilities available for doing the work were mentioned
in the sequence of events described by the respondent.
11. The work itself. This factor included any reports
in which the work itself was mentioned as a source of the re
spondent's good or bad feelings about actually doing the work.
12. Factors in personal life. This factor included any
situations in which some aspect of the job affected the re
spondent's personal life in such a way that the effect was
related to the respondent's feelings about the job.
13. Status. This factor was coded only when the respon
dent actually mentioned some sign or appurtenance of status
as a factor in the feelings about the job (e.g., being
allowed to drive a company car, etc.).
14. Job security. This factor included objective signs
of the presence or absence of job security such as company
stability or instability or tenure.
Second-level factors are the respondents' own verbal
accounts of the feelings, needs, and value systems that led to
their attitudes toward their jobs at the time the events were
being described (Ilerzberg et al. 1959, pp. 49-50). Thus,
the second-level factors described by Ilerzberg et al. were:
1. Feelings of recognition.
2. Feelings of achievement.
3. Feelings of possible growth, blocks to growth, first-
level factors perceived as evidence of actual growth.


88
hygienes interpersonal relationships (10.2%), work conditions
(2.9%), and supervision-technical (1.4%) also contributed to
their job satisfaction.
The data in Table 15 were utilized to test the null
hypothesis:
3
H For the Registrars, there is no difference
in the contribution of motivators and hygienes
to satisfying incidents associated with the
major functions of the position.
These data indicate that motivators contributed more
than did hygienes to the job satisfaction of the Registrars
interviewed. The chi-square test revealed a significant
difference between the contributions of motivators and
2
hygienes to satisfying incidents for Registrars (x =34.79,
df=l, pc.05) causing the null hypothesis to be rejected.
Overall contributions to dissatisfying incidents
The overall contributions of motivators and hygienes
to job dissatisfaction for Registrars across all six major
job functions is summarized in Table 16. Hygienes contributed
69.5% to the dissatisfying incidents while motivators
contributed 30.5%.
The hygienes that contributed to job dissatisfaction for
the Registrars were interpersonal relationships (22%),
company policy and administration (20.3%), salary (10.2%),
work conditions (8.5%), supervision-technical (6.8%), and
personal life (1.7%). The motivators achievement (11.8%),
recognition (8.5%), and responsibility (1.7%) were also
cited as contributing to job dissatisfaction.


99
to job dissatisfaction: supervision-technical (18%),
salary (18%), interpersonal relationships (9%), and company
policy and administration (18%). The motivator achievement
(36%) was also cited as contributing to job dissatisfaction
related to this job function.
Overall contributions to satisfying incidents
The overall contribution of motivators and hygienes
to job satisfaction for Directors of Placement across all
six major job functions is summarized in Table 23. Moti
vators contributed 89.3% to satisfying incidents while
hygienes contributed 10.7%.
Overall, the motivators that contributed to job satis
faction were achievement (35.7%), work itself (21.4%),
recognition (21.4%), responsibility (5.4%), and the possi
bility of growth (1.8%). Respondents indicated that the
following hygienes also contributed to their job satisfaction
interpersonal relationships (5.4%), supervision-technical
(3.6%), and company policy and administration (1.8%).
The data in Table 23 were utilized to test the null
hypothesis:
5
H For the Directors of Placement, there is
no difference in the contribution of
motivators and hygienes to satisfying
situations associated with the major
job functions of the position.
These data indicate that motivators contributed more
than did hygienes to job satisfaction for the Directors
of Placement interviewed. The chi-square test revealed a
significant difference between the contributions of motivators


9
HqI^ For the three community college positions,
there is no difference in the contribution of
motivators and hygienes to satisfying situations
associated with the major job functions of the
positions.
Hq-*-4 For the three community college positions, there is
no difference in the contribution of motivators
and hygienes to dissatisfying situations associated
with the major job functions of the positions.
Hq For the three university positions, there is no
difference in the contribution of motivators and
hygienes to satisfying situations associated with
the major job functions of the positions.
1 f
Hq u For the three university positions, there is no
difference in the contribution of motivators and
hygienes to dissatisfying situations associated
with the major job functions of the positions.
IIq^ For the community college administrators as a
group compared to the university administrators
as a group, there is no difference in the contri
bution of motivators and hygienes to satisfying
situations associated with the major job functions
of the positions.
Hqx For the community college administrators as a group
compared to the university administrators as a group,
there is no difference in the contribution of motiva
tors and hygienes to dissatisfying situations asso
ciated with tne major job functions of the positions.


43
were adequately satisfied for managers. A second deviation
from Maslow's hierarchy was the insertion of the category
"autonomy needs" between the categories of "esteem needs" and
"self-actualization needs." The following results were reported
by Porter:
1. The vertical location of management positions
appears to be an important variable in deter
mining the extent to which psychological needs
are fulfilled.
2. The greatest differences in the frequency of
need-fulfillment deficiencies between bottom-
and middle-management positions occur in the
esteem, security,and autonomy need areas. These
needs are significantly more often satisfied in
middle than bottom management.
3. Higher-order psychological needs are relatively
the least satisfied needs in both bottom and
middle management.
4. Self-actualization and security are seen as more
important areas of need satisfaction than areas
of social, esteem, and autonomy, by individuals
in both bottom- and middle-management positions.
5. The higher-order need of self-actualization is
the most critical need area of those studied,
in terms of both perceived deficiency in ful
fillment and perceived importance to the individual,
in both bottom- and middle-management. This need
is not perceived as significantly more satisfied
at the middle-management level than at the bottom-
management level. (1961, pp. 9-10)
Centers and Bugental (1966) interviewed a selected cross-
section of the working population (N= 692) with respect to their
job motivations to determine the extent to which extrinsic or
intrinsic job components were valued. Specifically, it was their
intention to
extend the available information on the role of intrin
sic and extrinsic job factors as motivators by studying
the motivational "strength" of intrinsic and extrinsic


APPENDIX A
INTERVIEW GUIDE FOR
DIRECTOR OF ADMISSIONS
I.Personal Data
1. Name of institution:
2. Title of present position:
3. Length of time in present position:
4. Most-recent past position:
5. Length of time in past position:
6. Highest degree held:
7. Area of specialization:
II. Verification of Major Job Functions
The following tasks have been identified in the literature
as major responsibilities typical of the director of ad
missions in post-secondary educational institutions. Please
review them carefully, and, if there are others you wish to
add or some you wish to delete, do so. If you have any ques
tions, please ask.
1. Selection, supervision, coordination, and evaluation
of staff
2. Responsibility for the recruitment, selection, and
admission of undergraduates and/or graduate students
3. Participation in the development of admissions criteria
4. Professional and civic activities
5. Counseling and advising students, parents of students,
and other interested groups or individuals
6. Participation in program planning and budgeting
138


85
Registrars mentioned the following motivators as contrib
uting to their job satisfaction relative to this job function:
achievement (36%), recognition (27%), and the work itself
(27%). The hygiene interpersonal relationships (9%) was
also cited as contributing to job satisfaction.
In describing the dissatisfying incidents related to
this job function, the Registrars mentioned the following
hygienes as contributing to job dissatisfaction: interpersonal
relationships (37.5%), supervision-technical (12.5%), and
company policy and administration (12.5%). The motivators
recognition (12.5%), achievement (12.5%), and the work itself
(12.5%) were also cited as contributing to job dissatisfaction.
Program planning and budgeting
The relative contribution of motivators and hygienes to
job satisfaction and job dissatisfaction for Registrars in
program planning and budgeting is summarized in Table 14.
Motivators contributed 83.3% to the satisfying incidents
while hygienes contributed 16.7% for this job function.
For the dissatisfying incidents, hygienes contributed 84.6%
and motivators contributed 15.4%.
Registrars mentioned the following motivators as contrib
uting to their job satisfaction relative to this job function:
achievement (41.6%), recognition (16.6%), the work itself
(8.3%), personal growth (8.3%), and responsibility (8.3%). The
hygienes work conditions (8.3%) and interpersonal relation
ships (8.3%) were also mentioned as contributing to job satis-
f act ion.


69
company policy and administration (22.2%), and supervision-
technical (22.2%). The motivator achievement (22.2%) was
also cited as contributing to job dissatisfaction related
to this job function.
Development of admissions criteria
The relative contribution of motivators and hygienes to
job satisfaction and job dissatisfaction for the Directors
of Admissions in participation in the development of admissions
criteria is summarized in Table 3. Motivators contributed 87.5%
to the satisfying incidents for this job function while
hygienes contributed 12.5%. For the dissatisfying incidents,
hygienes contributed 60% while motivators contributed 40%.
Table 3
Contribution of Motivators and Hygienes
for Directors of Admissions
in the Development of Admissions Criteria
Type of Incident
Type of Satisfying Dissatisfying
Classification (% of satisfying) (% of dissatisfying)
Motivators 7 2
(87.5) (40)
Hygienes 1 3
(12.5) (60)


Table 38
Frequency Distribution of Hygienes
for Satisfying and Dissatisfying Incidents
Positions
Hyienes
CC
Dir.
Adm.
CC
Regis.
CC
Dir.
Place.
Total
CC
Univ.
Dir.
Adm.
Un iv.
Regis.
Univ.
Dir.
Place.
Total
Univ.
Total
Interpersonal
Relationships
Satisfied
2
4
2
8
3
3
1
7
15
Dissatisfied
3
5
5
13
6
5
4
15
28
Salary
Satisfied
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
Dissatisfied
0
4
0
4
3
2
2
7
11
Supervision-Technical
Satisfied
0
0
1
1
0
0
1
1
2
Dissatisfied
1
3
1
5
3
1
2
6
11
Company Policy &
Administration
Satisfied
0
0
1
1
0
0
0
0
1
Dissatisfied
3
6
3
12
8
5
5
18
30
Work Conditions
Satisfied
0
1
0
1
1
0
0
1
2
Dissatisfied
0
3
0
3
2
2
1
5
8
Personal Life
Satisfied
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
to
o ^
Dissatisfied
0
1
0
1
1
0
0
1
2
127


110
the motivators achievement, the work itself, recognition,
and responsibility contributed 91% to their job satisfaction.
The hygienes interpersonal relationships and supervision-
technical contributed 9%. For university Directors of
Placement, the motivators achievement, recognition, and the
work itself contributed 93.3% to their job satisfaction. The
hygienes interpersonal relationships and supervision-technical
contributed 6.7%.
Table 29
Comparison of Motivators and Hygienes in
the Satisfying Incidents for Community
College and University Directors of Placement
Type of Institution, Position
Type of Classification Frequency
% Of
Group Total
Community College
Directors of Placement
Motivators 20 91
Hygienes 2 9
University
Directors of Placement
Motivators 28 93.3
Hygienes
2
6.7


CHAPTER V
SUMMARY, CONCLUSIONS, IMPLICATIONS,
AND RECOMMENDATIONS FOR FURTHER RESEARCH
The present study focused on the determinants of job
satisfaction and job dissatisfaction for selected mid-level
administrators in the three largest community colleges and
state universities in Florida. The mid-level administrative
positions studied were the Director of Admissions, the Regis
trar, and the Director of Placement at each institution.
The need for this study was demonstrated by a lack of
current data regarding the determinants of job satisfaction
and dissatisfaction for these positions which may be impacted
by fluctuating student enrollments in the 1980s. The present
study provided comparative data to prior research regarding
job determinants for educational personnel and identified, for
the selected sample, the job content and context factors which
contribute to job satisfaction and job dissatisfaction. In
addition, the present study provided implications for the role
of higher-level administrators regarding employee supervision
and personnel management.
The specific purposes of this study were to: (1) apply
Herzberg's Motivator-Hygiene theory to examine the job content
and context factors related to job attitudes for the community
college and university Directors of Admissions, Registrars, and
Directors of Placement; (2) identify specific motivators and
hygienes relevant to each administrative type; (3) verify
130


54
support for Herzberg's theory relative to the different posi
tions. For example, the data for the chief student personnel
officers supported Herzberg's theory for satisfying, but not
for dissatisfying, incidents 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 directors of counseling supported
Herzberg's theory for both types of incidents. Groseth (1978)
found that recognition, achievement, and the work itself were
the most frequently mentioned motivators and that company
policy and administration, interpersonal relationships, and
work conditions were the most frequently mentioned hygienes.
Thomas (1977) applied Herzberg's theory to selected com
munity college administrative positions. Twelve chief aca
demic officers, 12 chief business officers, and 12 chief stu
dent personnel officers from six large and six small communi
ty colleges in Florida were interviewed. Thomas (1977) used
the critical-incident technique to identify job satisfaction
and job dissatisfaction factors of the respondents relative
to specific job functions for each position that had been
identified from the literature.
Thomas (1977) found strong support for Herzberg's theory
in that, for the three types of administrators, motivators
contributed significantly more to role satisfaction than did
hygienes. In addition, hygienes contributed significantly
more to role dissatisfaction than did motivators. Thomas
(1977) found that, for these three types of administrators,


56
Summary
A review of the literature related to Herzberg's theory
has been presented which
1. compares Herzberg's Motivator-Hygiene Theory to
the traditional theory of job satisfaction;
2. describes the theoretical framework of Herzberg's
theory which is fundamental to the present study;
3. investigates critical analyses and research related
to Herzberg's theory;
4. describes the major criticisms of Herzberg's theory
and the rebuttal by Herzberg et al. to those criti
cisms; and
5. presents a review of related research which has
applied Herzberg's theory to investigate job satis
faction and job dissatisfaction for individuals in
different educational settings.
Based on this review of the literature, the researcher
feels that Herzberg's theoretical framework was the appropriate
basis for examining the factors related to the job satisfaction
and dissatisfaction of the present sample. The literature
supports:
1. the utility of Herzberg's theory to identify the
determinants of job satisfaction and job dissatis
faction ;
2. that, although the research regarding Herzberg's theory
is inconclusive, the majority of studies support or
partially support his theory;


109
university counterparts. The chi-square test revealed no
2
significant difference (x =.002, df=l, p>.05). Therefore,
the null hypothesis is not rejected.
Table 28
Comparison of Motivators and Hygienes
in the Dissatisfying Incidents for Community
College and University Registrars
Type of Institution, Position % Of
Type of Classification Frequency Group Total
Community College Registrars
Motivators
12
33
Hygienes
24
66
University Registrars
Motivators 7 30.4
Hygienes 16 69.6
Determinants of job satisfaction:
community college Directors of Placement
compared to university Directors of Placement
The relative contribution of motivators and hygienes
to the job satisfaction of community college Directors of
Placement and university Directors of Placement is summarized
in Table 29. For community college Directors of Placement,


48
satiationbut most refer to the bodily states gen
erated by reinforcers. It is sometimes possible to
discover what reinforces a person simply by asking
him what he likes or how he feels about things. What
we learn is similar to what we learn by testing the
effect of a reinforcer: he is talking about what
has reinforced him in the past or what he sees him
self "going for." But, this does not mean that his
feelings are causally effective; his answer reports
a collateral effect (1974, p. 48).
Sanzotta analyzed Maslow's theory and Herzberg's theory
through a behavioristic extrinsic motivation model and concluded
that
for most people, satisfying a hunger drive is con
siderably easier than satisfying a need for self
esteem. A tangible primary reinforcement is in
volved in one, while an intangible set of conditions
(secondary reinforcements) prevail in the other. In
fact, we may extend ourselves a bit and say that, in
general, a primary reinforcement satiates (a lower
level need) more easily than a secondary reinforce
ment satiates (a higher level need). At the same
time, though, we cannot deny the maintenance nature
and power of primary reinforcers. The point here is
that if Herzberg's motivator-hygiene theory were
viewed in a slightly different manner, it could fit
into a behaviorist's model. (Sanzotta, 1977, p. 108)
It is not unreasonable to put Herzberg's hygiene
factors under the high satiability dimension and the
motivator factors at the other end of the continuum
of low satiability.... Rather, satiation should be
considered idiosyncratic, based on individual sub
jective histories and perceptions of reinforcement.
A reinforcer that may have a high satiability quality
for one person may be an open-end factor for another.
(Sanzotta, 1977, pp. 54-55)
Chung (1977) identified the major weaknesses of motiva
tional theories that are based on classical and operant condi
tioning to be that
1. reinforcers cannot be applied to all people
under all circumstances;
2. an incentive may appeal to one person but not
to another;


71
Table 4
Contribution of Motivators and Hygienes
for Directors of Admissions
in Professional and Civic Activities
Type
of Incident
Type of
Classification
Satisfying
(% of satisfying)
Dissatisfying
(% of dissatisfying)
Motivators
8
1
(88.9)
(50)
Hygienes
1
1
(11.1)
(50)
In describing the dissatisfying incidents related to
this job function, the Directors of Admissions mentioned the
motivator achievement (50%) and the hygiene company policy
and administration (50%) as contributing to job dissatisfaction.
The motivator achievement includes its opposite, lack of
achievement. Only two respondents could recall dissatisfying
incidents related to this job function.
Counseling and advising students, parents of students,
and other interested groups or individuals
The relative contribution of motivators and hygienes
to job satisfaction and job dissatisfaction for the Directors
of Admissions in counseling and advising students, parents
of students, and other interested groups or individuals
is summarized in Table 5. Motivators contributed 60% to the
satisfying incidents for this job function while hygienes


BIOGRAPHICAL SKETCH
Russell K. Burr was born in New York City and was reared
in Miami, Florida. He received his A.A. from Miami-Dade
Community College in 1965, his B.A. in psychology from the
University of South Florida in 1972, and his M.A. in guidance
and counseling from the University of South Florida in 1976.
His work experience has included service in the United
States Air Force from 1966-1970 where he travelled extensively
throughout the United States and the world while working on
the Apollo projects. He served as a Research Associate with
the Greater Tampa Alcohol Safety Action Project in 1972. He
then began working for the University of South Florida where
he served as the Veterans' Admissions Counselor in 1973, the
Director of the Office of Veterans' Affairs for the St. Peters
burg Campus in 1974, and as an Associate Director of Student
Affairs for the Regional Campuses from 1975-1978.
Since entering the doctoral program in Educational admini
stration in higher education at the University of Florida in
1978, he has been serving as a Graduate Teaching Assistant at
the English Language Institute teaching English as a Second
Language to international students. He has been awarded two
Certificates of Recognition from the International Student
Center at UF for his volunteer work with international students.
152


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
JOB SATISFACTION DETERMINANTS FOR SELECTED ADMINISTRATORS
IN FLORIDA'S COMMUNITY COLLEGES AND UNIVERSITIES:
AN APPLICATION OF HERZBERG'S MOTIVATOR-HYGIENE THEORY
BY
RUSSELL KENNETH BURR
AUGUST 1980
Chairman: Dr. James L. Wattenbarger
Major Department: Educational Administration and Supervision
The specific purposes of this study were to: (1) apply
Herzberg's Motivator-Hygiene Theory to examine the job content
and context factors related to job attitudes for community
college and university Directors of Admissions, Registrars,
and Directors of Placement; (2) identify specific motivators
and hygienes relevant to these administrative positions; (3)
verify support for the application of Herzberg's theory to an
educational setting; and (4) compare the determinants of job
satisfaction and dissatisfaction among these positions and
across the two types of institutions.
Respondents' attitudes were measured within the theoret
ical framework of Herzberg's Motivator-Hygiene Theory and were
classified using the job factor definitions developed by Herz-
berg. The job content factors (motivators) related to job
xi


59
Instrumentation
Three parallel instruments similar to those used by Herz-
berg et al. (1959), Thomas (1977), and Groseth (1978) were
designed for the positions of Director of Admissions, Registrar,
and Director of Placement. Each instrument was specifically
designed to solicit from the respondent:
1. demographic data;
2. verification of the major job functions identified by
Jones and Drews(1978) for that position; and
3. identification of the motivators and hygienes associ
ated with the critical incidents in which the respon
dent was satisfied or dissatisfied relative to the
specific job functions.
Copies of these instruments are in Appendices A, B, and C.
The instruments were used by the researcher to conduct semi-
structured interviews. Respondents had a free choice in relating
the critical incident related to each job function specified on
the instrument.
In addition, each respondent was given a handout describing
the job functions identified by Jones and Drews (1978) for the
position which was utilized in verifying these functions in
response to section.: II of the interview instrument. Copies
of these handouts are in Appendices D, E, and F.
Data Collection
A letter was sent to the president of each institution
selected requesting authorization for the institution to par
ticipate in this study. Follow-up phone calls were made to
establish appointments for the interviews.


40
If we avoid the semantic error made in equating
satisfaction in the M-H sense and satisfaction
in the overall job satisfaction sense, it becomes
evident that M-H Theory would predict that both
motivator factors and hygiene factors contribute
to overall satisfaction. It makes no sense to
say that if a man is unhappy with his working
conditions, this will not have a negative effect
on his overall feeling toward his job. M-H Theory
would not predict this and neither, we hope, would
anybody else. (Whitsett & Winslow, 1976, p. 254)
Grigaliunas and Wiener (1976) identified three main prob
lems from their review of the literature on the criticisms
of Herzberg's theory:
1 An apparent lack of success in developing an
appropriate technique to measure or demonstrate
bidimensionality of job feelings as an alterna
tive to Herzberg's critical-incident approach.
The research critical of M-H Theory has relied
upon the rating-scale score often a one-item
scale to assess complex motivational and emo
tional phenomena.
2. Conclusions about the validity of the M-H Theory
were made by testing hypotheses that could not
be logically derived from this theory (e.g.,
"overall satisfaction" and "importance" hypoth
eses ).
3. The results of several studies are inconclusive
and can be interpreted in alternative ways that
are not unsupportive of M-H Theory. (1976, p. 295)
Grigaliunas and Wiener conclude that "as a whole, the design,
rationale, and findings of the critical studies do not pro
vide a strong case for refuting M-H Theory" (1976, p. 295).
Two Alternative Theories of Motivation
Related to Job Satisfaction
Sanzotta (1977) identified two general types of motiva
tion: extrinsic and intrinsic (p. 17). Under this taxonomy,
the distinction between types of motivation is simple to
discern. Motivation is either internal to, or motivation


41
come from outside of, the organism. Therefore, according to
Sanzotta (1977) it is possible to fit the various models of
motivation into this intrinsic-extrinsic distinction (p. 18).
Models or theories of motivation which are concerned with needs,
drives, drive reduction, etc. would fit into the first catego
ry while models or theories derived from classical and operant
conditioning would fit into the latter. This section discusses
two alternative theories of motivation related to job satisfac
tion that fit into Sanzotta's (1977) intrinsic-extrinsic dis
tinction and compares these theories to Herzberg's theory.
An example of need theories is Maslow's (1954) Need Hier
archy. Maslow's theory of human motivation is a holistic-dynam
ic theory in the "functionalist tradition of James and Dewey,
and is fused with the holism of Wertheimer, Goldstein, and Ges
talt psychology, and with the dynamicism of Freud and Adler"
(Maslow, 1954, p. 80). In Maslow's theory, man's needs are
arranged in order in the hierarchy of prepotency as 1) physio
logical, 2) safety, 3) belongingness and love, 4) esteem, and
5) self-actualization. Maslow (1954) theorized that the physio
logical needs were the most prepotent. He said that "a person
who is lacking food, safety, love, and esteem would probably
hunger for food more strongly than for anything else" (Maslow,
1954, p. 82). As the physiological needs of man are met, "at
once other (and higher) needs emerge and these, rather than
physiological hungers, dominate the organism" (Maslow, 1954,
p. 83). The emerging needs become the motivators of behavior.
As soon as the needs on a lower level in the hierarchy are


19
involved in producing feelings of job satisfaction and job dis
satisfaction. As described by Herzberg,
one set of needs can be thought of as stemming from
from his animal naturethe built-in drive to avoid
pain from the environment, plus all the learned drives
which become conditioned to the basic biological needs.
For example, hunger, a basic biological drive, makes
it necessary to earn money, and then money becomes a
specific drive. The other set of needs relates to that
unique human characteristic, the ability to achieve
and through achievement, to experience psychological
growth: in the industrial setting, they are the job
content. Contrariwise, the stimuli inducing pain-
avoidance behavior are found in the job environment.
(Herzberg, 1976, p. 58)
^According to Herzberg's 1959 theory, which he developed
further in 1966, job satisfaction and job dissatisfaction can
be measured on two disparate scales such that "the factors
involved in producing job satisfaction (and motivation) are
separate and distinct from the factors that lead to job dis
satisfaction" (Herzberg, Mausner, & Snyderman, 1959). The
opposite of job satisfaction is not job dissatisfaction; it
is an absence of job satisfaction. Conversely, the opposite
of job dissatisfaction is not job satisfaction, it is an ab
sence of job dissatisfaction. Job satisfaction, as determined
by the employee, encompasses the feelings that the employee has
toward the job content (intrinsic). In other words, job con
tent factors are "motivators" which are the personal growth
factors that are intrinsic to the job. These include achieve
ment, recognition for achievement, responsibility, the possi
bility of growth or advancement, and the work itself. Job dis
satisfaction encompasses the employee's feelings toward job
context (extrinsic). Job context factors are "hygienes" which


62
largest institutions (based on FTE) that were willing
to participate were selected for this study.
2. Separate interview guides were designed for each of
the three positions studied. The interview guides
limited the interviews to questions concerning job
satisfaction and dissatisfaction associated with the
major job functions of each of the positions studied.
In addition, the following limitations were inherent in
the results of the data collected:
1. This study was conducted as six institutions, three
community colleges and three universities, all of
which are in Florida. It is therefore not possible to
generalize from the findings of this study to the
general populations of Directors of Admissions, Regis
trars, and Directors of Placement.
2. All data collected in this study consisted of verbal
reports by the respondents. Therefore, the data were
subject to the perceptions of the respondents even
through every effort was made to encourage honesty by
telling each of the respondents that they would not
be identified by name or institution in the study.
3. The data collected from the critical-incident method
ology were subject to threats to internal validity
because the incidents were collected and categorized
according to Herzberg's theory by the researcher.


21
- Motivator needs have a non-escalating zero point.
- There are answers to motivator needs
(Herzberg, Mausner, & Snyderman, 1959, p. 101)
Herzberg's (M-H) theory is based on the original Herzberg
et al. study in 1959 of 203 male, mid-level managers who were
engineers and accountants selected from companies in Pittsburgh
In addition to demographic data, information was collected from
the respondents in the form of their responses to a semi-struc
tured interview. This interview technique was similar to Flana
gan's "critical-incident" interview technique. In selecting
this technique, Herzberg et al. criticized alternative method
ologies because, as they stated:
A major failing of most previous work in job attitudes
has been its fragmentary nature. Studies in which fac
tors affecting a worker's attitude toward his job were
intensively investigated rarely included any information
as to the effects of these attitudes. Studies of effects,
similarly, rarely included any data as to the origin of
the attitudes. In most cases in which either factors
or effects were studied there was inadequate information
about the individuals concerned, their perceptions, their
needs, their patterns of learning. The primary need that
emerged was one for an investigation of job attitudes in
toto, a study in which factors, attitudes, and effects
would be investigated simultaneously. The basic concept
was that the factors-attitudes-effects (F-A-E) complex
needs study as a unit. (Herzberg, Mausner, & Snyderman,
1959, p. 11)
Herzberg's interview technique differed from Flanagan's
in that^ierzberg' s goal was to determine the respondent's judge
ment of his or her psychological state during a critical event
(an internal criterion) whereas Flanagan's goal was to evaluate
job performance or the development of a selection device which
was external to the psychological processes of the individual
reporting (Herzberg, Mausner, & Snyderman, 1959, p. 12). A


55
achievement was the chief motivator mentioned relative to job
satisfaction and that company policy and interpersonal relation
ships were the chief hygienes related to job dissatisfaction.
Institutional size was not significantly related to the job
satisfaction or dissatisfaction for these three types of
administrators.
Kozal (1979) applied the reformulated (Herzberg) theory
of job satisfaction to selected administrative staff members
in the Florida SUS. The focus of his study was to test the
applicability of Hoy and Miskel's Reformulated (Herzberg)
Theory to selected administrative staffers to examine job
satisfaction and dissatisfaction related to the major job tasks
for the directors of purchasing, security and safety, personnel
relations, physical plant, and to university controllers. The
reformulated theory is different from Herzberg's theory in that
the former includes three distinct groups of factors which con
tribute to an individual's job satisfaction and/or job dissatis
faction: motivators, hygienes, and ambients. The third category
includes those factors which occur with equal frequency in sa
tisfying as well as dissatisfying job incidents. Specifically,
the job factors included as ambients are salary, status, growth
possibility, risk opportunity, and relationships with super
ordinates. Kozal (1979) could not find support for Hoy and
Miskel's theory in that the data regarding the third classifi
cationambientsdid not prove accurate. Of the 494 factors
used to classify the critical incidents'in the study, Kozal
(1979) identified only 25 as ambients.


6
students, and other interested groups or
individuals; and
6. participation in program planning and
budgeting.
For the Registrars
Q
Hq There is no difference in the contribution of
motivators and hygienes to satisfying situations
associated with the major job functions of the
position.
4
Hq There is no difference in the contribution of
motivators and hygienes to dissatisfying situations
associated with the major functions of the position.
Those functions, as identified in the literature,
include:
1. selection, supervision, coordination, and
evaluation of staff;
2. responsibility for student enrollment and
records;
3. undergraduate and/or graduate registration;
scheduling of classes, examinations and class
room facilities; and maintenance of student re
cords ;
4. professional and civic activities;
5. counseling and advising students, parents of
students, and other interested groups or in
dividuals; and
6. participation in program planning and
budgeting.


17
mechanics of satisfaction may eventually be
explained by physiological chemistry, but
external stimuli in the job situation will
probably help to determine the result. Com
plete satisfaction may be both impossible and
undesirable. (Hoppock, 1935, p. 44)
A person who experiences job dissatisfaction, according
to Hoppock, is "one who has indicated a distinct and conscious
discontent with his job as a whole" (1935, p. 6). In a com
parative study of satisfied and dissatisfied teachers, Hoppock
identified the following discriminants:
1. The satisfied showed fewer indications of emotional
maladjustment;
2. The satisfied were more religious;
3. The satisfied enjoyed better human relationships with
superiors and associates;
4. More of the satisfied were teaching in cities that
had a population greater than 10,000;
5. The difference in salaries was not statistically
significant;
6. The satisfied felt more successful;
7. No measurement of aptitude or proficiency was attempted;
8. Family influence and social status were more favorable
among the satisfied;
9. More of the satisfied "selected" their vocation;
10. No teacher "disliked" children, and four-fifths of
the dissatisfied found their work "interesting";
11. Monotony and fatigue were reported more frequently
by the dissatisfied; and
12. The satisfied were 7.5 years older than the dissatisfied.
(Hoppock, 1935, pp. 25-40)


11
3. identifying, for the selected sample, job content
and context factors which contribute to their job
attitudes;
4. providing implications for the role of higher-level
administrators regarding employee supervision, work
structure, and participative decision-making; and
by,
5. identifying areas in which further research is
needed.
Definition of Terms
Community college. An educational institution which
offers courses and programs confined to the first two years
of post-secondary education. The institution is supported
by public tax funds and governed by an elected or politically
appointed board.
Critical incident. The identification by the respondent
of specific job events that led to extreme job satisfaction
or dissatisfaction and the resulting description of these
even ts.
Director of Admissions. The administrative official
with principal responsibility for tne recruitment, selection,
and admission of undergraduates. Participates in the develop
ment of admissions criteria, and coordinates review of, and
decisions on, applications. May also be responsible for the
admission of graduate and professional students or for schol
arship administrations or similar function. Usually reports
to the Chief Student Life Officer.


Table 37
Frequency Distribution of Motivators
for Satisfying and Dissatisfying Incidents
Posit ions
Motivators
CC
Dir.
Adm.
CC
Regis.
CC
Dir.
Place.
Total
CC
Univ.
Dir.
Adm.
Uni v.
Regis.
Uni v.
Dir.
Place.
Total
Univ.
Total
Recognition
Satisfied
3
11
4
18
7
6
8
21
39
Dissatisfied
0
3
1
4
1
1
2
4
8
Achievement
Satisfied
4
20
8
32
12
13
12
37
69
Dissatisfied
0
4
4
8
8
3
10
21
29
Possibility of Growth
Satisfied
1
2
2
5
3
0
1
4
9
Dissatisfied
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
Possibility for Advancement
Satisfied
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
Dissatisfied
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
Responsibility
Satisfied
0
1
2
3
5
2
1
8
11
Dissatisfied
0
0
0
0
0
1
0
1
1
Work Itself
Satisfied
2
2
5
9
2
2
7
11
20
Dissatisfied
0
4
3
7
0
1
2
3
10
12G


81
In describing dissatisfying incidents related to this
job function, the Registrars mentioned the following hygienes
as contributing to job dissatisfaction: interpersonal re
lationships (16.7%), supervision-technical (8.3%), company
policy and administration (8.3%), and work conditions (8.3%).
The motivators achievement (33.3%), the work itself (16.7%),
and responsibility (8.3%) were also cited as contributing
to job dissatisfaction. One Registrar could not recall a
dissatisfying incident related to this job function.
Registration; scheduling;
and record maintenance
The relative contribution of motivators and hygienes to
job satisfaction and job dissatisfaction for Registrars in
registering undergraduate and/or graduate students; scheduling
classes, exmainations, and classroom facilities; and maintaining
student records, is summarized in Table 11. Motivators con-
t
tributed 82% to the satisfying incidents, while hygienes
contributed 18% for this job function. For the dissatisfying
incidents, hygienes contributed 56%, and motivators contrib
uted 44%.
Registrars mentioned the motivators achievement (55%),
recognition (18%), and responsibility (9%) as contributing
to their job satisfaction related to this job function. The
hygienes interpersonal relationships (9%) and work conditions
(9%) were also mentioned as contributing to job satisfaction.


80
Enrollment and records
The relative contribution of motivators and hygienes to
job satisfaction and dissatisfaction for Registrars in their
responsibility for student enrollment and records is sum
marized in Table 10. Motivators contributed 18.3% to the
satisfying incidents for this job function while hygienes
contributed 16.7%. For the dissatisfying incidents, hygienes
contributed 41.7% and motivators contributed 58.3%.
Table 10
Contribution of Motivators and Hygienes
for Registrars in their Responsibility
for Student Enrollment and Records
Type of Incident
Type of
Classification
Satisfying
(% of satisfying)
Dissatisfying
(% of dissatisfying)
Motivators
10
7
(83.3)
(58.3)
Hygienes
2
5
(16.7)
(41.7)
Registrars mentioned the motivators recognition (41.7%)
and achievement (41.7%) as contributing to their job satis
faction relative to this job function. The hygiene inter
personal relationships (16.6%) was also cited as contributing
to job satisfaction. One respondent could not recall a
satisfying incident related to this job function.


122
The data in Table 35 were compared to test the null
hypothesis:
17
H For the community college administrators
as a group compared to the university
administrators as a group, there is no
difference in the contribution of moti
vators and hygienes to satisfying situations
associated with the major job functions of
the positions.
These data do not indicate a significant difference in
the contribution of motivators and hygienes to the job sat
isfaction of the community college administrators as a group
compared to the university administrators as a group. The
chi-square test did not reveal a significant difference
2
(x =.342, df=2, p>.05). Therefore, the null hypothesis is
not rejected.
Determinants of job dissatisfaction:
community college group
compared to university group
The relative contribution of motivators and hygienes
to job dissatisfaction for the community college administrators
as a group and the university administrators as a group is
summarized in Table 36. For the community college adminis
trators as a group, hygienes contributed 67% to their job
dissatisfaction and motivators contributed 33%. For the
university administrators as a group, hygienes contributed
69.6% to their job satisfaction and motivators contributed
30.4%.


65
3. Results of data analyses are then presented which
compare the relative contribution of motivators and
hygienes to the satisfying and dissatisfying incidents
among the community college positions and among the
university positions as addressed in hypotheses 13
through 16 (H ^ H ^).
o o
4. Finally, results of data analyses are presented which
compare the contributions of motivators and hygienes
to the satisfying and dissatisfying incidents between
the community college administrators as a group and
the university administrators as a group as addressed
17 1 Q
in hypotheses 17 and 18 (H H ).
o o '
Data Relating to Positions
The present section presents, for each position, demo
graphic data and data concerning the contribution of motivators
and hygienes for the major job functions of the position. Re
sults of data analyses are presented which compare the relative
contributions of motivators and hygienes to satisfying and
dissatisfying incidents for each position.
Directors of Admissions
Demographic data collected from the Directors of Admissions
indicate that these respondents had served in their present
positions for from 2 to 10 years, with an average of 6.5 years.
They had served in their prior positions for from 1 to 8 years,
with an average of 5 years. All but one of the Directors of
Admissions had been promoted from within their present orga
nizations. The highest degree held by a Director of Admissions


CHAPTER IV
PRESENTATION AND ANALYSIS OF DATA
Data were collected from semi-structured interviews with
four Directors of Admissions, eight Registrars, and five
Directors of Placement from the three largest public community
colleges and the three largest state universities in Florida.
Incidents relating to job satisfaction and dissatisfaction
reported by the respondents during the interviews were
recorded on interview guides designed for each position
(see Appendices A, B, and C). During the interviews, re
spondents were asked to recall and describe specific incidents
in which they had felt exceptionally good or exceptionally
bad about their present job relative to the major functions
of the job as described in the literature (see Appendices
D, E, and F).
Components of the critical incidents described by the
respondents were then categorized according to Herzberg's
motivator-hygiene classifications. Respondents' statements
regarding their job satisfaction and job dissatisfaction
were coded as having been influenced by one or a combination
of six motivators (achievement, recognition, the work itself,
responsibility, advancement, or possibility of growth) or one
of eight hygienes (company policy and administration, super
vision-technical, work conditions, salary, interpersonal
relationships, personal life, status, or job security). The
63


92
Directors of Placement mentioned the following motivators
as contributing to their job satisfaction related to this
job function: achievement (44.4%), the work itself (22.2%),
and responsibility (22.2%). The hygiene interpersonal
relationships (11.1%) was also mentioned as contributing to
job satisfaction.
In describing dissatisfying incidents, the Directors of
Placement mentioned the hygienes interpersonal relationships
(28.6%) and work conditions (14.3%) as contributing to job
dissatisfaction. The motivators recognition (14.3%), achieve
ment (14.3%), and the work itself (14.3%) were also cited as
contributing to job dissatisfaction related to this job
function.
Recruiting activities; file
and record maintenance
The relative contribution of motivators and hygienes to
job satisfaction and dissatisfaction for Directors of Place
ment in the supervision of on-campus recruiting activities
by prospective employers, and the maintenance of related files
and records is summarized in Table 18. Motivators contributed
91.7% to the satisfying incidents for this job function while
hygienes contributed 8.3%. For the dissatisfying incidents,
hygienes contributed 57.1% while motivators contributed 42.9%.
Directors of Placement mentioned the following motivators
as contributing to their job satisfaction related to this job
function: achievement (33.3%), recognition (33.3%), the work
itself (16.7%), and responsibility (8.3%). The hygiene


60
During the interviews, data were collected utilizing
the structured questionnaire developed for each position.
The researcher recorded the respondent's responses on the
instrument during the interview. A separate copy of the appro
priate instrument was used by the researcher for each inter
view. Demographic data were recorded as specified by the
respondent. As the respondent related the critical incidents,
the researcher recorded key phrases which denoted motivators
or hygienes. To ensure accurate responses, each respondent
was assured that no person would be identified in the study by
name or institution.
Data Analysis
Following the interviews, the data were analyzed by coding
the responses recorded by the researcher for each critical
incident which might have been influenced by one of six moti
vators (achievement, recognition, the work itself, opportunity
for advancement, or responsibility) or by one of eight hygienes
(salary, company policy and administration, supervision, inter
personal relationships, personal life, job security, status, or
work conditions). The codings followed those developed by Herz-
berg et al. and cited in Thomas (1977) and Groseth (1978). More
than one factor was assigned to a critical incident if appropriate.
The chi square test for statistical significance has been
determined to be an appropriate statistical test for the analy
sis of data assessing the significance of Herzberg's motivator-
hygiene factors (Groseth, 1978; Thomas, 1977). This statistical
test was used to determine whether the observed contribution of


xml version 1.0 encoding UTF-8
REPORT xmlns http:www.fcla.edudlsmddaitss xmlns:xsi http:www.w3.org2001XMLSchema-instance xsi:schemaLocation http:www.fcla.edudlsmddaitssdaitssReport.xsd
INGEST IEID ECP02O99M_2TGEGN INGEST_TIME 2014-10-07T00:35:43Z PACKAGE AA00025738_00001
AGREEMENT_INFO ACCOUNT UF PROJECT UFDC
FILES


contributed 40%. For the dissatisfying incidents, hygienes
contributed 60% while motivators contributed 40%.
The Directors of Admissions mentioned the following
motivators as contributing to job satisfaction related to
this job function: recognition (20%), achievement (20%),
and the work itself (20%). The hygiene interpersonal
relationships (40%) was also cited as contributing to job
satisfaction.
In describing dissatisfying incidents related
to this job function, the Directors of Admissions mentioned
the hygienes interpersonal relationships (40%) and company
Table 5
Contribution of Motivators and Hygienes
for Directors of Admissions in Counseling
and Advising Students, Parents, and Others
Type of Incident
Type of
Classification
Satisfying
(% of satisfying)
Dissatisfying
(% of dissatisfying)
Motivators
3
2
(60)
(40)
Hygienes
2
3
(40)
(60)
policy and administration (20%) as contributing to job
dissatisfaction. The motivators recognition (20%) and


CHAPTER II
REVIEW OF THE LITERATURE
The review of literature related to this study is present
ed in six sections. The first section discusses the traditional
theory of job satisfaction exemplified by Hoppock's (1935) study.
The second section describes Herzberg's Motivator-Hygiene Theory
(1959), an alternative to Hoppock's traditional theory. An
analysis of research related to Herzberg's theory is presented
in the third section. This is followed by an analysis of major
criticisms of Herzberg's theory and presents the rebuttals by
Herzberg (1976) to those criticisms. Section five describes
two alternative theories of motivation. The final section dis
cusses the application of Herzberg's theory to individuals in
educational settings.
Traditional Theory--Hoppock's (1935) Study
What is job satisfaction? Beginning with Hoppock's (1935)
study, in which demographic variables were compared to a measure
of overall job satisfaction, research on job satisfaction has
been conducted to:
1. measure job satisfaction in different need areas
(Porter, 1961);
2. develop instruments to measure job satisfaction, e.g.,
Porter's Need Satisfaction Questionnaire (Porter, 1961),
and the Job Descriptive Index developed at Cornell
University in 1963;
14


82
Table 11
Contribution of Motivators and Hygienes
for Registrars in Registration,
Scheduling, and Record Maintenance
Type of Incident
Type of
Classification
Satisfying
(% of satisfying)
Dissatisfying
(% of dissatisfying)
Motivators
9
4
(82)
(44)
Hygienes
2
5
(18)
(56)
In describing dissatisfying incidents related to this
job function, the Registrars mentioned the hygienes work
conditions (33.3%), supervision-technical (11.1%), and salary
(11.1%) as contributing to job dissatisfaction. The moti
vators achievement (22.2%), recognition (11.1%), and the
work itself (11.1%) were also cited as contributing to job
dissatisfaction. Two Registrars were unable to recall dis
satisfying incidents related to this job function.
Professional and civic activities
The relative contribution of motivators and hygienes to
job satisfaction and job dissatisfaction for the Registrars
in their participation in professional and civic activities
is summarized in Table 12. Motivators contributed 91% to
satisfying incidents for this job function, while hygienes


76
These data indicate that motivators contributed more
than did hygienes to the job satisfaction of the Directors
of Admissions interviewed. The chi-square test revealed
a significant difference between the contributions of
2
motivators and hygienes (x =24.2, df=l, p<.05) causing the
null hypothesis to be rejected.
Overall contributions to dissatisfying incidents
The overall contribution of motivators and hygienes to
job dissatisfaction for Directors of Admissions across all
six major job functions is summarized in Table 8. Hygienes
contributed 76.9%, while motivators contributed 23.1%.
The hygienes that contributed to the job dissatisfaction
for the Directors of Admissions were company policy and
administration (30.8%), interpersonal relationships (23.1%),
supervision-technical (12.8%), salary (7.7%), and work
conditions (2.6%). The motivators achievement (20.5%) and
recognition (2.6%) were also cited as contributing to job
dissatisfaction.
The data in Table 8 were utilized to test the following
null hypothesis:
2
H For the Directors of Admissions, there is
o
no difference in the contribution of moti
vators and hygienes to dissatisfying incidents
associated with the major job functions of
the position.
These data indicate that hygienes contributed more than
did motivators to the job dissatisfaction of the Directors
of Admissions interviewed. The chi-square test revealed a
significant difference between the contributions of hygienes


29
Herzberg summarized the results of his study of job atti
tudes as follows:
When our respondents reported feeling happy with their
jobs, they most frequently described factors related to
their tasks, to events that indicated to them that they
were successful in the performance of their work, and
to the possibility of professional growth. Conversely,
when feelings of unhappiness were reported, they were
not associated with the job itself but with conditions
that "surround" the doing of the job. (Herzberg et al.,
1959, p. 113)
The relationships demonstrated by Herzberg et al. in 1959
were supported further by an analysis of factors affecting job
attitudes in 12 additional investigations (Herzberg, 1968, p.
57). The 1,685 employees interviewed in those studies included
lower-level supervisors, professional women, agricultural admini
strators, men about to retire from management positions, hospi
tal maintenance personnel, manufacturing supervisors, nurses,
food handlers, military officers, engineers, scientists, house
keepers, teachers, technicians, female assembly-line workers,
accountants, Finnish foreman, and Hungarian engineers (Herzberg,
1968, p. 57). VHerzberg reported that 81% of the 1,753 events
on the job that led to extreme satisfaction were identified as
motivators compared to 19% that were hygienes (1968, p. 57).
In addition, 69% of the 1,844 events on the job that led to
extreme dissatisfaction were identified as hygienes compared to
31% that were motivators (Herzberg, 1968, p. 57).
'XAs can be expected, the "fit" between the motivators and
job satisfaction or the hygienes and job dissatisfaction is not
perfect. Motivators are mentioned sometimes by respondents in
terms of job dissatisfaction and hygienes sometimes are


JOB SATISFACTION DETERMINANTS FOR SELECTED ADMINISTRATORS
IN FLORIDA'S COMMUNITY COLLEGES AND UNIVERSITIES:
AN APPLICATION OF HERZBERG'S MOTIVATOR-HYGIENE THEORY
BY
RUSSELL KENNETH BURR
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
1980

To my loving parents,
Russell K.
of Camano
Burr and Gladys M.
Island, Washington
Burr

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
As is true for most complex endeavors, the completion of
this study reflects the contributions of many individuals.
Grateful appreciation is expressed to the members of my com
mittee, Dr. James L. Wattenbarger (Chairman), Dr. Robert 0.
Stripling, and Dr. C. Arthur Sandeen, for their continuous
support, guidance, and encouragement.
I am indebted to Dr. Max Dertke, Dr. Charles Hewitt,
Dr. Larry Scott, and Linda Erikson for their empathy and
understanding. I would like to express my sincere appre
ciation to Marie Dence, Dr. Edward S. Blankenship, and Dr.
David Harrison who provided moral support throughout the
entire process. I would also like to thank Mrs. Connie
Stepp for her stalwart efforts and those dedicated profes
sionals who agreed to participate in this study.
iii

TABLE OF CONTENTS
Page
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS iii
LIST OF TABLES vii
ABSTRACT xi
CHAPTER
I INTRODUCTION 1
The Research Objectives 4
Hypotheses 5
Justification 10
Definition of Terms 11
Organization of Subsequent Chapters 13
II REVIEW OF LITERATURE 14
Traditional TheoryHoppock's (1935) Theory.... 14
Herzberg's (M-II) Theory 18
Analysis of Research Related to Herzberg's
(M-H) Theory 32
Major Criticisms of Herzberg's Theory 37
Two Alternative Theories of Motivation
Related to Job Satisfaction 40
The Application of Herzberg's Theory to
Individuals in Educational Settings 49
Summary 56
III METHODOLOGY 58
Selection of Sample 58
Instrumentation 59
Data Collection 59
Data Analysis 60
Assumptions 61
Delimitations and Limitations 61
IV

CHAPTER
Page
IV PRESENTATION AND ANALYSIS OF DATA 63
Data Relating to Positions 65
Director of Admissions 65
Registrar 77
Director of Placement 90
Comparisons Between Community College
and University Positions 103
Directors of Admissions:
Determinants of Job Satisfaction 103
Determinants of Job Dissatisfaction 105
Registrars:
Determinants of Job Satisfaction 106
Determinants of Job Dissatisfaction 108
Directors of Placement:
Determinants of Job Satisfaction 109
Determinants of Job Dissatisfaction Ill
Comparisons Among Positions 113
Determinants of Job Satisfaction:
Community College Positions Compared 113
Determinants of Job Dissatisfaction:
Community College Positions Compared 115
Determinants of Job Satisfaction:
University Positions Compared 116
Determinants of Job Dissatisfaction:
University Positions Compared 117
Comparisons Between Community College
and University Groups 120
Determinants of Job Satisfaction: Commu
nity College Compared to University 120
Determinants of Job Dissatisfaction: Commu
nity College Compared to University 122
Discussion 124
V SUMMARY, CONCLUSIONS, IMPLICATIONS, AND
RECOMMENDATIONS FOR FURTHER RESEARCH 130
Major Findings 131
Conclusions 133
Implications 135
Recommendations for Further Research 136
v

APPENDICES
Page
A. INTERVIEW GUIDE FOR DIRECTOR OF
ADMISSIONS 138
B. INTERVIEW GUIDE FOR REGISTRAR 140
C. INTERVIEW GUIDE FOR DIRECTOR OF
PLACEMENT 142
D. VERIFICATION OF MAJOR JOB FUNCTIONS:
DIRECTOR OF ADMISSIONS 144
E. VERIFICATION OF MAJOR JOB FUNCTIONS:
REGISTRAR 145
F. VERIFICATION OF MAJOR JOB FUNCTIONS:
DIRECTOR OF PLACEMENT 146
REFERENCES 147
BIOGRAPHICAL SKETCH 152
vi

LIST OF TABLES
Page
TABLE
1. Contribution of Motivators and Hygienes for
Directors of Admissions in Selecting,
Supervising, Coordinating, and Evaluating
Staff
2. Contribution of Motivators and Hygienes
for Directors of Admissions in Recruitment,
Selection, and Admission of Undergraduate
and/or Graduate Students
3. Contribution of Motivators and Hygienes for
Directors of Admissions in the Development
of Admissions Criteria
4. Contribution of Motivators and Hygienes for
Directors of Admissions in Professional and
Civic Activities
67
68
69
71
5. Contribution of Motivators and Hygienes for
Directors of Admissions in Counseling and
Advising Students, Parents, and Others
6. Contribution of Motivators and Hygienes for
Directors of Admissions in Program Planning 73
and Budgeting
7. Relative Contribution of Motivators and
Hygienes to Satisfying Incidents for Directors of 75
Admissions across Job Functions
8. Relative Contribution of Motivators and
Hygienes to Dissatisfying Incidents for
Directors of Admissions across Job Functions
9. Contribution of Motivators and Hygienes for
Registrars in the Selection, Supervision,
Coordination, and Evaluation of Staff
10.Contribution of Motivators and Hygienes for
Registrars in their Responsibility for Student
Enrollment and Records
Vll

LIST OF TABLES (continued)
Page
TABLE
11. Contribution of Motivators and Hygienes for
Registrars in Registration, Scheduling, and
Record-Maintenance 82
12. Contribution of Motivators and Hygienes for
Registrars in Professional and Civic Activities... 83
13. Contribution of Motivators and Hygienes for
Registrars in Counseling, Advising, Students
Parents, and Others 84
14. Contribution of Motivators and Hygienes for
Registrars in Program Planning and Budgeting 86
15. Relative Contribution of Motivators and Hygienes
to Satisfying Incidents for Registrars across
Job Functions 87
16. Relative Contribution of Motivators and Hygienes
to Dissatisfying Incidents for Registrars across
Job Functions 89
17. Contribution of Motivators and Hygienes for
Directors of Placement in the Selection, Super
vision, Coordination,and Evaluation of Staff 91
18. Contribution of Motivators and Hygienes for
Directors of Placement in Recruiting Activities
and the Maintenance of Related Files and Records . 93
19. Contribution of Motivators and Hygienes for
Directors of Placement in Providing Job Place
ment Services 94
20. Contribution of Motivators and Hygienes for
Directors of Placement in Professional and
Civic Activities 95
21. Contribution of Motivators and Hygienes for
Directors of Placement in Counseling and
Advising Students, Parents and Others 97
viii

LIST OF TABLES (continued)
Page
TABLE
22. Contribution of Motivators and Hygienes for
Directors of Placement in Program Planning
and Budgeting 98
23. Relative Contribution of Motivators and Hygienes
to Satisfying Incidents for Directors of Place
ment across Job Functions 100
24. Relative Contribution of Motivators and Hygienes
to Dissatisfying Incidents for Directors of
Placement across Job Functions 102
25. Comparison of Motivators and Hygienes in the
Satisfying Incidents for Community College
and University Directors of Admissions 104
26. Comparison of Motivators and Hygienes in the
Dissatisfying Incidents for Community College
and University Directors of Admissions 106
27. Comparison of Motivators and Hygienes in the
Satisfying Incidents for Community College
and University Registrars 107
28. Comparison of Motivators and Hygienes in the
Dissatisfying Incidents for Community College
and University Registrars 109
29. Comparison of Motivators and Hygienes in the
Satisfying Incidents for Community College
and University Directors of Placement 110
30. Comparison of Motivators and Hygienes in the
Dissatisfying Incidents for Community College
and University Directors of Placement 112
31. Comparison of Motivators and Hygienes in the
Satisfying Incidents among Community College
Positions ....114
IX

LIST OF TABLES (continued)
Page
TABLE
32. Comparison of Motivators and Hygienes in the
Dissatisfying Incidents among Community College
Positions 116
33. Comparison of Motivators and Hygienes in the
Satisfying Incidents among University Positions .... 118
34. Comparison of Motivators and Hygienes in the
Dissatisfying Incidents among University Posi
tions 119
35. Comparison of Motivators and Hygienes in Satis
fying Incidents for Community College and Univer
sity Groups 121
36. Comparison of Motivators and Hygienes in Dissatis
fying Incidents for Community College and Univer
sity Groups.' 123
37. Frequency Distribution of Motivators for Satis
fying and Dissatisfying Incidents 126
38. Frequency Distribution of Hygienes for Satisfying
and Dissatisfying Incidents 127
x

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
JOB SATISFACTION DETERMINANTS FOR SELECTED ADMINISTRATORS
IN FLORIDA'S COMMUNITY COLLEGES AND UNIVERSITIES:
AN APPLICATION OF HERZBERG'S MOTIVATOR-HYGIENE THEORY
BY
RUSSELL KENNETH BURR
AUGUST 1980
Chairman: Dr. James L. Wattenbarger
Major Department: Educational Administration and Supervision
The specific purposes of this study were to: (1) apply
Herzberg's Motivator-Hygiene Theory to examine the job content
and context factors related to job attitudes for community
college and university Directors of Admissions, Registrars,
and Directors of Placement; (2) identify specific motivators
and hygienes relevant to these administrative positions; (3)
verify support for the application of Herzberg's theory to an
educational setting; and (4) compare the determinants of job
satisfaction and dissatisfaction among these positions and
across the two types of institutions.
Respondents' attitudes were measured within the theoret
ical framework of Herzberg's Motivator-Hygiene Theory and were
classified using the job factor definitions developed by Herz-
berg. The job content factors (motivators) related to job
xi

satisfaction include achievement, recognition, the work itself,
responsibility, advancement, and the possibility of personal
growth. The job context factors (hygienes) related to job
dissatisfaction include salary, interpersonal relationships,
supervision-technical, company policy and administration,
work conditions, personal life, status, and job security.
Four Directors of Admissions, eight Registrars, and five
Directors of Placement were interviewed at three Florida com
munity colleges and three universities in Florida's State Uni
versity System (SUS). These positions were selected because
they exemplify mid-level administrative positions in an educa
tional setting.
The researcher conducted semi-structured interviews with
the respondents in which they were asked to recall and describe
incidents in which they felt exceptionally good or bad about
their job related to specific job functions. During the inter
views, the researcher recorded on the interview guides the
respondent's verbal descriptions of the satisfying and dissatis
fying incidents. Following the interviews, the verbal descrip
tions of the critical incidents were coded as having been influ
enced by one of the six motivators or eight hygienes. More
than one factor was assigned to a critical incident if appropri
ate.
Frequency distributions and percentages were computed for
the motivators and hygienes mentioned in the satisfying and
dissatisfying incidents-. The chi-square statistic was used to
test 18 hypotheses for the presence of significant differences
xii

between the contributions of motivators and hygienes for each
position, among positions, and between positions at the two
types of institutions.
For each of the positions studied, motivators contributed
significantly more to job satisfaction than did hygienes, there
by supporting the applicability of Herzberg's theory. Across
the three job positions, the determinants of job satisfaction
included the following motivators (M) and hygienes (H), in order
of significance: achievement (M), recognition (M), the work
itself (M) interpersonal relationships (H), the possibility
of personal growth (M), and responsibility (M). Across the
three positions, the determinants of job dissatisfaction, in
order of significance included the following motivators (M)
and hygienes (H): company policy and administration (H), the
presence or absence of achievement (M), interpersonal relation
ships (H), salary (H), supervision-technical (H), and the
work itself (M).
No significant difference was found in the relative
contribution of motivators and hygienes to the job satisfaction
and dissatisfaction between community college and university
mid-level administrators for the positions studied. A signifi
cant difference was found in the relative contribution of
motivators and hygienes to the job satisfaction and dissatis
faction among the community college positions. A significant
difference was found in the relative contributions of motivators
and hygienes among the university positions.
xiii

CHAPTER I
INTRODUCTION
Employee motivation and job satisfaction have been the
topics of countless studies since Iloppock's original study in
1935 of the relationship between demographic variables and job
satisfaction. The importance of the benefits to be gained by
the institution from motivational research should not be under
estimated. ^The effects of a dissatisfied, poorly motivated
work force have been related to low productivity, high turnover,
absenteeism, and counterproductive behavior. In a rapidly
changing, technocratic society, where the individual is dwarfed
by the size of the institutions and jobs have been routinized
for the sake of organizational efficiency, the ability to iden
tify the determinants of job satisfaction is paramount.
^ In 1957, Ilerzberg, Mausner, Peterson, and Capwell present
ed a review of literature on job attitudes which covered more
than 2,000 articles spread over a period of approximately 50
years. Based on the results of this review, Herzberg, Mausner,
and Snyderman began to develop a theory of job satisfaction and
job dissatisfaction which came to be known as Herzberg's
Motivator-Hygiene (M-H) Theory. Unlike the traditional theory
of job satisfaction, which assumed that the opposite of job sa
tisfaction was job dissatisfaction, Herzberg et al., theorized
that "the factors involved in producing job satisfaction (and
motivation) are separate and distinct from the factors that lead
1

2
to job dissatisfaction" (Herzberg, Mausner, & Snyderman, 1959,
p. 56). According to Herzberg's theory, the opposite of job
satisfaction is not job dissatisfaction; it is an absence of
job satisfaction. Conversely, the opposite of job dissatisfac
tion is not job satisfaction; it is an absence of job dissatis
faction .
Duriag the 1970s, Herzberg's Motivator-Hygiene (M-H) Theory
of job satisfaction and job dissatisfaction was applied exten
sively to different target populations in different educational
settings. Avakian (1971) identified the factors relating to
the job satisfaction and dissatisfaction of faculty members se
lected from two liberal-arts colleges and two universities in
northeastern New York. Aebi (1973) tested two different method
ologies to determine the applicability of Herzberg's theory
to collegiate administrators. Jackson (1975) conducted a com
parative study of university administrators' perceptions related
to Herzberg's theory to identify the job factors that may pro
vide for the job satisfaction of administrators according to
their job level. More recently, Carey (1979) identified moti
vating and dissatisfying factors for state department of edu
cation professional staff members.
Several studies have also been conducted to investigate
the determinants of job satisfaction for educational personnel
in Florida. Lyons (1971) investigated the extent to which Flor
ida public junior college personnel exhibited constellations of
job attitudes consistent with Herzberg's theory. Thomas (1977)
applied Herzberg's theory to the chief academic officer, busi
ness officer, and student personnel officer at six large and

3
six small Florida community colleges. Groseth (1978) in
vestigated job satisfaction among selected student affairs
administrators at seven institutions in the State University
System (SUS) of Florida. Kozal (1979) applied a reformulated
Herzberg theory to selected administrative affairs staff in
the SUS.
The previously cited studies (Aebi, 1973; Avakian, 1971;
Carey, 1979; Groseth, 1978; Jackson, 1975; Kozal, 1979; Lyons,
1971; and Thomas, 1977) limited their investigations to the
job attitudes of individuals employed in comparable positions
at the same type of institution. Therefore, there has been
a lack of information regarding the application of Herzberg's
theory to individuals holding comparable positions in different
educational settings (e.g., the determinants of job satisfaction/
dissatisfaction for directors of admissions in community colleges
compared to directors of admissions in universities). In addi
tion, the previously cited studies investigated the job attitudes
of individuals who held relatively high positions in a hierarchy.
Only Groseth (1978), Jackson (1975), Lyons (1970), and Kozal
(1979) included in their target populations, sub-populations of
individuals who held positions that have been defined by Scott
as "mid-level" administrative positions (1979, p. 90). There
fore, there has been a lack of current research regarding the
determinants of job satisfaction/dissatisfaction which focuses
on individuals in an educational setting who are not catego
rized as upper-level administrators.

4
The Research Objectives
The purpose of this study was to apply Herzberg's
Motivator-Hygiene Theory to examine job satisfaction and
dissatisfaction factors among the Directors of Admissions, the
Registrars, and the Directors of Placement at selected public
community colleges and four-year institutions in the Florida
State University System (SUS). More specifically, this study
sought to address the following questions:
1. For the positions identified, which of Herzberg's
motivators and hygienes are relevant?
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 for these positions
support Herzberg's theory?
4. What differences, if any, exist in the frequency
with which Herzberg's motivators and hygienes occur
in the critical incidents for:
a. community college Directors of Admissions com
pared to their university counterparts,
b. community college Registrars compared to their
university counterparts,
c. community college Directors of Placement com
pared to their university counterparts,
d. community college positions compared to each
other,
e. university positions compared to each other, and

5
f. community college administrators as a group
compared to the university administrators as a
group.
Hypotheses
As a means of addressing the many relationships inherent
in the research objectives of this study, data were collected
and analyzed to test the following null hypotheses:
For the Directors of Admissions
Hq1 There is no difference in the contribution of
motivators and hygienes to satisfying situations
associated with the major job functions of the
posit ion.
2
Hq There is no difference in the contribution of
motivators and hygienes to dissatisfying situations
associated with the major job functions of the
posit ion.
Those functions, as identified in the literature,
include:
1. selection, supervision, coordination, and
evaluation of staff;
2. responsibility for the recruitment, selection,
and admission of undergraduate and/or graduate
students;
3. participation in the development of admissions
criteria;
4. professional and civic activities;
5. counseling and advising students, parents of

6
students, and other interested groups or
individuals; and
6. participation in program planning and
budgeting.
For the Registrars
Q
Hq There is no difference in the contribution of
motivators and hygienes to satisfying situations
associated with the major job functions of the
position.
4
Hq There is no difference in the contribution of
motivators and hygienes to dissatisfying situations
associated with the major functions of the position.
Those functions, as identified in the literature,
include:
1. selection, supervision, coordination, and
evaluation of staff;
2. responsibility for student enrollment and
records;
3. undergraduate and/or graduate registration;
scheduling of classes, examinations and class
room facilities; and maintenance of student re
cords ;
4. professional and civic activities;
5. counseling and advising students, parents of
students, and other interested groups or in
dividuals; and
6. participation in program planning and
budgeting.

7
For the Directors of Placement
Hq There is no difference in the contribution
of motivators and hygienes to satisfying situations
associated with the major job functions of the
position.
Hq^ 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:
1. selection, supervision, coordination, and
evaluation of staff;
2. supervision of on-campus recruiting activities
by prospective employers, and maintenance of
related files and records;
3. provision of placement services to undergrad
uates, graduates, and alumni which may include
part-time jobs within or outside the institution
4. professional and civic activities;
5. counseling and advising students, parents of
students, and other interested groups or indi
viduals; and
6. participation in program planning and budgeting.
Hq There is no difference in the contribution of moti
vators and hygienes to satisfying situations associa
ted with the major job functions of the positions of

8
community college Directors of Admissions com
pared to their university counterparts.
O
Hq There is no difference in the contribution of
motivators and hygienes to dissatisfying situations
associated with the major job functions of the po
sitions of community college Directors of Admissions
compared to their university counterparts.
Hq9 There is no difference in the contribution of
motivators and hygienes to satisfying situations
associated with the major job functions of the
positions of community college Registrars compared
to their university counterparts.
Hq^9 There is no difference in the contribution of
motivators and hygienes to dissatisfying situa
tions associated with the major job functions of
the positions of community college Registrars
compared to their university counterparts.
HqH There is no difference in the contribution of
motivators and hygienes to satisfying situations
associated with the major job functions of the
positions of community college Directors of Place
ment compared to their university counterparts.
Hq There is no difference in the contribution of
motivators and hygienes to dissatisfying situations
associated with the major job functions of the po
sitions of community college Directors of Placement
compared to their university counterparts.

9
HqI^ For the three community college positions,
there is no difference in the contribution of
motivators and hygienes to satisfying situations
associated with the major job functions of the
positions.
Hq-*-4 For the three community college positions, there is
no difference in the contribution of motivators
and hygienes to dissatisfying situations associated
with the major job functions of the positions.
Hq For the three university positions, there is no
difference in the contribution of motivators and
hygienes to satisfying situations associated with
the major job functions of the positions.
1 f
Hq u For the three university positions, there is no
difference in the contribution of motivators and
hygienes to dissatisfying situations associated
with the major job functions of the positions.
IIq^ For the community college administrators as a
group compared to the university administrators
as a group, there is no difference in the contri
bution of motivators and hygienes to satisfying
situations associated with the major job functions
of the positions.
Hqx For the community college administrators as a group
compared to the university administrators as a group,
there is no difference in the contribution of motiva
tors and hygienes to dissatisfying situations asso
ciated with tne major job functions of the positions.

10
Justification
Unlike the original Herzberg et al. (1959) study of mid
level administrators, which included interviews with 203 engi
neers and accountants, educational researchers have concentrated
on the determinants of job satisfaction and dissatisfaction for
top-level administrators. There has been a lack of research
providing a comparison of current data regarding determinants
of job satisfaction and dissatisfaction for mid-level adminis
trators in Florida's community colleges and SUS institutions.
)t-The need for this type of information will assume increasing
importance in the 1980s as reduced job mobility presents insti
tutions with administrators who must remain productive in their
present positions for longer periods of time.
The degree to which administrators in Florida's community
colleges and universities in the SUS continue to find job satis
faction will clearly need to be addressed further in the 1980s.
If the decisions and policies regarding this critical human re
source are to be effective, they must be based on current, rel
evant data. The present study aimed to extend prior research
by:
1. adding to the theoretical base of general knowledge
about the determinants of job satisfaction and dis
satisfaction for mid-level administrators in an edu
cational setting;
2. providing comparative data to prior research regarding
educational personnel;

11
3. identifying, for the selected sample, job content
and context factors which contribute to their job
attitudes;
4. providing implications for the role of higher-level
administrators regarding employee supervision, work
structure, and participative decision-making; and
by,
5. identifying areas in which further research is
needed.
Definition of Terms
Community college. An educational institution which
offers courses and programs confined to the first two years
of post-secondary education. The institution is supported
by public tax funds and governed by an elected or politically
appointed board.
Critical incident. The identification by the respondent
of specific job events that led to extreme job satisfaction
or dissatisfaction and the resulting description of these
even ts.
Director of Admissions. The administrative official
with principal responsibility for tne recruitment, selection,
and admission of undergraduates. Participates in the develop
ment of admissions criteria, and coordinates review of, and
decisions on, applications. May also be responsible for the
admission of graduate and professional students or for schol
arship administrations or similar function. Usually reports
to the Chief Student Life Officer.

12
Director of Placement. Directs the operation of a student
placement office to provide job placement and career counseling
services to undergraduates, graduates, and alumni. Supervises
on-campus recruiting activities by prospective employers, and
the maintenance of related files and records. May also be re
sponsible for the placement of students in part-time jobs within
or outside the institution. Usually reports to the Chief Stu
dent Life Officer.
Factors. Any of six motivators or eight hygienes of
described job facets which may contribute to job satisfaction
or dissatisfaction as developed by Herzberg et al. (1959).
Hygienes. Components of the job situation which lead to
job dissatisfaction such as company policy and administration,
supervision, interpersonal relationships, status, job security,
salary, and working conditions.
Major job functions. Those duties of each position iden
tified by Jones and Drews (1978) as being the most common and
constituting the major work-load of the position.
Motivators. Components of the job situation which lead
to job satisfaction such as achievement, responsibility, the
possibility of growth or advancement, and the work itself.
Registrar. The administrative official with principal
responsibility for student enrollment and records. Functions
typically include undergraduate registration; scheduling of
classes, examinations and classroom facilities; maintenance
of student records and related matters. Usually reports to
the Chief Academic Officer.

13
Organization of Subsequent Chapters
Chapter II presents a review of literature related to job
satisfaction in terms of: the dichotomy between traditional
theory and Herzberg's theory, an analysis of related research,
major criticisms of Herzberg's theory and Herzberg's (1976)
rebuttal, alternative theories of motivation, and the applica
tion of Herzberg's theory to individuals in an educational set
ting. The methodology utilized in this study is presented in
Chapter III. The results of the present study are presented
and discussed in Chapter IV. Chapter V presents a summary
of the findings, conclusions indicated by the results, and
recommendations for further research.

CHAPTER II
REVIEW OF THE LITERATURE
The review of literature related to this study is present
ed in six sections. The first section discusses the traditional
theory of job satisfaction exemplified by Hoppock's (1935) study.
The second section describes Herzberg's Motivator-Hygiene Theory
(1959), an alternative to Hoppock's traditional theory. An
analysis of research related to Herzberg's theory is presented
in the third section. This is followed by an analysis of major
criticisms of Herzberg's theory and presents the rebuttals by
Herzberg (1976) to those criticisms. Section five describes
two alternative theories of motivation. The final section dis
cusses the application of Herzberg's theory to individuals in
educational settings.
Traditional Theory--Hoppock's (1935) Study
What is job satisfaction? Beginning with Hoppock's (1935)
study, in which demographic variables were compared to a measure
of overall job satisfaction, research on job satisfaction has
been conducted to:
1. measure job satisfaction in different need areas
(Porter, 1961);
2. develop instruments to measure job satisfaction, e.g.,
Porter's Need Satisfaction Questionnaire (Porter, 1961),
and the Job Descriptive Index developed at Cornell
University in 1963;
14

15
3. compare job satisfaction with different variables
such as hierarchical position in the organization
(Ebeling, King, & Rogers, 1979), job seniority (Ronen,
1978), job longevity (Katz, 1978), and discrepancies
between perceived and preferred rewards (Tannenbaum
& Kuleck, 1978); and
4. develop theories of job satisfaction (Herzberg, Mausner,
& Snyderman, 1959; Maslow, 1954; Vroom, 1964).
Two different theoretical perspectives of job satisfaction
can be identified from a review of the related literature:
theories that are unidimensional and theories that are multi
dimensional. Traditional theory depicts job satisfaction and
job dissatisfaction on a single continuum (Wood & LeBold, 1967,
p. 1). Measured on a single continuum, the opposite of job satis
faction is job dissatisfaction. A worker would experience job
dissatisfaction if any positive job-related or environmentally
related element offering satisfaction to the worker were to be
removed. J^In contrast to this traditional theory, which is uni
dimensional, Herzberg's Motivator-Hygiene (M-H) Theory depicts
job satisfaction and job dissatisfaction as two distinct con
tinua. That is, the opposite of job satisfaction is not job
dissatisfaction; it is an absence of job satisfaction. Con
versely, the opposite of job dissatisfaction is not job satis
faction; it is an absence of job dissatisfaction.
A comparison of the two theories is presented in Figure 1,
which was adapted by the researcher from those presented in a
similar fashion by Herzberg (1976, p. 84), Thomas (1977, p. 22)
and Groseth (1978, p. 25).

16
Traditional Theory
job satisfaction needs of man job dissatisfaction
Herzberg's Theory
(motivator needs)
job human no job
satisfaction activity needs satisfaction
(hygiene needs)
job animal no job
dissatisfaction avoidance needs dissatisfaction
Figure 1
A comparison of the traditional continuum to Herzberg's continua
The essence of traditional theory is incorporated in
Hoppock's (1935) study of employed and unemployed adults in
New Hope, Pennsylvania. Hoppock defined job satisfaction as
"any combination of psychological, physiological, and environ
mental circumstances that causes a person to truthfully say 'I
am satisfied with my job'" (1935, p. 47). On the basis of res
ponses to his survey instrument, adults were categorized into
three groups: satisfied, indifferent or uncertain, and dissatis
fied. Hoppock, who has been described as the pioneer in the
study of job satisfaction, viewed job satisfaction and job dis
satisfaction as components on the same continuum. This single
continuum construct has been identified as "global" satisfaction
and is a fundamental tenet of traditional theories of job satis
faction (Yoder, 1975, p. 6.27). According to Hoppock,
a person may be satisfied, dissatisfied, indifferent
or uncertain. He may be satisfied with some aspects
of his job and dissatisfied with others; he may combine
such specific satisfactions and dissatisfactions into
a composite satisfaction with the job as a whole. Such
satisfaction may vary from day to day, and it may be
rationalized; it is not identical with interest. The

17
mechanics of satisfaction may eventually be
explained by physiological chemistry, but
external stimuli in the job situation will
probably help to determine the result. Com
plete satisfaction may be both impossible and
undesirable. (Hoppock, 1935, p. 44)
A person who experiences job dissatisfaction, according
to Hoppock, is "one who has indicated a distinct and conscious
discontent with his job as a whole" (1935, p. 6). In a com
parative study of satisfied and dissatisfied teachers, Hoppock
identified the following discriminants:
1. The satisfied showed fewer indications of emotional
maladjustment;
2. The satisfied were more religious;
3. The satisfied enjoyed better human relationships with
superiors and associates;
4. More of the satisfied were teaching in cities that
had a population greater than 10,000;
5. The difference in salaries was not statistically
significant;
6. The satisfied felt more successful;
7. No measurement of aptitude or proficiency was attempted;
8. Family influence and social status were more favorable
among the satisfied;
9. More of the satisfied "selected" their vocation;
10. No teacher "disliked" children, and four-fifths of
the dissatisfied found their work "interesting";
11. Monotony and fatigue were reported more frequently
by the dissatisfied; and
12. The satisfied were 7.5 years older than the dissatisfied.
(Hoppock, 1935, pp. 25-40)

18
In Hoppock's study, respondents expressed overall job
satisfaction directly by answering questions designed to in
vestigate their global attitudes toward the job; whether the
respondent liked or disliked it. The primary usefulness of
this approach, according to Herzberg et al. (1959, p. 5), is
in the investigation of the relationships between the demo
graphic variables. In Hoppock's study, for example, the over
all job satisfaction of individuals was compared to the demo
graphic variables of age, sex, educational level, social class,
occupation, earnings, marital status, and IQ scores.
Herzberg's (M-H) Theory
Unlike Hoppock, who advocated research on the measurement
of the sources of global satisfaction, other theorists such
as Herzberg, Mausner, Peterson, and Capwell (1957), discerned
two sources of job satisfaction: intrinsic and extrinsic. Yoder
summarized the distinction between these two sources of job
satisfaction as
an intrinsic source pertaining to the "substance" of
the job (i.e., the kind of job it is, the type of work
that is done, what the job entails) and an extrinsic
source pertaining to the "accidents" of the job (i.e.,
pay, co-workers, supervision, location, etc.). (Yoder,
1975, p. 6.27)
Herzberg, Mausner, Peterson and Capwell (1957) reviewed
the literature on job attitudes, covering more than 2,000 arti
cles written over a period of approximately 50 years. Based
on the results of this review, Herzberg, Mausner and Snyderman
began to develop a theory of job satisfaction and job dissatis
faction which has come to be known as Herzberg's Motivator-
Hygiene (M-H) Theory. ^An important basis of this theory is
the concept that two different sets of needs in man are

19
involved in producing feelings of job satisfaction and job dis
satisfaction. As described by Herzberg,
one set of needs can be thought of as stemming from
from his animal naturethe built-in drive to avoid
pain from the environment, plus all the learned drives
which become conditioned to the basic biological needs.
For example, hunger, a basic biological drive, makes
it necessary to earn money, and then money becomes a
specific drive. The other set of needs relates to that
unique human characteristic, the ability to achieve
and through achievement, to experience psychological
growth: in the industrial setting, they are the job
content. Contrariwise, the stimuli inducing pain-
avoidance behavior are found in the job environment.
(Herzberg, 1976, p. 58)
^According to Herzberg's 1959 theory, which he developed
further in 1966, job satisfaction and job dissatisfaction can
be measured on two disparate scales such that "the factors
involved in producing job satisfaction (and motivation) are
separate and distinct from the factors that lead to job dis
satisfaction" (Herzberg, Mausner, & Snyderman, 1959). The
opposite of job satisfaction is not job dissatisfaction; it
is an absence of job satisfaction. Conversely, the opposite
of job dissatisfaction is not job satisfaction, it is an ab
sence of job dissatisfaction. Job satisfaction, as determined
by the employee, encompasses the feelings that the employee has
toward the job content (intrinsic). In other words, job con
tent factors are "motivators" which are the personal growth
factors that are intrinsic to the job. These include achieve
ment, recognition for achievement, responsibility, the possi
bility of growth or advancement, and the work itself. Job dis
satisfaction encompasses the employee's feelings toward job
context (extrinsic). Job context factors are "hygienes" which

20
are the factors that are extrinsic to the job such as company
policy and administration, supervision, interpersonal relation
ships, status, job security, salary, and working conditions.
^The primary function of "hygienes" is to prevent or avoid pain
or hunger or to fulfill the other basic biological needs of man.
Herzberg used the term "hygienes" to describe factors in the
work context that act "in a manner analogous to the principles
of medical hygiene" (Herzberg, Mausner, & Snyderman, 1959, p.
113). That is, hygiene is preventative, not curative, in re
moving health hazards from the environment of man. In compari
son, "motivators" function to provide the individual with per
sonal psychological growth. Herzberg compared the dynamics of
hygiene to the dynamics of motivators as follows:
The dynamics of hygiene
- The psychological basis of hygiene needs is the
avoidance of pain from the environment.
- There are infinite sources of pain in the environment.
- Hygiene needs are cyclical in nature.
- Hygiene needs have an escalating zero point.
- Hygiene improvements have short-term effects.
- There is no final answer to hygiene needs.
The dynamics of motivation
- The psychological basis of motivation is the need
for personal growth.
- There are limited sources of motivator satisfaction.
- Motivator improvements have long-term effects.
- Motivators are additive in nature.

21
- Motivator needs have a non-escalating zero point.
- There are answers to motivator needs
(Herzberg, Mausner, & Snyderman, 1959, p. 101)
Herzberg's (M-H) theory is based on the original Herzberg
et al. study in 1959 of 203 male, mid-level managers who were
engineers and accountants selected from companies in Pittsburgh
In addition to demographic data, information was collected from
the respondents in the form of their responses to a semi-struc
tured interview. This interview technique was similar to Flana
gan's "critical-incident" interview technique. In selecting
this technique, Herzberg et al. criticized alternative method
ologies because, as they stated:
A major failing of most previous work in job attitudes
has been its fragmentary nature. Studies in which fac
tors affecting a worker's attitude toward his job were
intensively investigated rarely included any information
as to the effects of these attitudes. Studies of effects,
similarly, rarely included any data as to the origin of
the attitudes. In most cases in which either factors
or effects were studied there was inadequate information
about the individuals concerned, their perceptions, their
needs, their patterns of learning. The primary need that
emerged was one for an investigation of job attitudes in
toto, a study in which factors, attitudes, and effects
would be investigated simultaneously. The basic concept
was that the factors-attitudes-effects (F-A-E) complex
needs study as a unit. (Herzberg, Mausner, & Snyderman,
1959, p. 11)
Herzberg's interview technique differed from Flanagan's
in that^ierzberg' s goal was to determine the respondent's judge
ment of his or her psychological state during a critical event
(an internal criterion) whereas Flanagan's goal was to evaluate
job performance or the development of a selection device which
was external to the psychological processes of the individual
reporting (Herzberg, Mausner, & Snyderman, 1959, p. 12). A

22
"critical event" or "critical incident" is the respondent's
description of a time period when the respondent felt particu
larly good or bad about his or her job. For example, respon
dents are asked to
think of a time when you felt exceptionally good or
exceptionally bad about your job either in your pres
ent job or any other you have had. This can be either
the "long-range" or the "short-range" kind of situation,
as I have just described it. Tell me what happened.
(Herzberg, Mausner, & Snyderman, 1959, p. 141)
The modified "critical-incident" method yielded responses
from the respondents that were verbal descriptions of their
satisfactions and dissatisfactions regarding specific events
that they had identified in their jobs. The term "sequence
of events" was applied by Herzberg et al. to all responses
given by the respondents (Herzberg, Mausner, & Snyderman, 1959,
p. 23). A sequence of events could be short-range or long-
range. A short-range sequence of events "was applied to anec
dotal, narrowly delimited sets of events during which exception
al feelings were reported" (Herzberg et al., 1959, p. 23). On
the other hand, the feelings in a long-range sequence of events
lasted for a longer period of time and were "consistently high
or low, despite possible fluctuations of feelings or even minor
inversions within these periods" (Herzberg et al., 1959, p. 23).
Eight possible permutations of an attitude's duration
existed from three dimensions: (1) high or low feelings, (2) the
duration of the feelings, and (3) the relationship between the
range or the sequence and the duration of the feelings (Herzberg
et al., 1959, p. 43). The four groups of attitude duration re
ported by Herzberg were:

23
1. long duration of feelings from high long-range
sequences, high short-range sequences;
2. long duration of feelings from low long-range
sequences, low short-range sequences;
3. short duration of feelings from high short-range
sequences; and
4. short duration of feelings from low short-range
sequences. (Herzberg et al., 1959, p. 43)
The two fundamental hypotheses tested by Herzberg et al.
in their 1959 study were that:
1. factors leading to positive attitudes and those
leading to negative attitudes would differ, and
2. the factors and effects involved in long-range
sequences of events would differ from those in
short-range sequences, (p. 29)
Specifically, Herzberg et al. wanted to identify the
relationships among the variables that they defined as "first-
level factors," "second-level factors," and "effects" (Herz
berg et al., 1959, p. 28). They based their selection of
variables on the following criteria:
1. First-level factors: a description of the objective
occurrences during the sequence of events, with
special emphasis on those identified by the respon
dent as being related to his attitudes. Example: a
promotion.
2. Second-level factors: these categorize the reasons
given by the respondents for their feelings; they
may be used as a basis for inferences about the
drives or needs which are met or which fail to be
met during the sequence of events. Example: a
respondent's answer, "I felt good because the promo
tion meant I was being recognized."

24
3. Effects: the sole change was the introduction
of probe questions searching into attitudinal
effects beyond the behavioral level involved
in productivity, turnover, or interpersonal
relations. Specification of mental health
effects was also attempted. (Herzberg et al.,
1959, p. 28)
V irst-level factors as "an objective element of the sit
uation in which the respondent finds a source for his good
or bad feelings about the job" (Herzberg et al., 1959, p. 44)
include: recognition, achievement, possibility of growth,
advancement, salary, interpersonal relations, supervision-
technical, responsibility, company policy and administration,
working conditions, the work itself, factors in personal life,
status, and job security. As defined by Herzberg et al. (1959,
p. 44), the criteria for each category of the job attitude
factors can be described as follows:
1. Recognition. The major criterion for this factor
was some act of recognition (notice, praise, or blame) toward
the respondent by some other individual in the work environment
such as a client, a peer, a professional colleague, or the gen
eral public.
2. Achievement. This factor included successful comple
tion of a job, solutions to problems, vindication, and seeing
the results of one's work. Conversely, this factor also in
cluded failure or the absence of achievement.
3. Possibility of growth. This factor included any
mention by the respondent of the likelihood that the individual
would be able to move onward or upward in the organization or
that the personal skills of the individual could be advanced.

25
4. Advancement. This factor was used only when there
was an actual change in the status or position of the respon
dent in the company.
5. Salary. This factor included all sequences of events
in which compensation played a role.
6. Interpersonal relations. This factor included in
stances involving some actual verbalizations about the charac
teristics of the interaction between the person speaking and
some other individual. Three categories were included in this
factor: those involving superiors, those involving subordinates,
and those involving peers.
7. Supervision-technical. This factor included a se
quence of events in which the competence, incompetence, fair
ness, or unfairness of the supervisor was mentioned. For
example, statements about the supervisor's willingness or
unwillingness to delegate responsibility or to teach were
classified under this factor.
8. Responsibility. This factor included a sequence of
events in which the respondent reported that he derived satis
faction from being given responsibility for his own work or
for the work of others or from being given a new responsibility.
9. Company policy and administration. This factor in
cluded a sequence of events in which some overall aspect of
the company was a factor. Two types of overall company pol
icies and administrative characteristics were identified by
Herzberg: (1) the adequacy or inadequacy of company management
or organization, and (2) the positive or negative effects of
the company's personnel policies.

26
10. Working conditions. This factor included any reports
in which the physical conditions of work, the amount of work,
or the facilities available for doing the work were mentioned
in the sequence of events described by the respondent.
11. The work itself. This factor included any reports
in which the work itself was mentioned as a source of the re
spondent's good or bad feelings about actually doing the work.
12. Factors in personal life. This factor included any
situations in which some aspect of the job affected the re
spondent's personal life in such a way that the effect was
related to the respondent's feelings about the job.
13. Status. This factor was coded only when the respon
dent actually mentioned some sign or appurtenance of status
as a factor in the feelings about the job (e.g., being
allowed to drive a company car, etc.).
14. Job security. This factor included objective signs
of the presence or absence of job security such as company
stability or instability or tenure.
Second-level factors are the respondents' own verbal
accounts of the feelings, needs, and value systems that led to
their attitudes toward their jobs at the time the events were
being described (Ilerzberg et al. 1959, pp. 49-50). Thus,
the second-level factors described by Ilerzberg et al. were:
1. Feelings of recognition.
2. Feelings of achievement.
3. Feelings of possible growth, blocks to growth, first-
level factors perceived as evidence of actual growth.

27
4. Feelings of responsibility, lack of responsibility
or diminished responsibility.
5. Group feelings: feelings of belonging or isolation,
socio-technical or purely social.
6. Feelings of interest or lack of interest in the
performance of the job.
7. Feelings of increased or decreased status.
8. Feelings of increased or decreased security.
9. Feelings of fairness or unfairness.
10. Feelings of pride, inadequacy, or guilt.
11. Feelings about salary. (Herzberg, 1968, p. 50)
The final component under analysis in Herzberg's theory
was the effect of job attitudes on the criterion measures of
performance, turnover, mental health, interpersonal relation
ships, and attitude. Three types of performance effects were
identified by the respondents: (1) work was either better or
poorer than usual; (2) changes in the rate of work, but not
its quality; or (3) changes in the quality of work (Herzberg
et al., 1959, pp. 51-54).
The effect of job attitudes on turnover ranged from indi
viduals who reported that they were so satisfied with their
jobs that they turned down attractive offers elsewhere to indi
viduals who felt so dissatisfied that they quit (Herzberg et al.,
1959, p. 52). The effect of job situations on mental health fell
into two categories: positive or negative. The positive effects
included "statements of improvement in tensions or symptoms, of
gaining weight when underweight, or of a cessation of such harmful

28
activities as excessive drinking and smoking" (Herzberg et
al., 1959, p. 53). The negative mental health effects were clas
sified into three categories based on reports by the respondents
(1) the diagnosis of a pathology by a physician which the respon
dent related to the tensions of the job; (2) physiological
changes related to job tensions such as headaches, nausea, etc.;
and (3) diffuse symptoms resulting from tension (Herzberg et al
1959, p. 53). The respondents reported that their interpersonal
relationships were affected by their job attitudes (i.e., "as a
result of good feelings about his job, he had become 'more bear
able at home' and found new pleasure in his relationship with
his children") (Herzberg et al., 1959, p. 54). Regarding atti-
tudinal effects, Herzberg et al. reported that "a person's feel
ings about his job led to changed attitudes toward himself, his
colleagues, his profession, or the company for which he worked"
(1959, p. 54).
With respect to the fulfullment of needs or wants, Herzberg
et al. stated that
^.for the kind of population that we sampled, and pro-
ably for many other populations as well, the wants of
emplyees divide into two groups. One group revolves
around the need to develop in one's occupation as a
source of personal growth. The second group operates
as an essential base to the first and is associated
with fair treatment in compensation, supervision,
work conditions, and administrative practices. The
fulfullment of the needs of the second group does not
motivate the individual to high levels of job satis
faction, and, ... to extra performance on the job.
All we can expect from satisfying the needs for hygiene
is the prevention of dissatisfaction and poor job per
formance. (Herzberg et al., 1959, p. 115)

29
Herzberg summarized the results of his study of job atti
tudes as follows:
When our respondents reported feeling happy with their
jobs, they most frequently described factors related to
their tasks, to events that indicated to them that they
were successful in the performance of their work, and
to the possibility of professional growth. Conversely,
when feelings of unhappiness were reported, they were
not associated with the job itself but with conditions
that "surround" the doing of the job. (Herzberg et al.,
1959, p. 113)
The relationships demonstrated by Herzberg et al. in 1959
were supported further by an analysis of factors affecting job
attitudes in 12 additional investigations (Herzberg, 1968, p.
57). The 1,685 employees interviewed in those studies included
lower-level supervisors, professional women, agricultural admini
strators, men about to retire from management positions, hospi
tal maintenance personnel, manufacturing supervisors, nurses,
food handlers, military officers, engineers, scientists, house
keepers, teachers, technicians, female assembly-line workers,
accountants, Finnish foreman, and Hungarian engineers (Herzberg,
1968, p. 57). VHerzberg reported that 81% of the 1,753 events
on the job that led to extreme satisfaction were identified as
motivators compared to 19% that were hygienes (1968, p. 57).
In addition, 69% of the 1,844 events on the job that led to
extreme dissatisfaction were identified as hygienes compared to
31% that were motivators (Herzberg, 1968, p. 57).
'XAs can be expected, the "fit" between the motivators and
job satisfaction or the hygienes and job dissatisfaction is not
perfect. Motivators are mentioned sometimes by respondents in
terms of job dissatisfaction and hygienes sometimes are

30
mentioned by respondents in terms of job satisfaction. To il
lustrate, the job factor achievement (a motivators) was charac
terized in 41% of the 1,753 events on the job that led to
extreme satisfaction. However, the same factor was also
characterized in 11% of the 1,844 events on the job that led
to extreme dissatisfaction. >-The job factor salary, which is
categorized as a hygiene, is paradoxical because it was
mentioned by respondents with approximately the same frequency
in critical incidents related to job satisfaction as it was
mentioned relative to job dissatisfaction. Upon closer
examination, Herzberg et al. explained that salary sometimes
was found to contribute to job satisfaction because salary often
accompanied a person's achievement or was related to recognition
(Herzberg et al., 1959, p. 83). On the other hand, when salary
was mentioned by the respondents in terms of job dissatisfaction,
salary was related to company policy and administration. This
occurred primarily when the respondents believed that increases
in salary were not administered properly.
Herzberg's analysis of these 12 investigations further dem
onstrated that the respondents' feelings of job satisfaction
could be attributed to the job content factors (motivators),
which include achievement, recognition, the work itself, respon
sibility, advancement, and growth. The respondents' feelings of
job dissatisfaction could be attributed to the job context factors
(hygienes) which include company policy and administration, super
vision, relationships with supervisors, working conditions, salary,
relationships with peers, personal life, relationships with sub
ordinates, status, and job security (Herzberg, 1968, p. 57).

31
The major themes inherent in Herzberg's Motivator-Hygiene
(M-H) Theory are that
1. Man has two distinct systems of needs;
a. biological needs, and
b. psychological needs;
2. Job satisfaction and job dissatisfaction relate to
the fulfullment of these two distinct systems of
needs;
a.
job satisfaction is related to the fulfillment
of the psychological growth needs in the job
content (motivators)
b.
job dissatisfaction is related to the failure
to fulfill the biological needs in the job con
text (hygienes);
3. The
dynamics of motivators and hygienes are different
because
a.
the presence of motivators tends to boost job
satisfaction, however,
b .
when workers are not satisfied with hygienes,
this becomes the major source of job dissatis
faction, but satisfaction with hygienes does not
lead to job satisfaction; and
4. Job
satisfaction and job dissatisfaction are not
polar opposites on the same continuum;
a. the opposite of job satisfaction is not job dis
satisfaction; it is an absence of job satisfaction,
whereas

32
b. the opposite of job dissatisfaction is not job satis
faction; it is an absence of job dissatisfaction.
Analysis of Research Related to
Herzberg's (M-H) Theory
Herzberg's theory can be considered to be controversial.
It has been one of the most frequently investigated theories in
the literature on motivation and job satisfaction. The present
section discusses the controversy surrounding Herzberg's theory
through an analysis of related research. Major criticisms of
Herzberg's theory and rebuttals by Herzberg et al. to those
criticisms are discussed in the next section.
According to Kerlinger, "the basic aim of science is theory."
Kerlinger defined theory as
a set of interrelated constructs(concepts), definitions,
and propositions that present a systematic view of phe
nomena by specifying relations among variables, with the
purpose of explaining and predicting phenomena. (Kerlinger,
1973, p. 8)
Traditionally, the "value" of a theory is often determined
by its ability to explain, predict, control, and generate further
research. If this is true, the value of Herzberg's theory is
evidenced in part by the volume and different types of research
that have been conducted to investigate the theory. For example,
attempts have been made by researchers to "reconcile" Herzberg's
theory with traditional theory (Hazer, 1976; Solimn, 1970).
Herzberg's theory has also been applied to different populations
of employees in different job settings and countries (Herzberg,
1968, p. 57).
Of special interest to the present study have been the ap
plications of Herzberg's theory to populations selected from

33
different educational settings, Herzberg's theory has been
applied to teachers and to faculty members (Bishop, 1970;
Avakian, 1971); to undergraduate students (Gluskinos & Wainer,
1971); to adult and vocational students (Magoon & James, 1978;
Walsh, 1971); to state department educational staff (Carey, 1979);
and to university and community college administrators (Aebi,
1973; Groseth, 1978; Jackson, 1975; Kozal, 1979; Lyons, 1971;
Ohanesian, 1975; Thomas, 1977). These educational applications
are described in the final section of this chapter.
In addition, there has been a great deal of research re
ported in the literature which can be classified as critical
analyses of Herzberg's theory (e.g., Bobbitt & Behling, 1972a,
1972b; Ewen, 1964; Ewen, Smith, Hulin, & Locke, 1966; Fried-
lander, 1964; Graen, 1966; Halpern, 1966; Hinrichs & Misch-
kind, 1967; Locke, 1972; Szura & Vermillion, 1975; Wood &
LeBold, 1967). The primary focus of this type of research,
summarized below, has been to prove, disprove, or to test dif
ferent aspects of Herzberg's Theory.
Ewen (1964) conducted an exploratory study to determine
the generality of Herzberg's (M-H) theory. Responses from two
groups of full-time life-insurance agents (total N= 1,021) to
a four-point anonymous attitude scale were obtained and factor-
analyzed. Ewen's results were inconclusive because, while he
identified partial support for Herzberg's theory, Ewen concluded
that "there is as yet no justification for generalizing the
Herzberg results beyond the situation in which they were ob
tained" (p. 163). ^Ewen was critical of Herzberg's methodology

34
because of what he described as "the narrow range of jobs in
vestigated, the use of only one measure of job attitudes, the
absence of any validity and reliability data, and the absence
of any measure of overall job satisfaction" (p. 161).
Friedlander (1964) administered two questionnaires to
80 subjects in which the importance of various job character
istics to satisfaction and dissatisfaction was compared.
Friedlander's results indicated that "satisfaction and dis
satisfaction are, for the most part, unrelated and not comple
mentary functions, rather than negatively related poles on a
single bipolar continuum" (p. 388). Therefore, Friedlander
concluded that the results of studies and theories which uti
lized a single satisfaction-dissatisfaction continuum were
questionable.
Ewen, Smith, Hulin, and Locke (1966) reported the Results
of an "empirical" test of Herzberg's (M-H) theory. Several
hypotheses for which Herzberg's theory and traditional theory
make different predictions were tested. The Job Descriptive
Index (JDI) had been developed by this group of researchers
at Cornell University in 1963. The JDI was used as the basis
to test these different predictions. However, neither Herzberg's
theory nor the traditional theory was supported by the data.
Graen (1966) performed a two-way analysis of variance on
selected a priori contrasts on the data from the study by Ewen,
Smith, Hulin, and Locke (1966). ^Graen concluded that the re
sults supported the traditional theory and argued against Herz
berg's theory.

35
Halpern (1966) tested the ratings of four motivator job
aspects, four hygiene aspects and overall job satisfaction
which were obtained from 93 male subjects who were equally
satisfied with both the motivator and hygiene aspects of their
found support for Herzberg's theory in that
"two of the job aspects (work itself and the opportunity for
achievement), both motivators, were sufficient to account for
the variance in overall satisfaction" (1966, p. 198). Although
Halpern tested ratings of satisfact ion,^he did not test ratings
of dissatisfaction.
'^Hinrichs and Mischkind (1967) did not find support for
Herzberg's theory when they used his theoretical framework to
compare the salient reasons for current job satisfaction for
high- and low-satisfaction respondents. Specifically, they
tested two hypotheses: (1) that motivators would be mentioned
primarily in both cases by people with high overall satisfaction
when asked to identify things in their jobs that influence
them in positive and negative ways; and (2) that hygiene fac
tors would be mentioned primarily in both cases by people low
on overall job satisfaction, ^Qrigaliunas and Wiener (1976, p.
278) criticized this study on the grounds that Hinrichs and
Mischkind attempted to use Herzberg's theoretical framework
to measure "overall job satisfaction"a concept that does not
exist in Herzberg's theory.
Darrow (1972) tested Herzberg's theory within a closed
organization by administering the Job Factor Questionnaire
(an instrument designed to measure the contribution of the

36
motivator and hygiene factors to positive and negative job
attitudes) and the Job Descriptive Index (an instrument de
signed to measure overall job satisfaction) to 160 military
officers.y Darrow's results partially supported Herzberg's
theory. However, Darrow's use of the Job Descriptive Index
as a measure of "overall job satisfaction" may not have been
appropriate.
Bobbitt and Behling (1972a) tested two hypotheses de
rived from Vroom's explanation of Herzberg's theory. Vroom
(1964, p. 129) offered an alternative to Herzberg's findings
by explaining that defensive processes within the individual
respondent could account for the obtained differences between
stated sources of satisfaction and dissatisfaction and that
individuals are more likely to attribute the causes of satis
faction to their achievements and to attribute their dissatis
factions to the work environment. Bobbitt and Behling (1972a)
tested these hypotheses on three groups of supervisors by
establishing conditions that would evoke defensive reactions
to half of each group and examining their responses to deter
mine if they varied in the manner predicted by Vroom when com
pared to control groups. ^Bobbitt and Behling concluded that
"neither of Vroom's hypotheses was supported indicating that
Vroom's explanation is not a tenable alternative to that of
Herzberg" (1972a, p. 24).
Locke criticized Bobbitt and Behling's (1972a) study
which rejected Vroom's explanation because of what he de
scribed as
1. an inadequate definition of defensiveness;

37
2. their a priori assumption of the validity of Herzberg's
categorization system;
3. the lack of evidence regarding how their subjects per
ceived the questionnaire task; and
4. the failure to integrate their results with previous
findings on the subject of defensiveness. (Locke, 1972,
p. 297)
Bobbitt and Behling defended their study by explaining that
1. they had recognized that Herzberg's definition is
idiosyncratic but pointed out the need for further
research based on the definition of defense preferred
by Locke;
2. Herzberg's methodology is adequate until an alterna
tive methodology that explains Herzberg's results can
be identified;
3. the subjects did interpret the experimental and control
conditions as providing varying opportunities to look
good; and
4. the failure to integrate their results with previous
findings on the subject of defensiveness is a func
tion of the differences between the two definitions
of defense mechanisms. (1972b, pp. 299-300)
Major Criticisms of Herzberg's Theory
It is difficult to draw definitive conclusions based on
prior research which sometimes supports, partially supports, or
fails to support Herzberg's theory. However, Aebi (1973) found
Herzberg's theory to be supported by the majority of 156 studies
of job satisfaction that he reviewed. Due to its non-traditional
nature and inconclusive results from the research findings, Herz
berg's theory has generated many criticisms.
Initially, Herzberg's theory was criticized because of the
narrow range of jobs investigated, the use of only one measure
of job attitudes, the absence of validity and reliability data,
and the absence of any measure of overall job satisfaction (Ewen,
1964). Due to the number of studies that have since replicated

38
Herzberg's original study of engineers and accountants studying
different populations in different work settings, most of these
criticisms are moot (Herzberg et al., 1959). ^However, an apparent
discrepancy exists because studies that have used the critical-
incident technique tend to support Herzberg's theory while those
that use a different method do not (Solimn, 1970, p. 453). This
has caused Herzberg's critics to claim that his theory is bound
by its methodology; that only one method, the critical-incident
method, could provide empirical support for his theory.
Herzberg's response to this criticism is that
when the critics employed another method (different
variants of the rating-scale procedure) to test the
theory, the results were not supportive. Since their
own method has not supported the Motivation-Hygiene
Theory, the critics have claimed that the theory is
wrong. This claim of course, is illogical. The fact
that another method of testing Motivation-Hygiene
Theory has not supported it is meaningless unless
it can be demonstrated that such a method is valid
and appropriate. One cannot logically employ, for
example, a typing skill test to measure IQ and use
the results to evaluate a theory of intellectual
development. (Herzberg, 1976, p. 246)
Herzberg's methodology was also criticized by Vroom (1964)
who claimed that the results of the critical-incident method
were due to defensive processes within the individual respon
dent. Vroom said that
it is . possible that obtained differences between
stated sources of satisfaction and dissatisfaction
stem from defensiveness processes within the indivi
dual respondent. Persons.may be more likely to attri
bute the causes of satisfaction to their own achieve
ments and accomplishments on the job. On the other
hand, they may be more likely to attribute their dis
satisfaction not to personal inadequacies or deficien
cies, but to factors in the work environment, i.e.,
obstacles presented by company policy or supervision.
(Vroom, 1964, p. 129)

39
Vroom's criticism of Herzberg's methodology was supported
by Dunnette, Campbell, and Hakel, who said that
interviews provide no safeguard against defensive
replies from the respondents; many respondents might
quite naturally tend to attribute good job events
to things they themselves had done (e.g., achieve
ment, recognition, responsibility) and bad job events
to things outside or extrinsic to themselves (e.g.,
working conditions, supervision, company policies
and practices). If such were the case, the findings
of Herzberg, et al. speak more clearly to a basic
aspect of human nature (tendency to want to "look
good" in the eyes of others) than to motivational
or satisfying effects of different types of job
situations or environments. (Dunnette, Campbell,
& Hakel, 1967, p. 148)
Grigaliunas and Wiener (1976, pp. 290-295) contend that the
research conducted by Bobbitt and Behling (1972a) does
not substantiate the "defensiveness processes" nor the
"social desirability" argument as an alternative explanation
to Herzberg's theory.
A third major criticism of Herzberg's theory reported in
the literature is the theory's lack of ability to measure "over
all job satisfaction" (Ewen, 1964; Ewen, Smith, Hulin, & Locke,
1966). Whitsett and Winslow (1976) identified this type of
criticism as the problem of evaluating one theory from a dif
ferent theoretical perspective. They feel the Ewen et al.
criticized Herzbergs two-factor theory by trying to evaluate
it from a traditional or single-factor theory perspective.
Whitsett and Winslow explained that
the problem here is one of semantics. The essence
of the motivation-hygiene concept is that motivator
factors and hygiene factors are independent, operate
on different needs, and cannot be combined. There
fore, M-H Theory makes no prediction about overall
anything. But let us suppose, for the sake of dis
cussion, that M-H Theory did make predictions about
overall job satisfaction. What would it predict?

40
If we avoid the semantic error made in equating
satisfaction in the M-H sense and satisfaction
in the overall job satisfaction sense, it becomes
evident that M-H Theory would predict that both
motivator factors and hygiene factors contribute
to overall satisfaction. It makes no sense to
say that if a man is unhappy with his working
conditions, this will not have a negative effect
on his overall feeling toward his job. M-H Theory
would not predict this and neither, we hope, would
anybody else. (Whitsett & Winslow, 1976, p. 254)
Grigaliunas and Wiener (1976) identified three main prob
lems from their review of the literature on the criticisms
of Herzberg's theory:
1 An apparent lack of success in developing an
appropriate technique to measure or demonstrate
bidimensionality of job feelings as an alterna
tive to Herzberg's critical-incident approach.
The research critical of M-H Theory has relied
upon the rating-scale score often a one-item
scale to assess complex motivational and emo
tional phenomena.
2. Conclusions about the validity of the M-H Theory
were made by testing hypotheses that could not
be logically derived from this theory (e.g.,
"overall satisfaction" and "importance" hypoth
eses ).
3. The results of several studies are inconclusive
and can be interpreted in alternative ways that
are not unsupportive of M-H Theory. (1976, p. 295)
Grigaliunas and Wiener conclude that "as a whole, the design,
rationale, and findings of the critical studies do not pro
vide a strong case for refuting M-H Theory" (1976, p. 295).
Two Alternative Theories of Motivation
Related to Job Satisfaction
Sanzotta (1977) identified two general types of motiva
tion: extrinsic and intrinsic (p. 17). Under this taxonomy,
the distinction between types of motivation is simple to
discern. Motivation is either internal to, or motivation

41
come from outside of, the organism. Therefore, according to
Sanzotta (1977) it is possible to fit the various models of
motivation into this intrinsic-extrinsic distinction (p. 18).
Models or theories of motivation which are concerned with needs,
drives, drive reduction, etc. would fit into the first catego
ry while models or theories derived from classical and operant
conditioning would fit into the latter. This section discusses
two alternative theories of motivation related to job satisfac
tion that fit into Sanzotta's (1977) intrinsic-extrinsic dis
tinction and compares these theories to Herzberg's theory.
An example of need theories is Maslow's (1954) Need Hier
archy. Maslow's theory of human motivation is a holistic-dynam
ic theory in the "functionalist tradition of James and Dewey,
and is fused with the holism of Wertheimer, Goldstein, and Ges
talt psychology, and with the dynamicism of Freud and Adler"
(Maslow, 1954, p. 80). In Maslow's theory, man's needs are
arranged in order in the hierarchy of prepotency as 1) physio
logical, 2) safety, 3) belongingness and love, 4) esteem, and
5) self-actualization. Maslow (1954) theorized that the physio
logical needs were the most prepotent. He said that "a person
who is lacking food, safety, love, and esteem would probably
hunger for food more strongly than for anything else" (Maslow,
1954, p. 82). As the physiological needs of man are met, "at
once other (and higher) needs emerge and these, rather than
physiological hungers, dominate the organism" (Maslow, 1954,
p. 83). The emerging needs become the motivators of behavior.
As soon as the needs on a lower level in the hierarchy are

42
reasonably satisfied, those on the next level will emerge as the
dominant need to be satisfied. Therefore, the satisfaction of
man's needs proceeds from the physiological needs to the need
for self-actualization. The concept of self-actualization as
defined by Maslow is "man's desire for self-fulfullment, namely,
to the tendency for him to become actualized in what he is poten
tially" or, as more succinctly stated by Maslow, "what a man
'can' become, he 'must' be" (Maslow, 1954, pp. 91-92). Maslow's
theory is "holistic" in that: 1) needs are rarely found in iso
lation but are found in a variety of combinations; 2) Maslow re
jected the atomistic classification of independent needsrather
needs are interwoven clusters; and, 3) the order of needs in the
hierarchy is different from one individual to another and from
one culture to another (Chung, 1977, p. 41).
Although attempts have been made to test Maslow's theory
empirically, Chung described the major shortcomings to be that
the multiplicity, interrelatedness, and flexibility
of the need system seems to make it difficult to ex
perimentally test the prediction that the satisfaction
of one need causes the strength of its next higher-
order need. (1977, p. 42)
However, Chung did suggest that the hierarchical concept could
be researched using a longitudinal data-collection method.
Porter (1961) studied the perceived need satisfactions in
bottom-and middle-management jobs. Porter used a questionnaire
which was based in part on the classification system used by
Maslow. Porter's categories were arranged in approximate hier
archical order from the lowest-order to the highest-order. How
ever, the questionnaire did not contain the most prepotent needs
(physiological needs) because it was assumed that these needs

43
were adequately satisfied for managers. A second deviation
from Maslow's hierarchy was the insertion of the category
"autonomy needs" between the categories of "esteem needs" and
"self-actualization needs." The following results were reported
by Porter:
1. The vertical location of management positions
appears to be an important variable in deter
mining the extent to which psychological needs
are fulfilled.
2. The greatest differences in the frequency of
need-fulfillment deficiencies between bottom-
and middle-management positions occur in the
esteem, security,and autonomy need areas. These
needs are significantly more often satisfied in
middle than bottom management.
3. Higher-order psychological needs are relatively
the least satisfied needs in both bottom and
middle management.
4. Self-actualization and security are seen as more
important areas of need satisfaction than areas
of social, esteem, and autonomy, by individuals
in both bottom- and middle-management positions.
5. The higher-order need of self-actualization is
the most critical need area of those studied,
in terms of both perceived deficiency in ful
fillment and perceived importance to the individual,
in both bottom- and middle-management. This need
is not perceived as significantly more satisfied
at the middle-management level than at the bottom-
management level. (1961, pp. 9-10)
Centers and Bugental (1966) interviewed a selected cross-
section of the working population (N= 692) with respect to their
job motivations to determine the extent to which extrinsic or
intrinsic job components were valued. Specifically, it was their
intention to
extend the available information on the role of intrin
sic and extrinsic job factors as motivators by studying
the motivational "strength" of intrinsic and extrinsic

44
job factors in a sample of the "entire" working
population (men and women at all occupational
levels). (p. 193)
Centers and Bugental (1966) found that the extent to which ex
trinsic or intrinsic job components were valued by the respon
dents was related to their occupational level. Intrinsic job
components (opportunities for self-expression, etc.) were valued
more at higher occupational levels. Extrinsic job components
(pay, security, etc.) were more valued at lower occupational
levels. Centers and Bugental interpreted their results in terms
of Maslow's theory when they concluded that
individuals in lower-level occupations are more
likely to be motivated by lower-order needs (pay,
security, etc.) because these are not sufficiently
gratified to allow higher-order needs (the self-
fulfillment possible in the job itself) to become
prepotent. (1966, p. 197)
Chung (1977, p. 42) identified only 10 studies directly or
indirectly related to the hierarchical concept. Despite the lack
of empirical support, the influence of Maslow's theory can be
seen in Herzberg's theory and comparisons between these two theo
ries have been made. However, Herzberg discerns differences be
tween the two theories and the weaknesses in Maslow's theory in
that
the Maslow system, then, does seem appropriate, but
it has holes in it. Lower-order needs never get satis
fied, as witness the constant demand for physiological
and security guarantees, the continuing socialization
for our society, and the never-ending search for sta
tus symbols. This is evident even though we have re
cognized the importance of self-actualization as a
potent force in the motivational makeup of people.
The Maslow system stresses the material needs
of man as primary to his more "human" moral motives.
The system has not worked in application because the
biological and psychological needs of man are parallel

45
systems, rather than either one assuming initial
importance. A new theory of how the material and
moral motives of man act together in work motiva
tion is needed. (Herzberg, 1976, p. 48)
Although these theories occupy a central position in mo
tivational studies, there are behavioral determinants other
than needs that relate to theories of motivation and job satis
faction (Chung, 1977, p. 57). The theoretical framework of
classical and operant conditioning form the basis of Sanzotta's
extrinsic theories of motivation. The focus of extrinsic theo
ries is different from that of need theories. The focus of
need theories is on the internal mechanisms within the organ
ism (such as needs, drives, etc.) which are used to describe
motivation. The theoretical framework of extrinsic theories
places the emphasis on the environmental factors (such as the
effects of schedules of reinforcement, size of reward, etc.)
on behavior for this purpose.
Pavlov's classical conditioning in B. F. Skinner's oper
ant conditioning form the theoretical framework of extrinsic
theories (Sanzotta, 1977, p. 18). In his research on classical
conditioning, Pavlov identified two types of respondent behavior
the unconditioned response and the conditioned response. Uncon
ditioned responses are involuntary and result from unconditioned
reflexes which do not have to be learned. In the classical con
ditioning paradigm, the conditioned responses are learned as a
result of the repeated pairing of a neutral stimulus with an
unconditioned stimulus which produces an unconditioned response.
The neutral stimulus, which as a result of these pairings be
comes a conditioned stimulus, is then able to produce a
conditioned response by itself.

46
Unlike Pavlov's classical conditioning paradigm, which is
concerned with behavioral responses elicited by prior stimula
tion, Skinner's operant conditioning is concerned with behavior
that is controlled by its consequences. Behavior that operates
on the environment to produce consequences is operant behavior.
The distinction between operant behavior and respondent behav
ior is that the former is "voluntary behavior controlled by
its consequences while the latter is involuntary reflexes emit
ted by stimuli" (Chung, 1977, pp. 60-61).
Operant behavior occurs through the process called operant
conditioning in which the organism operates on the environment
to produce a consequence and behavior having this kind of con
sequence becomes more likely to occur in the future. That is,
the future probability of the response occurring is controlled
by the temporal relationship between the behavior and the con
sequence and whether the response is reinforced positively,
negatively, or punished. Both positive and negative reinforce
ment increase the future probability of a response occurring.
As described by Skinner,
when a hungry organism exhibits behavior that "pro
duces" food, the behavior is reinforced by that con
sequence and is therefore more likely to recur. Be
havior that "reduces" a potentially damaging condition,
such as an extreme of temperature, is reinforced by
that consequence and therefore tends to recur on simi
lar occasions. (Skinner, 1974, pp. 39-40)
While punishment that is contingent on specific behavior
has the effect of reducing that behavior, it will also elicit
sweating, increased heart rate, etc., in the respondent (Holland
& Skinner, 1961, p. 248). Extinction or the contingency of

47
withholding reinforcement has an effect similar to that of
punishment on behavior in that it decreases the frequency of
a behavior.
An understanding of operant conditioning is important to
management in that "most behaviors in organizations are operant
behaviors that are learned, controlled, and altered by the con
sequences that follow them" (Chung, 1977, p. 61). The organi
zational application of reinforcement is different from the
reward and punishment used by most organizations to influence
their employees to attain organizational goals (Chung, 1977,
p. 82). Examples of the latter "carrot and stick" approach
are found in the management strategies of piece-rate incentives,
performance appraisal, promotion, demotion, etc. The organiza
tional application of reinforcement is the deliberate and sys
tematic application of positive reinforcement to attain organi
zational goals (Chung, 1977, pp. 83-84).
Employee job satisfaction can be deduced from this theor
etical framework as the employee's evaluation of the effective
ness of management's application of organizational incentives.
Although the basic datum for behaviorists is "non-mentalistic
such as the frequency of a response, Skinner described the
"feelings of reinforcers" as follows:
According to the philosophy of hedonism, people
act to achieve pleasure and escape from or avoid
pain, and the effects referred to in Edward L.
Thorndike's famous Law of Effect were feelings:
"satisfying" or "annoying." The verb "to like"
is a synonym of "to be pleased with"; we can say
"if you like" and "if you please" more or less
interchangeably.
Some of these terms refer to other effects of
reinforcerssatisfying, for example, is related to

48
satiationbut most refer to the bodily states gen
erated by reinforcers. It is sometimes possible to
discover what reinforces a person simply by asking
him what he likes or how he feels about things. What
we learn is similar to what we learn by testing the
effect of a reinforcer: he is talking about what
has reinforced him in the past or what he sees him
self "going for." But, this does not mean that his
feelings are causally effective; his answer reports
a collateral effect (1974, p. 48).
Sanzotta analyzed Maslow's theory and Herzberg's theory
through a behavioristic extrinsic motivation model and concluded
that
for most people, satisfying a hunger drive is con
siderably easier than satisfying a need for self
esteem. A tangible primary reinforcement is in
volved in one, while an intangible set of conditions
(secondary reinforcements) prevail in the other. In
fact, we may extend ourselves a bit and say that, in
general, a primary reinforcement satiates (a lower
level need) more easily than a secondary reinforce
ment satiates (a higher level need). At the same
time, though, we cannot deny the maintenance nature
and power of primary reinforcers. The point here is
that if Herzberg's motivator-hygiene theory were
viewed in a slightly different manner, it could fit
into a behaviorist's model. (Sanzotta, 1977, p. 108)
It is not unreasonable to put Herzberg's hygiene
factors under the high satiability dimension and the
motivator factors at the other end of the continuum
of low satiability.... Rather, satiation should be
considered idiosyncratic, based on individual sub
jective histories and perceptions of reinforcement.
A reinforcer that may have a high satiability quality
for one person may be an open-end factor for another.
(Sanzotta, 1977, pp. 54-55)
Chung (1977) identified the major weaknesses of motiva
tional theories that are based on classical and operant condi
tioning to be that
1. reinforcers cannot be applied to all people
under all circumstances;
2. an incentive may appeal to one person but not
to another;

3.
49
an incentive may appeal to one person under
some circumstances but not under other cir
cumstances;
4. the differences in the need structures of individuals
and the change in the need structure of a person
may alter the motivational value of incentives;
and
5. the external approach does not recognize the
differences in perceptual patterns among indi
viduals .
To summarize, the major criticism with extrinsic motiva
tion theories is that they are mechanistic and oversimplistic.
The major criticism with intrinsic motivation theories is that
there is a lack of empirical evidence and support. Herzberg's
theory cannot readily be classified as an intrinsic or extrin
sic motivation theory because it accounts for both intrinsic
(job content) and extrinsic (job context) factors.
The Application of Herzberg's Theory
to Individuals in Educational Settings
There is a growing body of research related to the utili
zation of Herzberg's theory to identify the determinants of job
satisfaction and dissatisfaction for students, faculty members,
and administrators in different settings.
Herzberg's theory has been applied to investigate student
motivation and the determinants of student satisfaction and
dissatisfaction in different educational settings. Herzberg's
theory was applied to undergraduate students relative to academ
ic motivation (Norton & Wims, 1974; Magoon & James, 1978) and
relative to student satisfaction and dissatisfaction in a col
lege setting (Gluskinos & Wainer, 1971; Walsh, 1971). The
school satisfaction of adult vocational and technical students

50
was investigated using Herzberg's theory by Milliken (1971)
and by Turman (1977).
Lyons (1971) developed a questionnaire which employed a
semantic differential format to determine the extent to which
junior college personnel exhibited constellations of job at
titudes consistent with Herzberg' theory when a methodological
approach different from a sequence of events was employed to
determine the existence of job factors. Lyons'(1970) study
did not support Herzberg's theory but did provide strong sup
port for the existence of specific job factors.
Avakian (1971) conducted an analysis of the factors re
lating to the job satisfaction and dissatisfaction of 50 fac
ulty members who had been selected from two liberal-arts col
leges and two universities in northeastern New York State. Sub
jects were asked to describe incidents associated with satis
fying and dissatisfying job situations. The reported incidents
were sorted independently by three coders into the categories
of job-content or job-context factors developed by Herzberg et
al. (1959). Support or non-support of Herzberg's theory was
dependent upon whether subjects emphasized the job-content
factors or job-context factors in the incidents the subjects
described. A subject was classified as supportive of the theory
if more than half of the factors identified in a satisfying
job incident were job-content factors or if more than half of
the factors identified in a dissatisfying job incident were
job-context factors. If either of these cases were not true,
the subject was classified as non-supportive. Frequencies

51
were then tested for significance. Avakian (1971) found sup
port for Herzberg's theory in that
1. there were significantly more faculty members
who emphasized the job-content factors than
there were those who did not relative to their
job satisfaction, and
2. there were significantly more faculty members
who emphasized the job-context factors than
there were those who did not relative to
their job dissatisfaction.
Job satisfaction for the sample of faculty members was
rated significantly to the job factors of achievement, recog
nition, and the work itself. In addition, a trend in the di
rection of faculty job satisfaction was indicated by the job-
content factors of possibility of growth and responsibility.
Job dissatisfaction was related significantly to the job-context
factors of institutional policy and administration, supervision-
technical, salary, and interpersonal relations with administra
tors .
For the selected sample, Avakian (1971) found a shift a-
way from the predicted direction of the factors of 1) advance
ment, which was related to job dissatisfaction; and 2) inter
personal relations with students, status, and job security,
which were related to job satisfaction. In addition, the fac
tors of working conditions and personal life appeared with e-
qual frequency in incidents associated with job satisfaction
and job dissatisfaction.
Aebi (1973) applied two different methodologies to test
the applicability of Herzberg's theory to faculty and admini
strators in 15 private church-related, liberal-arts colleges

52
in 11 states. The traditional forced-choice structured-item
and Herzberg's free-choice critical-incidents were used to:
(1) test the job attitudes of the same subjects during the
same time periods, and (2) determine whether the differences
between these two methods were due to methodology. As a part
of his study, Aebi (1973) also reviewed 156 job-satisfaction
studies which supported, partially supported, or did not sup
port Herzberg's theory. A survey instrument was developed
that accurately represented both methodologies and a pilot
study was conducted to test the instrument. In general, Aebi
(1973) found support for Herzberg's theory. Although the dif
ferent methodologies resulted in different findings for sources
of dissatisfaction (more often than for sources of satisfaction),
the greatest source of satisfaction was the work itself and
the greatest source of dissatisfaction was working conditions.
Aebi (1973) did find significant differences between subgroups
of college educators relative to type of work, age, sex, salary,
and degree held. In addition, Herzberg's theory was more ap
plicable to faculty members than to administrators and to male
faculty members more than to female faculty members. Herzberg's
theory was least applicable to those faculty members who were
60 years of age or older and to those who earned less than
$6,000 annually.
Jackson (1975) investigated the 14 related factors of
Herzberg's theory to determine the degree to which they could
be identified among a population of 422 middle-management
administrators and vice-presidents from five different col
leges and universities. A forced-choice questionnaire which

53
employed 14 of Herzberg's motivator and hygiene factors was
utilized. Jackson (1975) found that, relative to job satis
faction, the middle-management administrators selected Herz-
berg's motivators more often than they selected the hygiene
factors.
Ohanesian (1975) and Groseth (1978) examined the job sa
tisfaction and dissatisfaction factors among college student
personnel workers. Groseth (1978) tested the applicability
of Herzberg's theory to determine the specific job satisfac
tion and dissatisfaction factors for the chief student person
nel administrator, the director of the union, the director of
housing, and the director of counseling at each of the seven
institutions in Florida's SUS. A semi-structured interview
guide was developed for each position, similar to the instru
ment used by Thomas (1977). The major job functions for each
position had been identified from the literature and were in
corporated into the specific interview guides. Each respon
dent was interviewed and described, for each major job function,
an incident that had occurred in their present position when
they had been particularly satisfied and one when they had
been particularly dissatisfied. The critical incidents were
classified accordingly as having been influenced by one of
six motivators or eight hygienes.
Of the 196 satisfying incidents identified in Groseth's
(1978) study, 68.3% were classified as motivators. For
the 181 dissatisfying incidents identified, 81.3% were
classified as hygienes. Groseth found a difference in the

54
support for Herzberg's theory relative to the different posi
tions. For example, the data for the chief student personnel
officers supported Herzberg's theory for satisfying, but not
for dissatisfying, incidents 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 directors of counseling supported
Herzberg's theory for both types of incidents. Groseth (1978)
found that recognition, achievement, and the work itself were
the most frequently mentioned motivators and that company
policy and administration, interpersonal relationships, and
work conditions were the most frequently mentioned hygienes.
Thomas (1977) applied Herzberg's theory to selected com
munity college administrative positions. Twelve chief aca
demic officers, 12 chief business officers, and 12 chief stu
dent personnel officers from six large and six small communi
ty colleges in Florida were interviewed. Thomas (1977) used
the critical-incident technique to identify job satisfaction
and job dissatisfaction factors of the respondents relative
to specific job functions for each position that had been
identified from the literature.
Thomas (1977) found strong support for Herzberg's theory
in that, for the three types of administrators, motivators
contributed significantly more to role satisfaction than did
hygienes. In addition, hygienes contributed significantly
more to role dissatisfaction than did motivators. Thomas
(1977) found that, for these three types of administrators,

55
achievement was the chief motivator mentioned relative to job
satisfaction and that company policy and interpersonal relation
ships were the chief hygienes related to job dissatisfaction.
Institutional size was not significantly related to the job
satisfaction or dissatisfaction for these three types of
administrators.
Kozal (1979) applied the reformulated (Herzberg) theory
of job satisfaction to selected administrative staff members
in the Florida SUS. The focus of his study was to test the
applicability of Hoy and Miskel's Reformulated (Herzberg)
Theory to selected administrative staffers to examine job
satisfaction and dissatisfaction related to the major job tasks
for the directors of purchasing, security and safety, personnel
relations, physical plant, and to university controllers. The
reformulated theory is different from Herzberg's theory in that
the former includes three distinct groups of factors which con
tribute to an individual's job satisfaction and/or job dissatis
faction: motivators, hygienes, and ambients. The third category
includes those factors which occur with equal frequency in sa
tisfying as well as dissatisfying job incidents. Specifically,
the job factors included as ambients are salary, status, growth
possibility, risk opportunity, and relationships with super
ordinates. Kozal (1979) could not find support for Hoy and
Miskel's theory in that the data regarding the third classifi
cationambientsdid not prove accurate. Of the 494 factors
used to classify the critical incidents'in the study, Kozal
(1979) identified only 25 as ambients.

56
Summary
A review of the literature related to Herzberg's theory
has been presented which
1. compares Herzberg's Motivator-Hygiene Theory to
the traditional theory of job satisfaction;
2. describes the theoretical framework of Herzberg's
theory which is fundamental to the present study;
3. investigates critical analyses and research related
to Herzberg's theory;
4. describes the major criticisms of Herzberg's theory
and the rebuttal by Herzberg et al. to those criti
cisms; and
5. presents a review of related research which has
applied Herzberg's theory to investigate job satis
faction and job dissatisfaction for individuals in
different educational settings.
Based on this review of the literature, the researcher
feels that Herzberg's theoretical framework was the appropriate
basis for examining the factors related to the job satisfaction
and dissatisfaction of the present sample. The literature
supports:
1. the utility of Herzberg's theory to identify the
determinants of job satisfaction and job dissatis
faction ;
2. that, although the research regarding Herzberg's theory
is inconclusive, the majority of studies support or
partially support his theory;

57
3. that the advantages to be gained by using this
theoretical framework outweigh the disadvantages;
4. that the major criticisms of Herzberg's theory
can be refuted; and
5. that there is a growing body of literature which
has applied Herzberg's theory to different popula
tions in different educational settings.
Prior research has included some of the variables under
examination in the present study. However, no studies were
identified which address the job satisfaction of mid-level
community college administrators compared to their counter
parts at the university level. In addition, no studies were
identified which specifically address the job satisfaction
determinants of the Registrar, Director of Admissions and
Director of Placement, three positions which have potential
impact from projected declining enrollments in the 1980s.

CHAPTER III
METHODOLOGY
The major focus of this study was to examine the determi
nants of job satisfaction and dissatisfaction among the Directors
of Admissions, Registrars, and the Directors of Placement at
community colleges and universities in Florida. Their attitudes
were measured within the theoretical framework of Herzberg's
1959 Motivator-Hygiene Theory and were classified using the
job factor definitions developed by Herzberg et al. (1959).
Data were collected using the critical-incident methodology
developed by Flanagan (1954) and adapted by Herzberg et al.
Selection of Sample
Four Directors of Admissions, eight Registrars, and five
Directors of Placement were selected and interviewed. Indivi
duals were interviewed who were currently holding the positions
of Directors of Admissions, Registrar, or Director of Placement
at three Florida community colleges and three state universities
in Florida's State University System (SUS). The three largest
community colleges and universities that demonstrated a willing
ness to participate were selected for this study. Institutional
size as measured by FTE was selected as the selection criterion
to ensure, for the selected positions, a close similarity in
terms of intrinsic and extrinsic job factors. The positions
of Director of Admissions, Registrar, and Director of Placement
were chosen because they exemplify mid-level administrative
positions in an educational setting.
58

59
Instrumentation
Three parallel instruments similar to those used by Herz-
berg et al. (1959), Thomas (1977), and Groseth (1978) were
designed for the positions of Director of Admissions, Registrar,
and Director of Placement. Each instrument was specifically
designed to solicit from the respondent:
1. demographic data;
2. verification of the major job functions identified by
Jones and Drews(1978) for that position; and
3. identification of the motivators and hygienes associ
ated with the critical incidents in which the respon
dent was satisfied or dissatisfied relative to the
specific job functions.
Copies of these instruments are in Appendices A, B, and C.
The instruments were used by the researcher to conduct semi-
structured interviews. Respondents had a free choice in relating
the critical incident related to each job function specified on
the instrument.
In addition, each respondent was given a handout describing
the job functions identified by Jones and Drews (1978) for the
position which was utilized in verifying these functions in
response to section.: II of the interview instrument. Copies
of these handouts are in Appendices D, E, and F.
Data Collection
A letter was sent to the president of each institution
selected requesting authorization for the institution to par
ticipate in this study. Follow-up phone calls were made to
establish appointments for the interviews.

60
During the interviews, data were collected utilizing
the structured questionnaire developed for each position.
The researcher recorded the respondent's responses on the
instrument during the interview. A separate copy of the appro
priate instrument was used by the researcher for each inter
view. Demographic data were recorded as specified by the
respondent. As the respondent related the critical incidents,
the researcher recorded key phrases which denoted motivators
or hygienes. To ensure accurate responses, each respondent
was assured that no person would be identified in the study by
name or institution.
Data Analysis
Following the interviews, the data were analyzed by coding
the responses recorded by the researcher for each critical
incident which might have been influenced by one of six moti
vators (achievement, recognition, the work itself, opportunity
for advancement, or responsibility) or by one of eight hygienes
(salary, company policy and administration, supervision, inter
personal relationships, personal life, job security, status, or
work conditions). The codings followed those developed by Herz-
berg et al. and cited in Thomas (1977) and Groseth (1978). More
than one factor was assigned to a critical incident if appropriate.
The chi square test for statistical significance has been
determined to be an appropriate statistical test for the analy
sis of data assessing the significance of Herzberg's motivator-
hygiene factors (Groseth, 1978; Thomas, 1977). This statistical
test was used to determine whether the observed contribution of

61
motivators and hygienes on the critical incidents as identi
fied by the administrators was different from that which would
have been expected by chance at the .05 level of significance.
Assumptions
For the purposes of this study, the underlying assumptions
were that:
1. the procedures used would achieve the purposes of
the study;
2. the critical-incident interview guides used in the
study would yield valid and reliable data;
3. the factors that were identified related to the job
satisfaction and dissatisfaction of the administrators;
4. the job functions as identified were accurate for each
position; and
5. the verbal descriptions of critical incidents by the
respondents were accurately classified for coding by
the researcher according to Herzberg's motivators
and hygienes. .
Delimitations and Limitations
In seeking to answer the questions and to test the hypo
theses of interest, the following delimitations were inherent
in the present study:
1. Positions and institutions were not randomly selected.
The sample included the Director of Admissions, the
Registrar, and the Director of Placement at three
Florida public community colleges and three four-year
institutions in the State University System (SUS). The

62
largest institutions (based on FTE) that were willing
to participate were selected for this study.
2. Separate interview guides were designed for each of
the three positions studied. The interview guides
limited the interviews to questions concerning job
satisfaction and dissatisfaction associated with the
major job functions of each of the positions studied.
In addition, the following limitations were inherent in
the results of the data collected:
1. This study was conducted as six institutions, three
community colleges and three universities, all of
which are in Florida. It is therefore not possible to
generalize from the findings of this study to the
general populations of Directors of Admissions, Regis
trars, and Directors of Placement.
2. All data collected in this study consisted of verbal
reports by the respondents. Therefore, the data were
subject to the perceptions of the respondents even
through every effort was made to encourage honesty by
telling each of the respondents that they would not
be identified by name or institution in the study.
3. The data collected from the critical-incident method
ology were subject to threats to internal validity
because the incidents were collected and categorized
according to Herzberg's theory by the researcher.

CHAPTER IV
PRESENTATION AND ANALYSIS OF DATA
Data were collected from semi-structured interviews with
four Directors of Admissions, eight Registrars, and five
Directors of Placement from the three largest public community
colleges and the three largest state universities in Florida.
Incidents relating to job satisfaction and dissatisfaction
reported by the respondents during the interviews were
recorded on interview guides designed for each position
(see Appendices A, B, and C). During the interviews, re
spondents were asked to recall and describe specific incidents
in which they had felt exceptionally good or exceptionally
bad about their present job relative to the major functions
of the job as described in the literature (see Appendices
D, E, and F).
Components of the critical incidents described by the
respondents were then categorized according to Herzberg's
motivator-hygiene classifications. Respondents' statements
regarding their job satisfaction and job dissatisfaction
were coded as having been influenced by one or a combination
of six motivators (achievement, recognition, the work itself,
responsibility, advancement, or possibility of growth) or one
of eight hygienes (company policy and administration, super
vision-technical, work conditions, salary, interpersonal
relationships, personal life, status, or job security). The
63

64
motivators and hygienes indicated by each critical incident
were listed and counted.
The data were then analyzed to test the 18 hypotheses
of interest to this study as described in Chapter I. The
chi-square one-sample test (Siegel, 1956, pp. 42-47) and the
chi-square test for independent samples (Siegel, 1956, pp. 104-
111) were used to determine whether significant differences
existed in the contribution of motivators and hygienes to
the satisfying and dissatisfying incidents reported by the
administrators at the .05 level of significance.
Within the present chapter, data and analyses are presented
in the following order:
1. For each position, demographic data are presented
and data concerning the contribution of motivators
and hygienes are presented for the major job functions
of the position. Results of the data analyses are
then presented which compare the relative contribu
tions of motivators and hygienes to satisfying and
dissatisfying incidents for each position as addressed
in the first six hypotheses of interest to this
study (H 1 H ).
o o
2. Results of data analyses are then presented which
compare the relative contribution of motivators and
hygienes to satisfying and dissatisfying incidents
between positions at the community college and
university levels as addressed in hypotheses 7
through 12 (H ^ It ^).
o o '

65
3. Results of data analyses are then presented which
compare the relative contribution of motivators and
hygienes to the satisfying and dissatisfying incidents
among the community college positions and among the
university positions as addressed in hypotheses 13
through 16 (H ^ H ^).
o o
4. Finally, results of data analyses are presented which
compare the contributions of motivators and hygienes
to the satisfying and dissatisfying incidents between
the community college administrators as a group and
the university administrators as a group as addressed
17 1 Q
in hypotheses 17 and 18 (H H ).
o o '
Data Relating to Positions
The present section presents, for each position, demo
graphic data and data concerning the contribution of motivators
and hygienes for the major job functions of the position. Re
sults of data analyses are presented which compare the relative
contributions of motivators and hygienes to satisfying and
dissatisfying incidents for each position.
Directors of Admissions
Demographic data collected from the Directors of Admissions
indicate that these respondents had served in their present
positions for from 2 to 10 years, with an average of 6.5 years.
They had served in their prior positions for from 1 to 8 years,
with an average of 5 years. All but one of the Directors of
Admissions had been promoted from within their present orga
nizations. The highest degree held by a Director of Admissions

66
in the present sample was the Ph.D. Undergraduate majors
included education, social sciences, and management.
The job functions for Director of Admissions presented
to the respondents (see Appendix D) were confirmed as accurate
by all respondents. One respondent added the utilization
of computers as a major job function.
Tables 1 through 6 summarize the relative contribution
of motivators and hygienes to the satisfying and dissatisfying
incidents related to the major job functions for the Directors
of Admissions. Percentages indicate the degree to which
motivators or hygienes were related as contributing to the
satisfying or dissatisfying incidents described by the
respondents.
Selection, supervision, coordination,
and evaluation of staff
The relative contribution of motivators and hygienes
to job satisfaction and job dissatisfaction for the Directors
of Admissions in the selection, supervision, coordination, and
evaluation of staff is summarized in Table 1. Motivators
contributed 100% to the satisfying incidents. For the
dissatisfying incidents, hygienes contributed 87.5% and
motivators contributed 12.5%.
Motivators which contributed to the satisfying incidents
for the Directors of Admissions related to this function
were achievement (37.5%), possibility of growth (25%),
responsibility (25%), and recognition (12.5%). No hygienes
were reported as contributing to the satisfying incidents.

67
For the dissatisfying incidents, the Directors of
Admissions mentioned the following hygienes as contributing
to job dissatisfaction: company policy and administration (25%),
Table 1
Contribution of Motivators and Hygienes for
Directors of Admissions in Selecting,
Supervising, Coordinating, and Evaluating Staff
Type
of Incident
Type of
Classification
Satisfying
(% of satisfying)
Dissatisfying
(% of dissatisfying)
Motivators
8
1
(100)
(12.5)
Hygienes
0
7
(0)
(87.5)
interpersonal relationships (25%), supervision technical (25%),
and salary (12.5%). The motivator achievement (12.5%) was
also cited as contributing to job dissatisfaction. It should
be noted that the motivator achievement, as defined by Herzberg
et al. (1959, p. 44), includes lack of achievement.
Recruitment, selection, and admission of
undergraduate and/or graduate students
The relative contribution of motivators and hygienes to
the job satisfaction and job dissatisfaction for the Directors
of Admissions in the recruitment, selection, and admission of
undergraduate and/or graduate students is summarized in Table 2.

68
Motivators contributed 87.5% to the satisfying incidents,
while hygienes contributed 12.5% for this job function. For
the dissatisfying incidents, hygienes contributed 77.8%
and motivators contributed 22.2%.
Table 2
Contribution of Motivators and Hygienes for Directors
of Admissions in Recruitment, Selection, and Admission
of Undergraduate and/or Graduate Students
Type
of
Incident
Type of
Classification
Satisfying
(% of satisfying)
(%
Dissatisfying
of dissatisfying)
i
Motivators
7
2
(87.5)
(22.2)
Hygienes
1
7
(12.5)
(77.8)
Directors of Admissions mentioned the following motiva
tors as contributing to job satisfaction relating to this
job function: achievement (37.5%), recognition (25%.),
responsibility (12.5%,), and the work itself (12.5%). The
hygiene interpersonal relationships (12.5%) was also cited
as contributing to job satisfaction.
In describing dissatisfying incidents, the Directors
of Admissions mentioned the following hygienes as contributing
to job dissatisfaction: interpersonal relationships (33.3%),

69
company policy and administration (22.2%), and supervision-
technical (22.2%). The motivator achievement (22.2%) was
also cited as contributing to job dissatisfaction related
to this job function.
Development of admissions criteria
The relative contribution of motivators and hygienes to
job satisfaction and job dissatisfaction for the Directors
of Admissions in participation in the development of admissions
criteria is summarized in Table 3. Motivators contributed 87.5%
to the satisfying incidents for this job function while
hygienes contributed 12.5%. For the dissatisfying incidents,
hygienes contributed 60% while motivators contributed 40%.
Table 3
Contribution of Motivators and Hygienes
for Directors of Admissions
in the Development of Admissions Criteria
Type of Incident
Type of Satisfying Dissatisfying
Classification (% of satisfying) (% of dissatisfying)
Motivators 7 2
(87.5) (40)
Hygienes 1 3
(12.5) (60)

70
The Directors of Admissions mentioned the following
motivators as contributing to job satisfaction related to
this job function: achievement (25%), responsibility (25%),
the work itself (12.5%), and recognition (25%). The
hygiene interpersonal relationships (12.5%) was also cited
as contributing to job satisfaction.
In describing the dissatisfying incidents, the Directors
of Admissions mentioned the following hygienes as contributing
to job dissatisfaction: company policy and administration
(40%) and interpersonal relationships (20%). The motivator
achievement (40%) was also cited as contributing to job
dissatisfaction related to this job function.
Professional and civic activities
The relative contribution of motivators and hygienes to
job satisfaction and job dissatisfaction for the Directors
of Admissions in professional and civic activities is sum
marized in Table 4. Motivators contributed 88.9% to the
satisfying incidents for this job function while hygienes
contributed 11.1%. For the dissatisfying incidents, hygienes
and motivators contributed 50% each.
The Directors of Admissions mentioned the following
motivators as contributing to job satisfaction related to
this job function: achievement (33.3%), the possibility of
growth (22.2%), recognition (22.2%), and the work itself
(11.1%). The hygiene interpersonal relationships (11.1%) was
also cited as contributing to job satisfaction.

71
Table 4
Contribution of Motivators and Hygienes
for Directors of Admissions
in Professional and Civic Activities
Type
of Incident
Type of
Classification
Satisfying
(% of satisfying)
Dissatisfying
(% of dissatisfying)
Motivators
8
1
(88.9)
(50)
Hygienes
1
1
(11.1)
(50)
In describing the dissatisfying incidents related to
this job function, the Directors of Admissions mentioned the
motivator achievement (50%) and the hygiene company policy
and administration (50%) as contributing to job dissatisfaction.
The motivator achievement includes its opposite, lack of
achievement. Only two respondents could recall dissatisfying
incidents related to this job function.
Counseling and advising students, parents of students,
and other interested groups or individuals
The relative contribution of motivators and hygienes
to job satisfaction and job dissatisfaction for the Directors
of Admissions in counseling and advising students, parents
of students, and other interested groups or individuals
is summarized in Table 5. Motivators contributed 60% to the
satisfying incidents for this job function while hygienes

contributed 40%. For the dissatisfying incidents, hygienes
contributed 60% while motivators contributed 40%.
The Directors of Admissions mentioned the following
motivators as contributing to job satisfaction related to
this job function: recognition (20%), achievement (20%),
and the work itself (20%). The hygiene interpersonal
relationships (40%) was also cited as contributing to job
satisfaction.
In describing dissatisfying incidents related
to this job function, the Directors of Admissions mentioned
the hygienes interpersonal relationships (40%) and company
Table 5
Contribution of Motivators and Hygienes
for Directors of Admissions in Counseling
and Advising Students, Parents, and Others
Type of Incident
Type of
Classification
Satisfying
(% of satisfying)
Dissatisfying
(% of dissatisfying)
Motivators
3
2
(60)
(40)
Hygienes
2
3
(40)
(60)
policy and administration (20%) as contributing to job
dissatisfaction. The motivators recognition (20%) and

73
achievement (20%) were also cited as contributing to job
dissatisfaction. This job function did not apply to one
Director of Admissions.
Program planning and budgeting
The relative contribution of motivators and hygienes
to job satisfaction and job dissatisfaction for the Directors
of Admissions in program planning and budgeting is summarized
in Table 6. For the satisfying incidents, motivators con
tributed 83.3% while hygienes contributed 16.6%. For the
dissatisfying incidents, hygienes contributed 88.9% and
motivators contributed 11.1%.
The Directors of Admissions mentioned the motivators
achievement (50%) and recognition (33.3%) as contributing to
job satisfaction related to this job function. The hygiene
Table 6
Contribution of Motivators and Hygienes
for Directors of Admissions
in Program Planning and Budgeting
Type of Incident
Type of Satisfying Dissatisfying
Classification (% of satisfying) (% of dissatisfying)
Motivators
5
(83.3)
1
(11.1)
Hygienes
1
(16.7)
8
(88.9)

74
working conditions (16.7%) was also cited as contributing
to job satisfaction related to this job function. One
Director of Admissions could not recall a satisfying incident
related to this job function.
In describing the dissatisfying incidents related to
this job function, the Directors of Admissions mentioned the
following hygienes as contributing to job dissatisfaction:
company policy and administration (33.3%), work conditions
(22.2%), salary (22.2%), and supervision-technical (11.1%).
The motivator achievement (11.1%) was also cited as con
tributing to job dissatisfaction related to this job function.
Overall contributions to satisfying incidents
The overall contribution of motivators and hygienes to
job satisfaction for Directors of Admissions across all six
major job functions is summarized in Table 7. Motivators
contributed 86.7% to satisfying incidents while hygienes
contributed 13.3%.
Overall, the motivators that contributed to job satis
faction for the Directors of Admissions were achievement (35.6%),
recognition (22.2%), responsibility (11.1%), possibility of
growth (8.9%), and the work itself (8.9%). Respondents
indicated that the hygienes interpersonal relationships (11.1%)
and work conditions (2.2%) also contributed to their job
satisfaction.
The data in Table 7 were utilized to test the following
null hypothesis:

75
Table 7
Relative Contribution of Motivators and Hygienes
to Satisfying Incidents for Directors of
Admissions Across Job Functions
% of Total
Factor
Frequency
(K=45)
Motivators
Achievement
16
35.6
Recognition
10
22.2
Responsibility
5
11 1
Possibility of Growth
4
8.9
Work Itself
4
8.9
39
86.7
Hygienes
Interpersonal Relationships
5
11. 1
Work Conditions
1
2.2
6
13.3
Total
Motivators
39
86.
. 7
Total
Hygienes
6
13.
, 3
H
o
For the Directors of Admissions, there is
no difference in the contribution of moti
vators and hygienes to satisfying incidents
associated with the major job functions of
the position.
1

76
These data indicate that motivators contributed more
than did hygienes to the job satisfaction of the Directors
of Admissions interviewed. The chi-square test revealed
a significant difference between the contributions of
2
motivators and hygienes (x =24.2, df=l, p<.05) causing the
null hypothesis to be rejected.
Overall contributions to dissatisfying incidents
The overall contribution of motivators and hygienes to
job dissatisfaction for Directors of Admissions across all
six major job functions is summarized in Table 8. Hygienes
contributed 76.9%, while motivators contributed 23.1%.
The hygienes that contributed to the job dissatisfaction
for the Directors of Admissions were company policy and
administration (30.8%), interpersonal relationships (23.1%),
supervision-technical (12.8%), salary (7.7%), and work
conditions (2.6%). The motivators achievement (20.5%) and
recognition (2.6%) were also cited as contributing to job
dissatisfaction.
The data in Table 8 were utilized to test the following
null hypothesis:
2
H For the Directors of Admissions, there is
o
no difference in the contribution of moti
vators and hygienes to dissatisfying incidents
associated with the major job functions of
the position.
These data indicate that hygienes contributed more than
did motivators to the job dissatisfaction of the Directors
of Admissions interviewed. The chi-square test revealed a
significant difference between the contributions of hygienes

77
Table 8
Relative Contribution of Motivators and Hygienes
to Dissatisfying Incidents for Directors
of Admissions Across Job Functions
% of Total
Factor Frequency(K=39)
Mot Ivators
Recognition 1 2.6
Achievement 8 20.5
9 2371
Hygienes
Company Policy & Administration 12 30.8
Interpersonal Relationships 9 23.0
Supervision-Technical 5 12.8
Salary 3 7.7
Work Conditions 1 2.6
30 7679
Total Motivators 9 23.1
Total Hygienes 30 76.9
hypothesis to be rejected.
Registrars
Demographic data collected from the Registrars indicated
that the length of time these respondents had served in their

78
present positions ranged from 1 to 12 years with an average
of 5.5 years. They had served in their prior positions for
from 1 to 9 years, with an average of 4 years. All but one
of the Registrars had been promoted from within their present
organization. Most of the Registrars held Master's degrees
in economics, educational administration and supervision,
business education, or math education. Undergraduate majors
included economics, social studies, psychology, English,
business, chemical engineering, and business education.
The job functions for Registrars presented to the respon
dents (as described in Appendix E) were verified as generally
accurate by all respondents. One respondent added the
evaluation of transfer credit and the readmission of students
as major job functions.
Tables 9 through 14 summarize the relative contributions
of motivators and hygienes mentioned by the Registrars as
contributing to the satisfying and dissatisfying incidents
related to their major job functions. The degree to which
motivators or hygienes contributed to job satisfaction or
dissatisfaction is represented by percentages.
Selection, supervision, coordination,
and evaluation of staff
The relative contribution of motivators and hygienes to
job satisfaction and job dissatisfaction for Registrars in
selecting, supervising, coordinating, and evaluating staff
is summarized in Table 9. Motivators contributed 89% to
the satisfying incidents while hygienes contributed 11%.

79
Table 9
Contribution of Motivators and Hygienes
for Registrars in the Selection, Supervision,
Coordination, and Evaluation of Staff
Type of Incident
Type of
Classification
Satisfying
(% of satisfying)
Dissatisfying
(% of dissatisfying)
Motivators
8
2
(89)
(15.4)
Hygienes
1
11
(ID
(84.6)
For the dissatisfying incidents, hygienes contributed 84.6%,
and motivators contributed 15.4%.
The Registrars mentioned the following motivators as
contributing to job satisfaction related to this job function
achievement (77.8%) and responsibility (11.1%). The hygiene
interpersonal relationships (11.1%) was also cited as
contributing to job satisfaction for this job function.
In describing the dissatisfying incidents, the Registrars
mentioned the following hygienes as contributing to job
dissatisfaction: interpersonal relationships (38.5%),
company policy and administration (23%), salary (15.4%), and
personal life (7.7%). The motivators recognition (7.7%) and
achievement (7.7%) were also cited as contributing to job
dissatisfaction related to this job function.

80
Enrollment and records
The relative contribution of motivators and hygienes to
job satisfaction and dissatisfaction for Registrars in their
responsibility for student enrollment and records is sum
marized in Table 10. Motivators contributed 18.3% to the
satisfying incidents for this job function while hygienes
contributed 16.7%. For the dissatisfying incidents, hygienes
contributed 41.7% and motivators contributed 58.3%.
Table 10
Contribution of Motivators and Hygienes
for Registrars in their Responsibility
for Student Enrollment and Records
Type of Incident
Type of
Classification
Satisfying
(% of satisfying)
Dissatisfying
(% of dissatisfying)
Motivators
10
7
(83.3)
(58.3)
Hygienes
2
5
(16.7)
(41.7)
Registrars mentioned the motivators recognition (41.7%)
and achievement (41.7%) as contributing to their job satis
faction relative to this job function. The hygiene inter
personal relationships (16.6%) was also cited as contributing
to job satisfaction. One respondent could not recall a
satisfying incident related to this job function.

81
In describing dissatisfying incidents related to this
job function, the Registrars mentioned the following hygienes
as contributing to job dissatisfaction: interpersonal re
lationships (16.7%), supervision-technical (8.3%), company
policy and administration (8.3%), and work conditions (8.3%).
The motivators achievement (33.3%), the work itself (16.7%),
and responsibility (8.3%) were also cited as contributing
to job dissatisfaction. One Registrar could not recall a
dissatisfying incident related to this job function.
Registration; scheduling;
and record maintenance
The relative contribution of motivators and hygienes to
job satisfaction and job dissatisfaction for Registrars in
registering undergraduate and/or graduate students; scheduling
classes, exmainations, and classroom facilities; and maintaining
student records, is summarized in Table 11. Motivators con-
t
tributed 82% to the satisfying incidents, while hygienes
contributed 18% for this job function. For the dissatisfying
incidents, hygienes contributed 56%, and motivators contrib
uted 44%.
Registrars mentioned the motivators achievement (55%),
recognition (18%), and responsibility (9%) as contributing
to their job satisfaction related to this job function. The
hygienes interpersonal relationships (9%) and work conditions
(9%) were also mentioned as contributing to job satisfaction.

82
Table 11
Contribution of Motivators and Hygienes
for Registrars in Registration,
Scheduling, and Record Maintenance
Type of Incident
Type of
Classification
Satisfying
(% of satisfying)
Dissatisfying
(% of dissatisfying)
Motivators
9
4
(82)
(44)
Hygienes
2
5
(18)
(56)
In describing dissatisfying incidents related to this
job function, the Registrars mentioned the hygienes work
conditions (33.3%), supervision-technical (11.1%), and salary
(11.1%) as contributing to job dissatisfaction. The moti
vators achievement (22.2%), recognition (11.1%), and the
work itself (11.1%) were also cited as contributing to job
dissatisfaction. Two Registrars were unable to recall dis
satisfying incidents related to this job function.
Professional and civic activities
The relative contribution of motivators and hygienes to
job satisfaction and job dissatisfaction for the Registrars
in their participation in professional and civic activities
is summarized in Table 12. Motivators contributed 91% to
satisfying incidents for this job function, while hygienes

83
contributed 9%. For the dissatisfying incidents, hygienes
and motivators contributed 50% each.
Table 12
Contribution of Motivators and Hygienes for Registrars
in Professional and Civic Activities
Type of Incident
Type of
Classification
Satisfying
(% of satisfying)
Dissatisfying
(% of dissatisfying)
Motivators
10
2
(91)
(50)
Hygienes
1
2
(9)
(50)
The Registrars mentioned the following motivators as
contributing to their job satisfaction related to this job
function: recognition (45%), achievement (36%), and per
sonal growth (9%). The hygiene interpersonal relationships
(9%) was also mentioned as contributing to job satisfaction.
Two Registrars could not recall satisfying incidents relating
to this job function.
In describing dissatisfying incidents relating to this
job function, the Registrars mentioned the hygienes company
policy and administration (25%) and interpersonal relation
ships (25%) as contributing to job dissatisfaction. The
motivators achievement (25%) and the work itself (25%) were

84
also cited as contributing to job dissatisfaction. Four
Registrars could not recall dissatisfying incidents related
to this job function.
Counseling and advising students,
parents, and others
The relative contribution of motivators and hygienes
to job satisfaction and job dissatisfaction for the Registrars
in counseling and advising students, parents of students, and
other interested groups or individuals, is summarized in
Table 13. Motivators contributed 91% and hygienes contrib
uted 9% to the satisfying incidents. For the dissatisfying
incidents, hygienes contributed 62.5% and motivators con
tributed 37.5%.
Table 13
Contribution of Motivators and Hygienes
for Registrars in Counseling and Advising
Students, Parents, and Others
Type
of Incident
Type of
Classification
Satisfying
(% of satisfying)
Dissatisfying
(% of dissatisfying)
Motivators
10
(91)
3
(37.5)
Hygienes
1
(9)
5
(62.5)

85
Registrars mentioned the following motivators as contrib
uting to their job satisfaction relative to this job function:
achievement (36%), recognition (27%), and the work itself
(27%). The hygiene interpersonal relationships (9%) was
also cited as contributing to job satisfaction.
In describing the dissatisfying incidents related to
this job function, the Registrars mentioned the following
hygienes as contributing to job dissatisfaction: interpersonal
relationships (37.5%), supervision-technical (12.5%), and
company policy and administration (12.5%). The motivators
recognition (12.5%), achievement (12.5%), and the work itself
(12.5%) were also cited as contributing to job dissatisfaction.
Program planning and budgeting
The relative contribution of motivators and hygienes to
job satisfaction and job dissatisfaction for Registrars in
program planning and budgeting is summarized in Table 14.
Motivators contributed 83.3% to the satisfying incidents
while hygienes contributed 16.7% for this job function.
For the dissatisfying incidents, hygienes contributed 84.6%
and motivators contributed 15.4%.
Registrars mentioned the following motivators as contrib
uting to their job satisfaction relative to this job function:
achievement (41.6%), recognition (16.6%), the work itself
(8.3%), personal growth (8.3%), and responsibility (8.3%). The
hygienes work conditions (8.3%) and interpersonal relation
ships (8.3%) were also mentioned as contributing to job satis-
f act ion.

86
Table 14
Contribution of Motivators and Hygienes for
Registrars in Program Planning and Budgeting
Type of Incident
Type of Satisfying Dissatisfying
Classification (% of satisfying) (% of dissatisfying)
Motivators 10 11
(83.3) (84.6)
Hygienes 2 2
(16.7) (15.4)
In describing dissatisfying incidents, the Registrars
mentioned the following hygienes as contributing to their
job dissatisfaction related to this job function: company
policy and administration (38.5%), salary (15.4%), super-
vision-technical (15.4%), work conditions (7.7%), and inter
personal relationships (7.7%). The motivator recognition
(15.4%) was also cited as contributing to job dissatisfaction.
One Registrar could not recall a dissatisfying incident related
to this job function.
Overall contributions to satisfying incidents
The overall contributions of motivators and hygienes to
job satisfaction for Registrars across all six major job
functions is summarized in Table 15. Motivators contributed
85.5% to satisfying incidents while hygienes contributed
14.5%.

87
Table 15
Relative Contribution of Motivators
and Hygienes to Satisfying Incidents
for Registrars Across Job Functions
Factor
Frequency
% of Total
(K=69)
Motivators
Achievement
33
47.8
Recognition
17
24.6
Work Itself
4
5.8
Responsibility
3
4.4
Possibility of Growth
2
2.9
59
85.5
Hygienes
Interpersonal Relationships
7
10.2
Work Conditions
2
2.9
Supervision-Technical
1
1.4
10
14.5
Total
Motivators
59
85.5
Total
Hygienes
10
14.5
Overall, the motivators that contributed to job satis
faction for Registrars were achievement (47.8%), recognition
(24.6%), the work itself (5.8%), responsibility (4.4%), and
personal growth (2.9%). Registrars indicated that the

88
hygienes interpersonal relationships (10.2%), work conditions
(2.9%), and supervision-technical (1.4%) also contributed to
their job satisfaction.
The data in Table 15 were utilized to test the null
hypothesis:
3
H For the Registrars, there is no difference
in the contribution of motivators and hygienes
to satisfying incidents associated with the
major functions of the position.
These data indicate that motivators contributed more
than did hygienes to the job satisfaction of the Registrars
interviewed. The chi-square test revealed a significant
difference between the contributions of motivators and
2
hygienes to satisfying incidents for Registrars (x =34.79,
df=l, pc.05) causing the null hypothesis to be rejected.
Overall contributions to dissatisfying incidents
The overall contributions of motivators and hygienes
to job dissatisfaction for Registrars across all six major
job functions is summarized in Table 16. Hygienes contributed
69.5% to the dissatisfying incidents while motivators
contributed 30.5%.
The hygienes that contributed to job dissatisfaction for
the Registrars were interpersonal relationships (22%),
company policy and administration (20.3%), salary (10.2%),
work conditions (8.5%), supervision-technical (6.8%), and
personal life (1.7%). The motivators achievement (11.8%),
recognition (8.5%), and responsibility (1.7%) were also
cited as contributing to job dissatisfaction.

89
Table 16
Relative Contribution of Motivators
and Hygienes to Dissatisfying Incidents
for Registrars Across Job Functions .
Factor
Frequency
% of Total
(K=59)
Motivators
Achievement
7
11.8
Work Itself
5
8.5
Recognition
5
8.5
Responsibility
1
1.7
18
30.5
Hygienes
Interpersonal Relationships
13
22
Company Policy & Administration 12
20.3
Salary
6
10.2
Work Conditions
5
8.5
Supervision-Technical
4
6.8
Personal Life
1
1.7
41
69.5
Total
Motivators
18
30.5
Total
Hygienes
41
69.5
The data in Table 16 were utilized to test the following
null hypothesis:

90
4
H For the Registrars, there is no difference in
the contribution of motivators and hygienes
to dissatisfying situations associated with
the major functions of the position.
These data indicate that hygienes contributed more than
did motivators to the job dissatisfaction of the Registrars
interviewed. The chi-square test revealed a significant
difference between the contributions of hygienes and motivators
2
(x =8.97, df=l, p<.05) causing the null hypothesis to be
rejected.
Directors of Placement
Demographic data collected from the Directors of Place
ment indicated that the length of time these respondents
had served in their present positions ranged from 2 years to
13 years with an average of 7.6 years. They had served in
their prior positions for from 1 to 4 years, with an average
of 2.2 years. All but one of the Directors of Placement had
been promoted from within their present organizations. All
of the Directors of Placement held Masters degrees which
included the disciplines of guidance and counseling, industrial
management, and educational administration and supervision.
Undergraduate majors included education, military science,
and biology.
The job functions for the Directors of Placement pre
sented to the respondents (as described in Appendix F) were
verified as accurate by all respondents. Tables 17-22 compare
the relative contributions of the motivators and hygienes
related to the major job functions that were mentioned by
the Directors of Placement as contributing to satisfying

91
and dissatisfying incidents. The degree to which each moti
vator or hygiene contributed to job satisfaction or to job
dissatisfaction is represented by the percentage of the
total for each group that each one contributed.
Selection, supervision, coordination,
and evaluation of staff
The relative contribution of motivators and hygienes to
job satisfaction and dissatisfaction for Directors of Place
ment in the selection, supervision, coordination, and evalua
tion of staff is summarized in Table 17. Motivators contributed
88.9% to the satisfying incidents for this job function while
hygienes contributed 11.1%. For the dissatisfying incidents,
hygienes contributed 42.8% while motivators contributed 57.2%.
Table 17
Contribution of Motivators and Hygienes for
Directors of Placement in the Selection,
Supervision, Coordination, and Evaluation of Staff
Type of Incident
Type of Satisfying Dissatisfying
Classification (% of satisfying) (% of dissatisfying)
Motivators 8 4
(88.9) (57.2)
Hygienes 1 3
(11.1) (42.8)

92
Directors of Placement mentioned the following motivators
as contributing to their job satisfaction related to this
job function: achievement (44.4%), the work itself (22.2%),
and responsibility (22.2%). The hygiene interpersonal
relationships (11.1%) was also mentioned as contributing to
job satisfaction.
In describing dissatisfying incidents, the Directors of
Placement mentioned the hygienes interpersonal relationships
(28.6%) and work conditions (14.3%) as contributing to job
dissatisfaction. The motivators recognition (14.3%), achieve
ment (14.3%), and the work itself (14.3%) were also cited as
contributing to job dissatisfaction related to this job
function.
Recruiting activities; file
and record maintenance
The relative contribution of motivators and hygienes to
job satisfaction and dissatisfaction for Directors of Place
ment in the supervision of on-campus recruiting activities
by prospective employers, and the maintenance of related files
and records is summarized in Table 18. Motivators contributed
91.7% to the satisfying incidents for this job function while
hygienes contributed 8.3%. For the dissatisfying incidents,
hygienes contributed 57.1% while motivators contributed 42.9%.
Directors of Placement mentioned the following motivators
as contributing to their job satisfaction related to this job
function: achievement (33.3%), recognition (33.3%), the work
itself (16.7%), and responsibility (8.3%). The hygiene

93
Table 18
Contribution of Motivators and Hygienes for
Directors of Placement in Recruiting Activities
and the Maintenance of Related Files and Records
Type of Incident
Type of
Classification
Satisfying
(% of satisfying)
Dissatisfying
(% of dissatisfying)
Motivators
11
3
(91.7)
(42.9)
Hygienes
1
4
(8.3)
(57.1)
interpersonal relationships (8.3%) was also mentioned as
contributing to job satisfaction.
In describing dissatisfying incidents, the Directors of
Placement mentioned the following hygienes as contributing to
job dissatisfaction: company policy (28.6%) and interpersonal
relationships (28.6%). The motivators the work itself (14.3%),
recognition (14.3%), and achievement (14.3%) were also cited
as contributing to job dissatisfaction related to this job
function.
Provision of job placement
services
The relative contribution of motivators and hygienes to
job satisfaction and dissatisfaction for the Directors of
l
Placement in providing job placement services to undergraduates,
graduate students, and alumni (which may include part-time

94
jobs within or outside the institution) is summarized in
Table 19. Motivators contributed 100% to the satisfying
incidents. For the dissatisfying incidents, hygienes
contributed 42.9% while motivators contributed 57.1%.
Directors of Placement mentioned the following motivators
as contributing to their job satisfaction related to this
job function: achievement (41.7%), recognition (33.3%),
and the work itself (25%). No hygienes were cited as con
tributing to job satisfaction.
Table 19
Contribution of Motivators and Hygienes
for Directors of Placement in Providing Job
Placement Services
Type of Incident
Type of
Classification
Satisfying
(% of satisfying)
Dissatisfying
(% of dissatisfying)
Motivators
12
4
(100)
(57.1)
Hygienes
0
3
(0)
(42.9)
In describing dissatisfying incidents, Directors of
Placement mentioned the following hygienes as contributing
to job dissatisfaction: interpersonal relationships (28.6%)
and company policy and administration (14.3%). The motivators

95
achievement (42.9%) and the work itself (14.3%) were also
cited as contributing to job dissatisfaction related to this
job function.
Professional and civic activities
The relative contribution of motivators and hygienes
to job satisfaction and dissatisfaction for the Directors of
Placement in their professional and civic activities is
summarized in Table 20. Motivators contributed 87.5% to
the satisfying incidents for this job function while hygienes
contributed 12.5%. For the dissatisfying incidents, hygienes
contributed 40% and motivators contributed 60%.
Table 20
Contribution of Motivators and Hygienes for Directors
of Placement in Professional and Civic Activities
Type
of
Incident
Type of
Classification
Satisfying
(% of satisfying)
(%
Dissatisfying
of dissatisfying)
Motivators
7
(87.5)
3
(60)
Hygienes
1
(12.5)
2
(40)
Directors of Placement mentioned the following motivators
as contributing to their job satisfaction related to this
job function: recognition (35.7%), possibility of growth (25%),

96
achievement (12.5%), and the work itself (12.5%). The
hygiene company policy and administration (12.5%) was also
cited as contributing to job satisfaction.
In describing dissatisfying incidents related to this
job function, the Directors of Placement mentioned the
hygienes supervision-technical (20%) and company policy and
administration (20%) as contributing to job dissatisfaction.
The motivators recognition (20%) and achievement (40%) were
also cited as contributing to job dissatisfaction. One
Director of Placement could not recall any dissatisfying
incidents related to this job function.
Counseling and advising students,
parents, and others
The relative contribution of motivators and hygienes
to job satisfaction and dissatisfaction for Directors of
Placement in counseling and advising students, parents of
students, and other interested groups or individuals, is
summarized in Table 21. Motivators contributed 88.9% to
the satisfying incidents for this job function, while
hygienes contributed 11.1%. For the dissatisfying incidents,
hygienes contributed 55.6%, and motivators contributed
44.4%.
Directors of Placement mentioned the following motivators
as contributing to their job satisfaction related to this
job function: achievement (44.4%), recognition (11.1%), the
possibility of growth (11.1%), and the work itself (22.2%).

The hygiene interpersonal relationships (11.1%) was also
mentioned as contributing to job satisfaction.
97
Table 21
Contribution of Motivators and Hygienes
for Directors of Placement in Counseling
and Advising Students, Parents, and Others
Type of Incident
Type of
Classification
Satisfying
(% of satisfying)
Dissatisfying
(% of dissatisfying)
Motivators
8
4
(88.9)
(44.4)
Hygienes
1
5
(11.1)
(55.6)
In describing dissatisfying incidents, the Directors
of Placement mentioned the following hygienes as contributing
to job dissatisfaction: company policy and administration
(22.2%), interpersonal relationships (22.2%), and supervision-
technical (11.1%). The motivators the work itself (22.2%)
and achievement (22.2%) were also cited as contributing
to job dissatisfaction related to this job function.
Program planning and budgeting
The relative contribution of motivators and hygienes
to job satisfaction and dissatisfaction for Directors of
Placement in their participation in program planning and

98
budgeting is summarized in Table 22. Motivators contributed
67% to satisfying incidents for this job function while
hygienes contributed 33%. For the dissatisfying incidents,
hygienes contributed 64% while motivators contributed 36%.
Table 22
Contribution of Motivators and Hygienes for Directors
of Placement in Program Planning and Budgeting
Type of Incident
Type of
Classification
Satisfying
(% of satisfying)
Dissatisfying
(% of dissatisfying)
Motivators
4
4
(67)
(36)
Hygienes
2
7
(33)
(64) .
Directors of Placement mentioned the motivators the
work itself (33%) and achievement (33%) as contributing to
their job satisfaction relating to this function. The
hygiene supervision-technical (33%) was also cited as con
tributing to job satisfaction. One Director of Placement
could not recall a satisfying incident related to this
job function.
In describing dissatisfying incidents, the Directors
of Placement mentioned the following hygienes as contributing

99
to job dissatisfaction: supervision-technical (18%),
salary (18%), interpersonal relationships (9%), and company
policy and administration (18%). The motivator achievement
(36%) was also cited as contributing to job dissatisfaction
related to this job function.
Overall contributions to satisfying incidents
The overall contribution of motivators and hygienes
to job satisfaction for Directors of Placement across all
six major job functions is summarized in Table 23. Moti
vators contributed 89.3% to satisfying incidents while
hygienes contributed 10.7%.
Overall, the motivators that contributed to job satis
faction were achievement (35.7%), work itself (21.4%),
recognition (21.4%), responsibility (5.4%), and the possi
bility of growth (1.8%). Respondents indicated that the
following hygienes also contributed to their job satisfaction
interpersonal relationships (5.4%), supervision-technical
(3.6%), and company policy and administration (1.8%).
The data in Table 23 were utilized to test the null
hypothesis:
5
H For the Directors of Placement, there is
no difference in the contribution of
motivators and hygienes to satisfying
situations associated with the major
job functions of the position.
These data indicate that motivators contributed more
than did hygienes to job satisfaction for the Directors
of Placement interviewed. The chi-square test revealed a
significant difference between the contributions of motivators

100
2
and hygienes (x =34.6, df=l, pc.05) causing the null hypothesis
to be rejected.
Table 23
Relative Contribution of Motivators and Hygienes
to Satisfying Incidents for Directors of
Placement Across Job Functions
Factor
Frequency
% of Total
(K=56)
Motivators
Achievement
20
35.7
Work Itself
12
21.4
Recognition
12
21.4
Responsibility
3
5.4
Possibility of Growth
3
50
5.4
89.3
Hygienes
Interpersonal Relationships
3
5.4
Supervision-Technical
2
3.5
Company Policy & Administration 1
~6
1.8
10.7
Total Motivators
50
89.3
Total Hygienes
6
10.7

101
Overall contributions to dissatisfying incidents
The overall contribution of motivators and hygienes to
job dissatisfaction for Directors of Placement across all
six major job functions is summarized in Table 24. Hygienes
contributed 52.2% while motivators contributed 47.8%.
The hygienes that contributed to job dissatisfaction
for the Directors of Placement were interpersonal relation
ships (19.6%), company policy and administration (17.4%),
supervision-technical (8.7%), salary (4.3%), and work
conditions (2.2%). The motivators achievement (30.4%),
the work itself (10.9%), and recognition (6.5%) were also
cited as contributing to job dissatisfaction.
The data in Table 24 were utilized to test the null
hypothesis:
6
H For the Directors of Placement, there is no
o
difference in the contribution of motivators
and hygienes to dissatisfying situations
associated with the major functions of the
position.
These data indicate that hygienes and motivators
contributed equally to the job dissatisfaction of the
Directors of Placement interviewed. The chi-square test
did not reveal a significant difference between the con-
2
tributions of hygienes and motivators (x =.087, df=l, p>.05).
Therefore, the null hypothesis is not rejected.

102
Table 24
Relative Contribution of Motivators and Hygienes
to Dissatisfying Incidents for Directors
of Placement Across Job Functions
Factor
Frequency
% of Total
(K=46)
Motivators
Achievement
14
30.4
Work Itself
5
10.9
Recognition
3
6.5
22
47.8
Hygienes
Interpersonal Relationships
9
19.6
Company Policy & Administration
8
17.4
Supervision-Technical
4
8.7
Salary
2
4.3
Work Conditions
1
2.2
24
52.2
Total
Motivators
22
47.
. 8
Total
Hygienes
24
52.
2

103
Comparisons Between Community
College and University Positions
Tables 25 to 30 compare the determinants of job
satisfaction and dissatisfaction for the Directors of
Admissions, Registrars, and Directors of Placement at the
community colleges with their counterparts at the universities.
Within this section, specific motivators and hygienes are
listed in order of frequency for each position. Results are
presented from data analyses which were used to test for
significant differences between each position at the two
types of institutions.
Determinants of job satisfaction:
community college Directors of Admissions
compared to university Directors of Admissions
The relative contribution of motivators and hygienes
to job satisfaction of community college Directors of
Admissions and university Directors of Admissions is sum
marized in Table 25. For the community college Directors
of Admissions, the motivators achievement, recognition,
the work itself, and the possibility of growth contributed
a total of 83.3% to their job satisfaction. The hygiene
interpersonal relationships contributed 16.7%. For the
university Directors of Admissions, the motivators achieve
ment, recognition, responsibility, the possibility of growth,
and the work itself contributed 87.8% to their job satisfaction.
The hygienes interpersonal relationships and work conditions
contributed 12.2%.

104
Table 25
Comparison of Motivators and Hygienes in the
Satisfying Incidents for Community College and
University Directors of Admissions
Type of Institution, Position
Type of Classification
Frequency
% Of
Group Total
Community College
Directors of Admissions

Motivators
10
83.3
Hygienes
2
16.7
University
Directors of Admissions
Motivators
29
87.8
Hygienes
4
12.2
The data in Table 25 were compared to test the null
hypothesis:
7
There is no difference in the contribution
of motivators and hygienes to satisfying
incidents associated with the major job
functions of the positions of community
college Directors of Admissions compared
to their university counterparts.
These data indicate no significant difference in the
contribution of motivators and hygienes to the job satis
faction of community college Directors of Admissions compared
to their university counterparts. The chi-square test

105
2
revealed no significant difference (x =.102, df=l, p>.05).
Therefore, the null hypothesis is not rejected.
Determinants of job dissatisfaction:
community college Directors of Admissions
compared to university Directors of Admissions
The relative contribution of motivators and hygienes
to the job dissatisfaction of community college Directors
of Admissions and university Directors of Admissions is
summarized in Table 26. For community college Directors
of Admissions, the hygienes interpersonal relationships,
company policy and administration, and supervision-technical
contributed 100% to their job dissatisfaction. No motivators
were cited. For the university Directors of Admissions, the
hygienes company policy and administration, interpersonal
relationships, supervision-technical, salary, and work con
ditions contributed 71.9% to their job dissatisfaction.
The motivators achievement and recognition contributed 28.1%.
The data in Table 26 were compared to test the null
hypothesis:
g
H There is no difference in the contribution
of motivators and hygienes to dissatisfying
incidents associated with the major job
functions of the positions of community
college Directors of Admissions compared to
their university counterparts.
These data indicate no significant difference in the
contribution of motivators and hygienes to the job dissatis
faction of community college Directors of Admissions compared
to their university counterparts. The chi-square test revealed
2
no significant difference (x =1.22, df=l, p>.05). Therefore,
the null hypothesis is not rejected.

106
Table 26
Comparison of Motivators and Hygienes in the
Dissatisfying Incidents for Community and
University Directors of Admissions
Type of Institution, Position
Type of Classification
% Of
Frequency Group Total
Community College
Directors of Admissions
Motivators
Hygienes
0 0
7 100
University
Directors of Admissions
Motivators
Hygienes
9 28.1
23 71.9
Determinants of job satisfaction:
community college Registrars
compared to university Registrars
The relative contribution of motivators and hygienes
to the job satisfaction of community college Registrars
and the university Registrars is summarized in Table 27.
For community college Registrars, the motivators achievement,
recognition, the possibility of growth, and responsibility
contributed 83.7% to their job satisfaction. The hygienes
interpersonal relationships, work conditions, and supervision-
technical contributed 16.3%. For the university Registrars,

107
the motivators achievement, recognition, the work itself,
and responsibility contributed 88.5% to their job satis
faction. The hygiene work conditions contributed 11.5%.
Table 27
Comparison of Motivators and Hygienes
in the Satisfying Incidents for Community
College and University Registrars
Type of Institution, Position
Type of Classification
% Of
Frequency Group Total
Community College Registrars
Motivators
Hygienes
36 83.7
7 16.3
University Registrars
Motivators
Hygienes
23 88.5
3 11.5
The data in Table 27 were compared to test the null
hypothesis:
9
H There is no difference in the contribution
of motivators and hygienes to satisfying
situations associated with the major job
functions of the positions of community
college Registrars compared to their
university counterparts.

108
These data indicate no significant difference in the
contribution of motivators and hygienes to the job satis
faction of community college Registrars compared to their
university counterparts. The chi-square test revealed no
2
significant difference (x =.035, df=l, p>.05). Therefore,
the null hypothesis is not rejected.
Determinants of job dissatisfaction:
community college Registrars
compared to university Registrars
The relative contribution of motivators and hygienes to
the job dissatisfaction of community college Registrars and
university Registrars is summarized in Table 28. For the
community college Registrars, the hygienes company policy and
administration, interpersonal relationships, salary, and
supervision-technical contributed 66% to their job dissatis
faction. The motivators achievement and recognition
contributed 33%. For the university Registrars, the hygienes
company policy and administration, interpersonal relationships,
and salary contributed 69.6% to their job dissatisfaction.
The motivators achievement and recognition contributed 30.4%.
The data in Table 28 were compared to test the null
hypothesis:
Hq10 There is no difference in the contribution
of motivators and hygienes to dissatisfying
incidents associated with the major job
functions of community college Registrars
compared to their university counterparts.
These data indicate no significant difference in the
contribution of motivators and hygienes to the job dissatis
faction of community college Registrars compared to their

109
university counterparts. The chi-square test revealed no
2
significant difference (x =.002, df=l, p>.05). Therefore,
the null hypothesis is not rejected.
Table 28
Comparison of Motivators and Hygienes
in the Dissatisfying Incidents for Community
College and University Registrars
Type of Institution, Position % Of
Type of Classification Frequency Group Total
Community College Registrars
Motivators
12
33
Hygienes
24
66
University Registrars
Motivators 7 30.4
Hygienes 16 69.6
Determinants of job satisfaction:
community college Directors of Placement
compared to university Directors of Placement
The relative contribution of motivators and hygienes
to the job satisfaction of community college Directors of
Placement and university Directors of Placement is summarized
in Table 29. For community college Directors of Placement,

110
the motivators achievement, the work itself, recognition,
and responsibility contributed 91% to their job satisfaction.
The hygienes interpersonal relationships and supervision-
technical contributed 9%. For university Directors of
Placement, the motivators achievement, recognition, and the
work itself contributed 93.3% to their job satisfaction. The
hygienes interpersonal relationships and supervision-technical
contributed 6.7%.
Table 29
Comparison of Motivators and Hygienes in
the Satisfying Incidents for Community
College and University Directors of Placement
Type of Institution, Position
Type of Classification Frequency
% Of
Group Total
Community College
Directors of Placement
Motivators 20 91
Hygienes 2 9
University
Directors of Placement
Motivators 28 93.3
Hygienes
2
6.7

Ill
The data in Table 29 were compared to test the null
hypothesis:
H ^ There is no difference in the contribution
of motivators and hygienes to satisfying
incidents associated with the major job
functions of community college Directors of
Placement compared to their university
counterparts.
These data indicate no significant difference in the
contribution of motivators and hygienes to the job satisfaction
of community college Directors of Placement compared to their
university counterparts. The chi-square test revealed no
2
significant difference (x =.041, df=l, p>.05). Therefore,
the null hypothesis is not rejected.
Determinants of job dissatisfaction:
community college Directors of Placement
compared to university Directors of Placement
The relative contribution of motivators and hygienes
to the job dissatisfaction of community college Directors
of Placement and university Directors of Placement is
summarized in Table 30. For community college Directors
of Placement, the hygienes interpersonal relationships and
company policy and administration contributed 53% to their
job dissatisfaction. The motivator achievement contributed
47%. For the university Directors of Placement, the hygienes
interpersonal relationships, supervision-technical, and
salary contributed 48.1% to their job dissatisfaction. The
motivators achievement and recognition contributed 51.9%.

112
Table 30
Comparison of Motivators and Hygienes in
the Dissatisfying Incidents for Community
College and University Directors of Placement
Type of Institution, Position
Type of Classification Frequency
% Of
Group Total
Community College
Directors of Placement
Motivators
8
47
Hygienes
9
53
University
Directors of Placement
Motivators
14
51.9
Hygienes
13
48.1
The data in Table 30 were compared to test the null
hypothesis:
12
Hq There is no difference in the contribution
of motivators and hygienes to dissatisfying
incidents associated with the major job
functions of the positions of community
college Directors of Placement compared to
their university counterparts.
These data indicate no significant difference in the
contribution of motivators and hygienes to the job dissatis
faction of community college Directors of Placement compared
to their university counterparts. The chi-square test revealed

113
no significant difference (x2=0,df=l, p>.05). Therefore,
the null hypothesis is not rejected.
Comparisons Among Positions
Tables 31 to 34 compare the determinants of job satis
faction and dissatisfaction among Directors of Admissions,
Registrars, and Directors of Placement at the same type of
institution. Results are presented from data analyses which
were used to test for significant differences among the
positions.
Determinants of job satisfaction:
community college positions compared
The relative contribution of motivators and hygienes to
job satisfaction for the three community college positions
is summarized in Table 31. For community college Directors
of Admissions, the motivators achievement, recognition, the
possibility of growth, and the work itself contributed 83.3%
to their job satisfaction. The hygiene interpersonal relation
ships contributed 16.7%. For the community college Registrars,
the motivators achievement, recognition, the possibility of
growth, and responsibility contributed 83.7% to their job
satisfaction. The hygienes interpersonal relationships,
work conditions, and supervision-technical contributed 16.3%.
For the community college Directors of Placement, the moti
vators achievement, the work itself, recognition, and responsi
bility contributed 91% to their job satisfaction. The hygienes
interpersonal relationships and supervision-technical con
tributed 9%.

114
Table 31
Comparison of Motivators and
Hygienes in the Satisfying Incidents
Among Community College Positions
Position % Of
Type of Classification Frequency Group Total
Community College
Directors of Admissions
Motivators 10 83.3
Hygienes 2 16.7
Community College
Registrars
Motivators 36 83.7
Hygienes 7 16.3
Community College
Directors of Placement
Motivators 20 91
Hygienes 2 9
The data in Table 31 were compared to test the null
hypothesis:
13
H For the three community college positions,
there is no difference in the contribution
of motivators and hygienes to satisfying
situations associated with the major job
functions of the positions.
These data indicate a significant difference in the
contribution of motivators and hygienes to the job satisfaction

115
among the three community college positions. The chi-square
2
test revealed a significant difference (x =39.62, df=2, p<.05)
causing the null hypothesis to be rejected.
Determinants of job dissatisfaction:
community college positions compared
The relative contribution of motivators and hygienes
to job dissatisfaction among the three community college
positions is summarized in Table 32. For community college
Directors of Admissions, the hygienes interpersonal relation
ships, company policy and administration, and supervision-
technical contributed 100% to their job dissatisfaction;
no motivators were cited. For the community college Regis
trars, the hygienes company policy and administration,
interpersonal relationships, salary, and supervision-technical
contributed 66% to their job dissatisfaction. The motivators
achievement and recognition contributed 33%. For the com
munity college Directors of Placement, the hygienes inter
personal relationships and company policy and administration
contributed 53% to their dissatisfaction. The motivator
achievement contributed 47%.
The data in Table 32 were compared to test the null
hypothesis:
14
For the three community college positions,
there is no difference in the contribution
of motivators and hygienes to dissatisfying
incidents associated with the major job
functions of the positions.
These data indicate a significant difference in the
contribution of motivators and hygienes to the job

116
Table 32
Comparison of Motivators and
Hygienes in Dissatisfying Incidents
Among Community College Positions
Position % Of
Type of Classification Frequency Group Total
Community College
Directors of Admissions
Motivators
0
0
Hygienes
7
100
Community College
Registrars
Motivators
12
33
Hygienes
24
66
Community College
Directors of Placement
Motivators
8
47
Hygienes
9
53
dissatisfaction among the three community college positions.
The chi-square test revealed a significant difference
2
(x =11.06, df=2, p<.05) causing the null hypothesis to be
rej ected.
Determinants of job satisfaction:
university positions compared
The relative contribution of motivators and hygienes to
job satisfaction among the three university positions is

117
summarized in Table 33. For university Directors of
Admissions, the motivators achievement, recognition, re
sponsibility, the possibility of growth, and the work itself
contributed 87.8% to their job satisfaction. The hygienes
interpersonal relationships and work conditions contributed
12.2%. For the university Registrars, the motivators achieve
ment, recognition, the work itself, and responsibility
contributed 88.5% to their job satisfaction. The hygiene
interpersonal relationships contributed 11.5%. For the
university Directors of Placement, the motivators achievement
recognition, and the work itself contributed 93.3% to their
job satisfaction. The hygienes interpersonal relationships
and supervision-technical contributed 6.7%.
The data in Table 33 were compared to test the null
hypothesis:
15
H For the three university positions, there
is no difference in the contribution of
motivators and hygienes to satisfying
situations associated with the major job
functions of the positions.
These data indicate a significant difference in the
contribution of motivators and hygienes to job satisfaction
among the three university positions. The chi-square test
2
revealed a significant difference (x =56.85, df=2, p<.05)
causing the null hypothesis to be rejected.
Determinants of job dissatisfaction:
university positions compared
The relative contribution of motivators and hygienes
to job dissatisfaction among the three university positions

118
Table 33
Comparison of Motivators and
Hygienes in the Satisfying
Incidents Among University Positions
Type
of
Institution, Position
% Of
Type
of
Classification
Frequency
Group Total
University
Directors of Admissions
Motivators 29 87.8
Hygienes 4 12.2
University Registrars
Motivators 23 88.5
Hygienes 3 11.5
University
Directors of Placement
Motivators 28 93.3
Hygienes 2 6.7
is summarized in Table 34. For university Directors of
Admissions, the hygienes company policy and administration,
interpersonal relationships, salary, supervision-technical,
and work conditions contributed 71.9% to their job dissatis
faction. The motivators achievement and recognition con
tributed 28.1%. For the university Registrars, the hygienes
company policy and administration, interpersonal relationships,

119
and salary contributed 69.6% to their job dissatisfaction.
The motivators achievement and recognition contributed 30.4%.
For the university Directors of Placement, the hygienes
interpersonal relationships, supervision-technical, and salary
contributed 48.1% to their job dissatisfaction. The motivators
achievement and recognition contributed 51.9%.
Table 34
Comparison of Motivators and
Hygienes in the Dissatisfying
Incidents Among University Positions
Institution, Position
Type of Classification
Frequency
% Of
Group Total
University
Directors of Admissions
Motivators
9
28.1
Hygienes
23
71.9
University Registrars
Motivators
7
30.4
Hygienes
16
69.6
University
Directors of Placement
Motivators
14
51.9
Hygienes
13
48.1

120
The data in Table 34 were compared to test the null
hypothesis:
16
H For the three university positions, there
is no difference in the contribution of
motivators and hygienes to dissatisfying
incidents associated with the major job
functions of the positions.
These data indicate a significant difference in the
contribution of motivators and hygienes to job dissatisfaction
among the university positions. The chi-square test re-
2
vealed a significant difference (x =9.68, df=2, p<.05)
causing the null hypothesis to be rejected.
Comparisons Between
Community College and University Groups
Tables 35 and 36 compare the determinants of job
satisfaction and dissatisfaction between the community
college sample as a group and the university sample as a
group. Results are presented from data analyses which were
used to test for significant differences between the groups.
Determinants of job satisfaction:
community college group
compared to university group
The relative contribution of motivators and hygienes to
job satisfaction for the community college administrators
as a group and the university administrators as a group is
presented in Table 35. For the community college adminis
trators as a group, motivators contributed 85.7% to their job
satisfaction and hygienes contributed 14.3%. For the
university administrators as a group, motivators contributed
89.9% to the job satisfaction and hygienes contributed 10.1%.

121
Table 35
Comparison of Motivators and Hygienes
in Satisfying Incidents for Community
College and University Groups
Institutions, Positions
Type of Classification
Frequency
% Of
Group Total
Community College
Directors of Admissions
Motivators
10
83.3
Hygienes
2
16.7
Registrars
Motivators
36
83.7
Hygienes
7
16.3
Directors of Placement
Motivators
20
91
Hygienes
2
9
Total Motivators
66
85.7
Total Hygienes
11
14.3
University
Directors of Admissions
Motivators
29
87.8
Hygienes
4
12.2
Registrars
Motivators
23
88.5
Hygienes
3
11.5
Directors of Placement
Motivators
28
93.3
Hygienes
2
6.7
Total Motivators
80
89.9
Total Hygienes
9
10.1

122
The data in Table 35 were compared to test the null
hypothesis:
17
H For the community college administrators
as a group compared to the university
administrators as a group, there is no
difference in the contribution of moti
vators and hygienes to satisfying situations
associated with the major job functions of
the positions.
These data do not indicate a significant difference in
the contribution of motivators and hygienes to the job sat
isfaction of the community college administrators as a group
compared to the university administrators as a group. The
chi-square test did not reveal a significant difference
2
(x =.342, df=2, p>.05). Therefore, the null hypothesis is
not rejected.
Determinants of job dissatisfaction:
community college group
compared to university group
The relative contribution of motivators and hygienes
to job dissatisfaction for the community college administrators
as a group and the university administrators as a group is
summarized in Table 36. For the community college adminis
trators as a group, hygienes contributed 67% to their job
dissatisfaction and motivators contributed 33%. For the
university administrators as a group, hygienes contributed
69.6% to their job satisfaction and motivators contributed
30.4%.

123
Table 36
Comparison of Motivators and Hygienes
in Dissatisfying Incidents for Community
College and University Groups
Institutions, Positions % Of
Type of Classification Frequency Group Total
Community College
Directors of Admissions
Motivators
0
0
Hygienes
7
100
Registrars
Motivators
12
33
Hygienes
24
66
Directors of Placement
Motivators
8
47
Hygienes
9
53
Total Motivators
20
33
Total Hygienes
40
67
University
Directors of Admissions
Motivators
Hygienes
Registrars
Motivators
Hygienes
Directors of Placement
Motivators
Hygienes
Total Motivators
9
28.1
23
71.9
7
30.4
16
69.6
14
51.9
13
48.1
30
36.6
52 63.4
Total Hygienes

124
The data in Table 36 were compared to test the null
hypothesis:
18
H For the community college administrators
as a group compared to the university
administrators as a group, there is no
difference in the contribution of motivators
and hygienes to dissatisfying situations
associated with the major job functions
of the positions.
These data indicate no significant difference in the
contribution of motivators and hygienes to the job dissatis
faction of the community college administrators as a group
compared to the university administrators as a group. The
chi-square test revealed no significant difference
2
(x =.050, df=1, p>.05). Therefore, the null hypothesis
is not rejected.
Discussion
The relative frequencies of Herzberg's six motivators
and eight hygienes identified from the respondent's descrip
tions of satisfying and dissatisfying incidents are summarized
by position in Tables 37 and 38. These data support Herzberg's
theory that motivators contribute more to job satisfaction
than do hygienes while hygienes contribute more than do
motivators to job dissatisfaction. In this study, motivators
appeared with greater frequency in the satisfying incidents
than did hygienes; hygienes appeared with greater frequency
in the dissatisfying incidents than did motivators.
For the three administrative positions in the community
college setting (see Table 35), motivators contributed
85.7% to job satisfaction while hygienes contributed 14.3%.

125
For the three administrative positions in the university
setting, motivators contributed 89.9% to job satisfaction
while hygienes contributed 10.1%. For the three adminis
trative positions in the community college setting (see
Table 36), hygienes contributed 67% to job dissatisfaction
while motivators contributed 33%. For the three adminis
trative positions in the university setting, hygienes
contributed 63.4% to job dissatisfaction while motivators
contributed 36.6%.
Although these data support Herzberg's theory, there
are idiosyncracies in the data that should be discussed.
The motivator achievement, which appeared in the majority
of the satisfied incidents, also appeared to a lesser degree
in the dissatisfied incidents. For the university Directors
of Admissions (see Table 37), the motivator achievement
appeared with almost equal frequency in satisfied as well as
dissatisfied incidents. This occurred in part due to
Herzberg's definition of achievement which also includes its
opposite, the failure to achieve or the absence of achievement.
A second idiosyncracy appears in the data for the community
college Directors of Placement (see Table 38). The hygiene
supervision-technical appeared with equal frequency in the
satisfying as well as the dissatisfying incidents for these
directors. A third idiosyncracy is that one motivator (the
possibility for advancement) and two hygienes (status and
job security) were not identified as contributing either to
job satisfaction or to job dissatisfaction. The motivators

Table 37
Frequency Distribution of Motivators
for Satisfying and Dissatisfying Incidents
Posit ions
Motivators
CC
Dir.
Adm.
CC
Regis.
CC
Dir.
Place.
Total
CC
Univ.
Dir.
Adm.
Uni v.
Regis.
Uni v.
Dir.
Place.
Total
Univ.
Total
Recognition
Satisfied
3
11
4
18
7
6
8
21
39
Dissatisfied
0
3
1
4
1
1
2
4
8
Achievement
Satisfied
4
20
8
32
12
13
12
37
69
Dissatisfied
0
4
4
8
8
3
10
21
29
Possibility of Growth
Satisfied
1
2
2
5
3
0
1
4
9
Dissatisfied
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
Possibility for Advancement
Satisfied
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
Dissatisfied
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
Responsibility
Satisfied
0
1
2
3
5
2
1
8
11
Dissatisfied
0
0
0
0
0
1
0
1
1
Work Itself
Satisfied
2
2
5
9
2
2
7
11
20
Dissatisfied
0
4
3
7
0
1
2
3
10
12G

Table 38
Frequency Distribution of Hygienes
for Satisfying and Dissatisfying Incidents
Positions
Hyienes
CC
Dir.
Adm.
CC
Regis.
CC
Dir.
Place.
Total
CC
Univ.
Dir.
Adm.
Un iv.
Regis.
Univ.
Dir.
Place.
Total
Univ.
Total
Interpersonal
Relationships
Satisfied
2
4
2
8
3
3
1
7
15
Dissatisfied
3
5
5
13
6
5
4
15
28
Salary
Satisfied
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
Dissatisfied
0
4
0
4
3
2
2
7
11
Supervision-Technical
Satisfied
0
0
1
1
0
0
1
1
2
Dissatisfied
1
3
1
5
3
1
2
6
11
Company Policy &
Administration
Satisfied
0
0
1
1
0
0
0
0
1
Dissatisfied
3
6
3
12
8
5
5
18
30
Work Conditions
Satisfied
0
1
0
1
1
0
0
1
2
Dissatisfied
0
3
0
3
2
2
1
5
8
Personal Life
Satisfied
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
to
o ^
Dissatisfied
0
1
0
1
1
0
0
1
2
127

Table 38 (continued)
128

129
achievement, recognition, and the work itself, and the hygiene
interpersonal relationships were cited the most often as
contributing to job satisfaction. The hygiene company policy
and administration, the motivator achievement (or its absence),
and the hygienes interpersonal relationships and work conditions
were cited the most often as contributors to job dissatisfaction.
There were several instances in which respondents could
not recall satisfying or dissatisfying incidents related to
specific job functions. The job functions for which no satis
fying incidents could be recalled by one or more respondents
were program planning and budgeting, professional and civic
activities, and responsibility for student enrollment and
records. The job functions for which one or more respondents
could not recall dissatisfying incidents were professional
and civic activities, counseling, program development and
budget planning, and registration. A total of six respondents
could not recall dissatisfying incidents related to professional
and civic activities. Two respondents could not recall satis
fying incidents related to program planning and budgeting.

CHAPTER V
SUMMARY, CONCLUSIONS, IMPLICATIONS,
AND RECOMMENDATIONS FOR FURTHER RESEARCH
The present study focused on the determinants of job
satisfaction and job dissatisfaction for selected mid-level
administrators in the three largest community colleges and
state universities in Florida. The mid-level administrative
positions studied were the Director of Admissions, the Regis
trar, and the Director of Placement at each institution.
The need for this study was demonstrated by a lack of
current data regarding the determinants of job satisfaction
and dissatisfaction for these positions which may be impacted
by fluctuating student enrollments in the 1980s. The present
study provided comparative data to prior research regarding
job determinants for educational personnel and identified, for
the selected sample, the job content and context factors which
contribute to job satisfaction and job dissatisfaction. In
addition, the present study provided implications for the role
of higher-level administrators regarding employee supervision
and personnel management.
The specific purposes of this study were to: (1) apply
Herzberg's Motivator-Hygiene theory to examine the job content
and context factors related to job attitudes for the community
college and university Directors of Admissions, Registrars, and
Directors of Placement; (2) identify specific motivators and
hygienes relevant to each administrative type; (3) verify
130

131
support for the application of Herzberg's theory to an educa
tional setting; and (4) compare the determinants of job
satisfaction and dissatisfaction among positions and across
institutions.
Data for the study were gathered from individual, semi-
structured interviews held at each institution. Respondents
were asked to recall incidents related to their major job
functions in which they felt exceptionally good or bad about
their job. Individual interview guides developed for each
position were used during the interviews (see Appendices A,
B, and C). The critical incidents described by the respondents
were recorded on the interview guides during the interview
process. '.These descriptions were later analyzed to identify
any of Herzberg's six motivators (achievement, recognition,
responsibility, the work itself, possibility of growth, and
advancement) or eight hygienes (company policy and administra
tion, interpersonal relationships, supervision-technical, work
conditions, salary, personal life, status, and job security)
that were applicable.
Frequency^distributions and percentages were computed for
the motivators and hygienes mentioned in the satisfying and
dissatisfying incidents. The chi-square test was used to
determine the presence of significant differences in the data
among the respondents. Eighteen hypotheses were tested for
significant differences at the .05 level of significance.
Major Findings
Results of the data analyses revealed the following major
findings related to the hypotheses of interest:

132
1. For each of the three administrative positions, in
both educational settings, motivators contributed
significantly more to job satisfaction than did
hygienes.
2. With the exception of the Directors of Placement,
hygienes contributed significantly more to job
dissatisfaction than did motivators for each of the
other two administrative positions in both educational
settings.
3. No significant difference was found between the
relative contributions of motivators and hygienes
to. job satisfaction and job dissatisfaction for the
community college positions compared to their univer
sity counterparts.
4. A significant
difference was found between the relative
contributions
of motivators and hygienes to job satis-
faction among
the community college positions.
5. A significant
difference was found between the relative
contributions
of motivators and hygienes to job dissatis
faction among
the community college positions.
6. A significant
difference was found between the relative
contributions
of motivators and hygienes to job satis-
faction among
the university positions.
7. A significant
difference was found between the relative
contributions of motivators and hygienes to job dis
satisfaction among the university positions.
8. No significant difference was found between the relative
contributions of motivators and hygienes to job

133
satisfaction and dissatisfaction for the community
college positions as a group compared to the univer
sity positions as a group.
Conclusions
Conclusions that can be drawn from this study are
that:
1. Herzberg's theory is applicable as a theoretical
framework to study the determinants of job satis
faction and dissatisfaction for community college
and state university Directors of Admissions, Regis
trars, and Directors of Placement in Florida. For
each of the positions studied, motivators contribute
significantly more to job satisfaction than do hygienes.
2. Hygienes generally contribute more to job dissatis
faction than do motivators for community college and
university Directors of Admissions, Registrars, and
Directors of Placement.
3. Across these three job positions, determinants of
job satisfaction include the following motivators,
in order of significance: achievement, recognition,
the work itself, responsibility, and the possibility
of growth.
4. For the community college administrators, the deter
minants of job satisfaction, in order of significance,
include the Diotivators achievement, the work itself,
recognition, the possibility of growth, and responsi
bility.

134
5. For the university administrators, the determinants
of job satisfaction, in order of significance, include
the motivators achievement, recognition, the work
itself, responsibility, and the possibility of growth.
6. Across the three positions, the determinants of job
dissatisfaction, in order of significance, include
the following motivators (M) and hygienes (H):
company policy and administration (H), achievement (M)
or its absence, interpersonal relationships (H), super
vision-technical (H), and salary (H).
7. For the community college administrators, the factors
that contribute to job dissatisfaction, in order of
significance, include interpersonal relationships (H),
company policy and administration (H), achievement (M),
the work itself (M), supervision-technical (H), salary
(H), and recognition (M).
8. For the university administrators, the determinants of
job dissatisfaction, in order of significance, include
achievement (M) or its absence, company policy and
administration (H), interpersonal relationships (H),
salary (H), supervision-technical (H), work conditions
(H), recognition (M), and the work itself (M).
9. There is no significant difference in the relative
contributions of motivators and hygienes to the job
satisfaction and job dissatisfaction between community
college and university mid-level administrators for
the positions studied.

135
10. There is a significant difference in the relative
contributions of motivators and hygienes to the job
satisfaction and job dissatisfaction among positions
at the same type of educational institution.
11. Community college and university Directors of Admis
sions, Registrars, and Directors of Placement in com
munity colleges and state universities in Florida are
typically promoted to their present positions from
within their same organization after a short time in
their prior positions.
Implications
The salient implications inherent in these findings are
that:
1. The opportunity to achieve individual and/or organiza
tional goals is a primary contributor to job satis
faction. Job functions for the mid-level administra
tors analyzed in the present study should be designed
to incorporate opportunities for achievement. For
example, job functions should be structured in a manner
that facilitates the successful application of existing
skills and/or the acquisition of new skills.
2. The specific factors related to job satisfaction and
job dissatisfaction can be determined for mid-level
college and university administrators. These determi
nants should then be utilized in the development of
personnel practices and policies.

136
3. The determinants of job satisfaction differ among
mid-level positions at community colleges and
universities. Programs designed to nurture job
satisfaction and preclude job dissatisfaction for
these administrators should not be applied globally;
different positions have different needs.
4. The type of institution does not appear to have a
significant effect on the determinants of job satis
faction and dissatisfaction for these positions.
This further supports the need to design working
parameters based on type of position rather than on
type of institution.
Recommendations for Further Research
The results of this study indicate a need for additional
research in the following areas:
1. A replication of the present study comparing the
determinants of job satisfaction and job dissatis
faction for the same or similar mid-level administra
tors in institutions of varying sizes to investigate
possible affects of institutional size on the deter
minants of job satisfaction and dissatisfaction.
2. A longitudinal study to apply Herzberg's theory to
mid-level administrators to determine whether the
relative importance or strength of motivators and
hygienes varies as a function of longevity in a
position.

137
3. A cross-sectional study to determine if there are
differences in the contribution of motivators and
hygienes to job satisfaction and job dissatisfaction
for mid-level administrators in educational settings
who have been in their positions for varying lengths
of time.
4. An examination of the specific job parameters that
can be manipulated to account for the presence of
motivators and hygienes in ways that will provide
increasing opportunities for satisfying incidents
and decreasing opportunities for dissatisfying incidents.

APPENDIX A
INTERVIEW GUIDE FOR
DIRECTOR OF ADMISSIONS
I.Personal Data
1. Name of institution:
2. Title of present position:
3. Length of time in present position:
4. Most-recent past position:
5. Length of time in past position:
6. Highest degree held:
7. Area of specialization:
II. Verification of Major Job Functions
The following tasks have been identified in the literature
as major responsibilities typical of the director of ad
missions in post-secondary educational institutions. Please
review them carefully, and, if there are others you wish to
add or some you wish to delete, do so. If you have any ques
tions, please ask.
1. Selection, supervision, coordination, and evaluation
of staff
2. Responsibility for the recruitment, selection, and
admission of undergraduates and/or graduate students
3. Participation in the development of admissions criteria
4. Professional and civic activities
5. Counseling and advising students, parents of students,
and other interested groups or individuals
6. Participation in program planning and budgeting
138

139
III. Satisfaction-Dissatisfaction
We are going to go down the same itemsone by one. I
will first ask you to describe a specific incident (a
particular experience you have had) when you felt ex
ceptionally good about your present job in a particular
task area (e.g., professional and civic activities).
Then I will ask you to describe an incident when you felt
exceptionally bad about your job in the same area. Please
try to recall such an incident, or if there has not been
one that really stands out as exceptionally good or bad,
please tell me. However, I would appreciate your utmost
cooperation in recalling as many of these events as you
can. All information will be kept confidential and you
will in no way be identified.
Incidents:
la. Selection, supervision, coordination, and evaluation of
staff (satisfying)
lb. same (dissatisfying)
2a. Responsibility for the recruitment, selection, and ad
mission of undergraduates and/or graduate students (satis
fying)
2b. same (dissatisfying)
3a. Participation in the development of admissions criteria
(satisfying)
3b. same (dissatisfying)
4a. Professional and civic activities (satisfying)
4b. same (dissatisfying)
5a. Counseling and advising students, parents of students, and
other interested groups or individuals (satisfying)
5b. same (dissatisfying)
6a. Participation in program planning and budgeting (satisfying)
6b. same (dissatisfying)

APPENDIX 13
INTERVIEW GUIDE FOR
REGISTRAR
I.Personal Data
1. Name of institution:
2. Title of present position:
3. Length of time in present position:
4. Most-recent past position:
5. Length of time in past position:
6. Highest degree held:
7. Area of specialization:
II. Verification of Major Job Functions
The following tasks have been identified in the literature
as major responsibilities typical of the registrar in post
secondary educational institutions. Please review them
carefully, and, if there are others you wish to add or
some you wish to delete, do so. If you have any questions
please ask.
1. Selection, supervision, coordination, and evaluation
of staff
2. Responsibility for student enrollment and records
3. Undergraduate and/or graduate registration; scheduling
of classes, examinatioas, and classroom facilities; and
maintenance of student records
4. Professional and civic activities
5. Counseling and advising students, parents of students,
and other interested groups or individuals
6. Participation in program planning and budgeting
140

14.1
III. Satisfaction-Dissatisfaction
We are going to go down the same itemsone by one. I
will first ask you to describe a specific incident (a
particular experience you have had) when you felt ex
ceptionally good about your present job in a particular
task area (e.g., professional and civic activities). Then
I will ask you to describe an incident when you felt ex
ceptionally bad about your job in the same area. Please
try to recall these events in as much detail as possible.
If it is impossible for you to recall such an incident,
or if there has not been one that really stands out as
exceptionally good or bad, please tell me. However, I
would appreciate your utmost cooperation in recalling as
many of these events as you can. All information will
be kept confidential and you will in no way be identified.
Incidents:
la. Selection, supervision, coordination, and evaluation of
staff (satisfying)
lb. same (dissatisfying)
2a. Responsibility for student enrollment and records
(satisfying)
2b. same (dissatisfying)
3a. Undergraduate and/or graduate registration; scheduling of
classes, examinations,and classroom facilities; and main
tenance of student records (satisfying)
3b. same (dissatisfying)
4a. Professional and civic activities (satisfying)
4b. same (dissatisfying)
5a. Counseling and advising students, parents of students, and
other interested groups or individuals (satisfying)
5b. same (dissatisfying)
6a. Participation in program planning and budgeting
(satisfying)
6b. same (dissatisfying)

APPENDIX C
INTERVIEW GUIDE FOR
DIRECTOR OF PLACEMENT
I.Personal Data
1. Name of institution:
2. Title of present position:
3. Length of time in present position:
4. Most-recent past position:
5. Length of time in past position:
6. Highest degree held:
7. Area of specialization:
II. Verification of Major Job Functions
The following tasks have been identified in the literature
as major responsibilities typical of the director of place
ment in post-secondary educational institutions. Please
review them carefully, and, if there are others you wish
to add or some you wish to delete, do so. If you have
any questions, please ask.
1. Selection, supervision, coordination, and evaluation
of staff
2. Supervision of on-campus recruiting activities by
prospective employers, and maintenance of related
files and records
3. Provision of job placement services to undergraduates,
graduate students, and alumni, which may include part-
time jobs within or outside the institution
4. Professional and civic activities
5. Counseling and advising students, parents of students,
and other interested groups or individuals
6. Participation in program planning and budgeting
142

143
III. Satisfaction-Dissatisfaction
We are going to go down the same itemsone by one. I
will first ask you to describe a specific incident (a
particular experience you have had) when you felt ex
ceptionally good about your present job in a particular
task area (e.g., professional and civic activities). Then
I will ask you to describe an incident when you felt ex
ceptionally bad about your job in the same area. Please
try to recall these events in as much detail as possible.
If it is impossible for you to recall such an incident,
or if there has not been one that really stands out as
exceptionally good or bad, please tell me. However, I
would appreciate your utmost cooperation in recalling as
many of these events as you can. All information will
be kept confidential and you will in no way be identified.
Incidents:
la. Selection, supervision, coordination, and evaluation
of staff (satisfying)
lb. same (dissatisfying)
2a. Supervision of on-campus recruiting activities by
prospective employers, and maintenance of related
files and records (satisfying)
2b. same (dissatisfying)
3a. Provision of job placement services to undergraduates,
graduate students, and alumni, which may include part-
time jobs within or outside the institution (satisfying)
3b. same (dissatisfying)
4a. Professional and civic activities (satisfying)
4b. same (dissatisfying)
5a. Counseling and advising students, parents of students,
and other interested groups or individuals (satisfying)
5b. same (dissatisfying)
6a. Participation in program planning and budgeting
(satisfying)
6b. same (dissatisfying)

APPENDIX D
VERIFICATION OF MAJOR JOB FUNCTIONS
DIRECTOR OF ADMISSIONS
1. Selection, supervision, coordination, and
evaluation of staff
2. Responsibility for the recruitment, selection,
and admission of undergraduates and/or graduate
students
3. Participation in the development of admissions
criteria
4. Professional and civic activities
5. Counseling and advising students, parents of students,
and other interested groups or individuals
6. Participation in program planning and budgeting
144

APPENDIX E
VERIFICATION OF MAJOR JOB FUNCTIONS
REGISTRAR
1. Selection, supervision, coordination, and evaluation
of staff
2. Responsibility for student enrollment and records
3. Undergraduate and/or graduate registration; scheduling
of classes, examinations, and classroom facilities;
and maintenance of student records
4. Professional and civic activities
5. Counseling and advising students, parents of students,
and other interested groups or individuals
6. Participation in program planning and budgeting
145

APPENDIX F
VERIFICATION OF MAJOR JOB FUNCTIONS
DIRECTOR OF PLACEMENT
1. Selection, supervision, coordination, and evaluation
of staff
2. Supervision of on-campus recruiting activities by
prospective employers, and maintenance of related
files and records
3. Provision of job placement services to undergraduates
graduate students, and alumni, which may include part
time jobs within or outside the institution
4. Professional and civic activities
5. Counseling and advising students, parents of students
and other interested groups or individuals
6. Participation in program planning and budgeting
140

REFERENCES
Aebi, C. J. The applicability of Herzberg's motivation-
hygiene theory to college administration as tested
by two different methodologies(Doctoral Dissertation,
Ohio University, 1972). Dissertation Abstracts Inter
nal ioriul i 97.';, 33, 3379A-3930 A.
Avakian, A. N. An analysis of factors relating to job satis
faction and dissatisfaction of faculty members in insti
tutions of higher education (Doctoral Dissertation, State
University of New York at Albany, 1971). Dissertation
Abstracts International, 1971, 32, 1765A.
Bishop, T. S. Factors affecting job satisfaction and job
dissatisfaction among Iowa public school teachers (Doc
toral Dissertation, University of Iowa, 1969). Disser
tation Abstracts International, 1970, 30, 3661A.
Bobbitt, II. R. & Behling, 0. Defense mechanisms as an alter
native explanation of Herzberg's motivator-hygiene results.
Journal of Applied Psychology, 1972, 56, 24-27. (a)
Bobbitt, H. R., Si Behling, 0. In "defense" of defense mechan
isms: A reply to Locke's comments. Journal of Applied
Psychology, 1972, 56, 299-300. (b)
Carey, D. E. Motivating and dissatisfying factors in a staff
of professional educators (Doctoral Dissertation, Univer
sity of Southern California, 1979). Dissertation Abstracts
International, 1979, 40, 3645A.
Centers, R., & Bugental, D. E. Intrinsic and extrinsic job
motivations among different segments of the working pop
ulation. Journal of Applied Psychology, 1966, 50, 193-197.
Chung, K. H. Motivational theories and practices. Columbus,
Ohio: Grid Inc., 1977.
Darrow, L. E. An empirical test of the Herzberg two-factor
theory of job satisfaction (Doctoral Dissertation, East
Texas State University, 1971). Dissertation Abstracts
International, 1972, 32, 6094B-6095B.
Dunnette, M. D., Campbell, J. P., & Ilakel, M. D. Factors con
tributing to job satisfaction and job dissatisfaction in
six occupational groups. Organizational Behavior and
Human Performance, 1967, 2, 143-174.
147

148
Ebeling, J., King, M., & Rogers, M. Hierarchical positions
in the work organization and job satisfaction: Findings
in a national survey data. Human Relations, 1979, 32,
387-393.
Ewen, R. B. Some determinants of job satisfaction: A study
of the generality of Herzberg's theory. Journal of
Applied Psychology. 1964, 48, 161-163.
Ewen, R. B., Smith, P. C., Hulin, C. L., & Locke, E. A. An
empirical test of the Herzberg two-factor theory. Jour
nal of Applied Psychology, 1966, 5C), 544-550.
Flanagan, J. C. The critical incident technique. Psycholog
ical Bulletin, 1954, 51, 327-358.
Friedlander, F. Job characteristics as satisfiers and dis-
satisfiers. Journal of Applied Psychology, 1964, 48,
388-392.
Gluskinos, U. M., & Wainer, A. A multidimensional analysis
of school satisfaction. American Educational Research
Journal. 1971, 8, 423-434.
Graen, G. B. Addendum to "an empirical test of the Herzberg
two-factor theory." Journal of Applied Psychology,
1966, 50, 551-555.
Grigaliunas, B., & Wiener, U. Has the research challenge to
motivation-hygiene theory been conclusive? An analysis
of critical studies. In F. Herzberg (Ed.) The managerial
choice: To be efficient and to be human. Homewood,
Illinois: Dow Jones-Irwin, 1976.
Groseth, R. S. An investigation of the motivator-hygiene
theory of job satisfaction among selected student affairs
administrators (Doctoral Dissertation, University of
Florida, 1978). Dissertation Abstracts International,
1978, 39, 1952A.
Halpern, G. Relative contributions of motivator and hygiene
factors to overall job satisfaction. Journal of Applied
Psychology, 1966, 50, 198-200.
Hazer, J. T. Job satisfaction: A possible integration to
two theories. Training and Development Journal, 1976,
30, 12-14.
Herzberg, F. One more time: How do you motivate employees?
Harvard Business Review, 1968, 46, 82-91. (5*^.kV)
Herzberg, F. The managerial choice: To be efficient and to
be human. Homewood, Illinois: Dow Jones-Irwin, 1976.

149
Herzberg, F., Mausner, B., Peterson, R. A., & Capwell, D. F.
Job attitudes: Review of research and opinion. Pitts
burgh, Pennsylvania: Psychological Services of Pitts
burgh, 1957.
Herzberg, F., Mausner, B., & Snyderman, B. The motivation to
work. New York: Wiley Press, 1959.
Hinrichs, J. R., & Mischkind, L. A. Empirical and theoretical
limitations of the two-factor hypothesis of job satis
faction. Journal of Applied Psychology, 1967, 51,
191-200.
Holland, J. G., & Skinner, B. F. The analysis of behavior.
New York: McGraw-Hill, 1961.
Hoppock, R. Job satisfaction. New York: Harper, 1935.
Jackson, D. R. A study of university administrators' percep
tions related to the factors of Herzberg's motivation-
hygiene theory (Doctoral Dissertation, Northern Illinois
University, 1974). Dissertation Abstracts International,
1975, 35, 7560A.
Jones, D. P., & Drews, T. H. A manual for budgeting and
accounting for manpower resources in postsecondary educa
tion. In A. Podolsky & C. R. Smith, Education directory,
colleges and universities 1977-1978. National Center for
Education Statistics. Washington, D. C.: U.S. Government
Printing Office, 1978.
Katz, R. The influence of job longevity on employee reactions
to task characteristics. Human Relations, 1978, 31,
703-725.
Kerlinger, F. N. Foundations of behavioral research. New
York: Holt, Rinehart, and Winston, Inc., 1973.
Kozal, A. P. An application of the reformulated (Herzberg)
theory of job satisfaction to selected administrative
affairs staff in the Florida State University System
(Doctoral Dissertation, University of Florida, 1979).
Dissertation Abstracts International, 1979, 40, 1788A.
Locke, E. A. What is job satisfaction? Speech presented at
the American Psychological Association Convention, San
Francisco, August 1968. (ERIC Document Reproduction
Service No. ED 023 138).
Locke, E. A. In "defense" of defense mechanism: Some comments
on Bobbitt and Behling. Journal of Applied Psychology,
1972, 56, 297-298.

150
Lyons, P. R. An application of the motivator-hygiene theory
to public junior college personnel (Doctoral Disserta
tion, University of Florida, 1970). Dissertation Ab
stracts International, 1971, 32, 131A.
Magoon, R. A., & James, A. Applicability of Herzberg's moti
vator-hygiene theory in studying academic motivation.
Community Junior College Research Quarterly, 1978, 3,
45-49.
Maslow, A. H. Motivation and personality. New York: Harper
Brothers, 1954.
Milliken, M. E. Some dimensions of student satisfaction and
dissatisfaction (Doctoral Dissertation, North Carolina
State University at Raleigh, 1969). Dissertation Abstracts
International, 1971, 31^, 5208A.
Norton, S. D., & Wims, E. W. A critical-incidents study of
the motivational effect of grades on college students.
Psychological Reports, 1974, 34, 735-745.
Ohanesian, D. C. The nature of job satisfaction among college
student personnel workers (Doctoral Dissertation, Univer
sity of Northern Colorado, 1974). Dissertation Abstracts
International, 1975, 3j5, 5793A.
Porter, L. W. A study of perceived need satisfactions in
bottom and middle management jobs. Journal of Applied
Psychology, 1961, 45, 1-10.
Ronen, S. Job satisfaction and the neglected variable of job
seniority. Human Relations, 1978, 31, 297-308.
Sanzotta, D. Motivational theories and applications for
managers. New York: AMACOM, 1977.
Scott, R. A. Beleaguered yeoman: Comments on the condition
of collegiate managers. College and University, 1979,
54, 89-95.
Siegel, S. Nonparametric statistics for the behavioral sciences.
New York: McGraw-Hill Book Company, Inc., 1956.
Skinner, B. F. About behaviorism. New York: Alfred A. Knopf.
1974.
Solimn, H. M. Motivation-hygiene theory of job attitudes:
An empirical investigation and an attempt to reconcile
both the one- and the two-factor theories of job attitudes.
Journal of Applied Psychology, 1970, 54, 452-461.

151
Szura, J. P., & Vermillion, M. E. Effects of defensiveness
and self actualization on a Herzberg replication. Journal
of Vocational Behavior, 1975, 7, 181-187.
Tannenbaum, A. S., & Kuleck, W. J. The effect on organization
members of discrepancy between perceived and preferred
rewards implicit in work. Human Relations, 1978, 31,
809-822.
Thomas, S. C. An application of Herzberg's two-factor theory
of job satisfaction to selected community college adminis
trative roles (Doctoral Dissertation, University of
Florida, 1977). Dissertation Abstracts International,
1977, 38, 3326A.
Turman, C. L. The application of Herzberg's motivator-hygiene
theory to adult educational programming (Doctoral Disser
tation, George Washington University, 1976). Dissertation
Abstracts International, 1977, 37_, 5535A.
Vroom, V. H. Work and motivation. New York: Wiley, 1964.
Walsh, J. M. Herzberg's two-factor motivation theory applied
to a college undergraduate population (Doctoral Disserta
tion, Texas A & M University, 1971). Dissertation
Abstracts International, 1971, 32, 1406A.
Whitsett, D. A., & Winslow, E. K. An analysis of studies
critical of the motivator-hygiene theory. In F. Herzberg
(Ed.) The managerial choice: To be efficient and to
be human. Homewood, Illinois: Dow Jones-Irwin, 1976.
Wood, D. A., & LeBold, W. K. The multivariate nature of pro
fessional job satisfaction. Paper presented at the annual
conference of the Indiana Manpower Research Association,
Lafayette, Indiana, November 1967. (ERIC Document Repro
duction Service No. ED 023 578).
Yoder, D. ASPA handbook of personnel and industrial relations:
Official handbook of the American Society for Personnel
Administration. Dale Yoder & Herbert G. Henemann (Eds.).
Washington: Bureau of National Affairs, 1975.

BIOGRAPHICAL SKETCH
Russell K. Burr was born in New York City and was reared
in Miami, Florida. He received his A.A. from Miami-Dade
Community College in 1965, his B.A. in psychology from the
University of South Florida in 1972, and his M.A. in guidance
and counseling from the University of South Florida in 1976.
His work experience has included service in the United
States Air Force from 1966-1970 where he travelled extensively
throughout the United States and the world while working on
the Apollo projects. He served as a Research Associate with
the Greater Tampa Alcohol Safety Action Project in 1972. He
then began working for the University of South Florida where
he served as the Veterans' Admissions Counselor in 1973, the
Director of the Office of Veterans' Affairs for the St. Peters
burg Campus in 1974, and as an Associate Director of Student
Affairs for the Regional Campuses from 1975-1978.
Since entering the doctoral program in Educational admini
stration in higher education at the University of Florida in
1978, he has been serving as a Graduate Teaching Assistant at
the English Language Institute teaching English as a Second
Language to international students. He has been awarded two
Certificates of Recognition from the International Student
Center at UF for his volunteer work with international students.
152

I certify that I have read this study and that in my
opinion it conforms to acceptable standards of scholarly
presentation and is fully adequate, in scope and quality,
as a dissertation for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy.
,/Chai
rJames L. Wattenbarger,/Chairman
Professor of Educational Admin
istration and Supervision
I certify that I have read this study and that in my
opinion it conforms to acceptable standards of scholarly
presentation and is fully adequate, in scope and quality,
as a dissertation for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy.
Robert 0. Stripling, llistinguished
Service Professor of Counselor
Education
I certify that I have read this study and that in my
opinion it conforms to acceptable standards of scholarly
presentation and is fully adequate, in scope and quality,
as a dissertation for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy.
C. Arthur Sandeen, Professor of
Educational Administration and
Supervision

This dissertation was submitted to the Graduate Faculty of
the Department of Educational Administration and Supervision
in the College of Education and to the Graduate Council, and
was accepted as partial fulfillment of the requirements for
the degree of Doctor of Philosophy.
August 1980
Dean, Graduate School



TABLE OF CONTENTS
Page
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS iii
LIST OF TABLES vii
ABSTRACT xi
CHAPTER
I INTRODUCTION 1
The Research Objectives 4
Hypotheses 5
Justification 10
Definition of Terms 11
Organization of Subsequent Chapters 13
II REVIEW OF LITERATURE 14
Traditional TheoryHoppock's (1935) Theory.... 14
Herzberg's (M-II) Theory 18
Analysis of Research Related to Herzberg's
(M-H) Theory 32
Major Criticisms of Herzberg's Theory 37
Two Alternative Theories of Motivation
Related to Job Satisfaction 40
The Application of Herzberg's Theory to
Individuals in Educational Settings 49
Summary 56
III METHODOLOGY 58
Selection of Sample 58
Instrumentation 59
Data Collection 59
Data Analysis 60
Assumptions 61
Delimitations and Limitations 61
IV


12
Director of Placement. Directs the operation of a student
placement office to provide job placement and career counseling
services to undergraduates, graduates, and alumni. Supervises
on-campus recruiting activities by prospective employers, and
the maintenance of related files and records. May also be re
sponsible for the placement of students in part-time jobs within
or outside the institution. Usually reports to the Chief Stu
dent Life Officer.
Factors. Any of six motivators or eight hygienes of
described job facets which may contribute to job satisfaction
or dissatisfaction as developed by Herzberg et al. (1959).
Hygienes. Components of the job situation which lead to
job dissatisfaction such as company policy and administration,
supervision, interpersonal relationships, status, job security,
salary, and working conditions.
Major job functions. Those duties of each position iden
tified by Jones and Drews (1978) as being the most common and
constituting the major work-load of the position.
Motivators. Components of the job situation which lead
to job satisfaction such as achievement, responsibility, the
possibility of growth or advancement, and the work itself.
Registrar. The administrative official with principal
responsibility for student enrollment and records. Functions
typically include undergraduate registration; scheduling of
classes, examinations and classroom facilities; maintenance
of student records and related matters. Usually reports to
the Chief Academic Officer.


8
community college Directors of Admissions com
pared to their university counterparts.
O
Hq There is no difference in the contribution of
motivators and hygienes to dissatisfying situations
associated with the major job functions of the po
sitions of community college Directors of Admissions
compared to their university counterparts.
Hq9 There is no difference in the contribution of
motivators and hygienes to satisfying situations
associated with the major job functions of the
positions of community college Registrars compared
to their university counterparts.
Hq^9 There is no difference in the contribution of
motivators and hygienes to dissatisfying situa
tions associated with the major job functions of
the positions of community college Registrars
compared to their university counterparts.
HqH There is no difference in the contribution of
motivators and hygienes to satisfying situations
associated with the major job functions of the
positions of community college Directors of Place
ment compared to their university counterparts.
Hq There is no difference in the contribution of
motivators and hygienes to dissatisfying situations
associated with the major job functions of the po
sitions of community college Directors of Placement
compared to their university counterparts.


37
2. their a priori assumption of the validity of Herzberg's
categorization system;
3. the lack of evidence regarding how their subjects per
ceived the questionnaire task; and
4. the failure to integrate their results with previous
findings on the subject of defensiveness. (Locke, 1972,
p. 297)
Bobbitt and Behling defended their study by explaining that
1. they had recognized that Herzberg's definition is
idiosyncratic but pointed out the need for further
research based on the definition of defense preferred
by Locke;
2. Herzberg's methodology is adequate until an alterna
tive methodology that explains Herzberg's results can
be identified;
3. the subjects did interpret the experimental and control
conditions as providing varying opportunities to look
good; and
4. the failure to integrate their results with previous
findings on the subject of defensiveness is a func
tion of the differences between the two definitions
of defense mechanisms. (1972b, pp. 299-300)
Major Criticisms of Herzberg's Theory
It is difficult to draw definitive conclusions based on
prior research which sometimes supports, partially supports, or
fails to support Herzberg's theory. However, Aebi (1973) found
Herzberg's theory to be supported by the majority of 156 studies
of job satisfaction that he reviewed. Due to its non-traditional
nature and inconclusive results from the research findings, Herz
berg's theory has generated many criticisms.
Initially, Herzberg's theory was criticized because of the
narrow range of jobs investigated, the use of only one measure
of job attitudes, the absence of validity and reliability data,
and the absence of any measure of overall job satisfaction (Ewen,
1964). Due to the number of studies that have since replicated


ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
As is true for most complex endeavors, the completion of
this study reflects the contributions of many individuals.
Grateful appreciation is expressed to the members of my com
mittee, Dr. James L. Wattenbarger (Chairman), Dr. Robert 0.
Stripling, and Dr. C. Arthur Sandeen, for their continuous
support, guidance, and encouragement.
I am indebted to Dr. Max Dertke, Dr. Charles Hewitt,
Dr. Larry Scott, and Linda Erikson for their empathy and
understanding. I would like to express my sincere appre
ciation to Marie Dence, Dr. Edward S. Blankenship, and Dr.
David Harrison who provided moral support throughout the
entire process. I would also like to thank Mrs. Connie
Stepp for her stalwart efforts and those dedicated profes
sionals who agreed to participate in this study.
iii


107
the motivators achievement, recognition, the work itself,
and responsibility contributed 88.5% to their job satis
faction. The hygiene work conditions contributed 11.5%.
Table 27
Comparison of Motivators and Hygienes
in the Satisfying Incidents for Community
College and University Registrars
Type of Institution, Position
Type of Classification
% Of
Frequency Group Total
Community College Registrars
Motivators
Hygienes
36 83.7
7 16.3
University Registrars
Motivators
Hygienes
23 88.5
3 11.5
The data in Table 27 were compared to test the null
hypothesis:
9
H There is no difference in the contribution
of motivators and hygienes to satisfying
situations associated with the major job
functions of the positions of community
college Registrars compared to their
university counterparts.


satisfaction include achievement, recognition, the work itself,
responsibility, advancement, and the possibility of personal
growth. The job context factors (hygienes) related to job
dissatisfaction include salary, interpersonal relationships,
supervision-technical, company policy and administration,
work conditions, personal life, status, and job security.
Four Directors of Admissions, eight Registrars, and five
Directors of Placement were interviewed at three Florida com
munity colleges and three universities in Florida's State Uni
versity System (SUS). These positions were selected because
they exemplify mid-level administrative positions in an educa
tional setting.
The researcher conducted semi-structured interviews with
the respondents in which they were asked to recall and describe
incidents in which they felt exceptionally good or bad about
their job related to specific job functions. During the inter
views, the researcher recorded on the interview guides the
respondent's verbal descriptions of the satisfying and dissatis
fying incidents. Following the interviews, the verbal descrip
tions of the critical incidents were coded as having been influ
enced by one of the six motivators or eight hygienes. More
than one factor was assigned to a critical incident if appropri
ate.
Frequency distributions and percentages were computed for
the motivators and hygienes mentioned in the satisfying and
dissatisfying incidents-. The chi-square statistic was used to
test 18 hypotheses for the presence of significant differences
xii


150
Lyons, P. R. An application of the motivator-hygiene theory
to public junior college personnel (Doctoral Disserta
tion, University of Florida, 1970). Dissertation Ab
stracts International, 1971, 32, 131A.
Magoon, R. A., & James, A. Applicability of Herzberg's moti
vator-hygiene theory in studying academic motivation.
Community Junior College Research Quarterly, 1978, 3,
45-49.
Maslow, A. H. Motivation and personality. New York: Harper
Brothers, 1954.
Milliken, M. E. Some dimensions of student satisfaction and
dissatisfaction (Doctoral Dissertation, North Carolina
State University at Raleigh, 1969). Dissertation Abstracts
International, 1971, 31^, 5208A.
Norton, S. D., & Wims, E. W. A critical-incidents study of
the motivational effect of grades on college students.
Psychological Reports, 1974, 34, 735-745.
Ohanesian, D. C. The nature of job satisfaction among college
student personnel workers (Doctoral Dissertation, Univer
sity of Northern Colorado, 1974). Dissertation Abstracts
International, 1975, 3j5, 5793A.
Porter, L. W. A study of perceived need satisfactions in
bottom and middle management jobs. Journal of Applied
Psychology, 1961, 45, 1-10.
Ronen, S. Job satisfaction and the neglected variable of job
seniority. Human Relations, 1978, 31, 297-308.
Sanzotta, D. Motivational theories and applications for
managers. New York: AMACOM, 1977.
Scott, R. A. Beleaguered yeoman: Comments on the condition
of collegiate managers. College and University, 1979,
54, 89-95.
Siegel, S. Nonparametric statistics for the behavioral sciences.
New York: McGraw-Hill Book Company, Inc., 1956.
Skinner, B. F. About behaviorism. New York: Alfred A. Knopf.
1974.
Solimn, H. M. Motivation-hygiene theory of job attitudes:
An empirical investigation and an attempt to reconcile
both the one- and the two-factor theories of job attitudes.
Journal of Applied Psychology, 1970, 54, 452-461.


23
1. long duration of feelings from high long-range
sequences, high short-range sequences;
2. long duration of feelings from low long-range
sequences, low short-range sequences;
3. short duration of feelings from high short-range
sequences; and
4. short duration of feelings from low short-range
sequences. (Herzberg et al., 1959, p. 43)
The two fundamental hypotheses tested by Herzberg et al.
in their 1959 study were that:
1. factors leading to positive attitudes and those
leading to negative attitudes would differ, and
2. the factors and effects involved in long-range
sequences of events would differ from those in
short-range sequences, (p. 29)
Specifically, Herzberg et al. wanted to identify the
relationships among the variables that they defined as "first-
level factors," "second-level factors," and "effects" (Herz
berg et al., 1959, p. 28). They based their selection of
variables on the following criteria:
1. First-level factors: a description of the objective
occurrences during the sequence of events, with
special emphasis on those identified by the respon
dent as being related to his attitudes. Example: a
promotion.
2. Second-level factors: these categorize the reasons
given by the respondents for their feelings; they
may be used as a basis for inferences about the
drives or needs which are met or which fail to be
met during the sequence of events. Example: a
respondent's answer, "I felt good because the promo
tion meant I was being recognized."


123
Table 36
Comparison of Motivators and Hygienes
in Dissatisfying Incidents for Community
College and University Groups
Institutions, Positions % Of
Type of Classification Frequency Group Total
Community College
Directors of Admissions
Motivators
0
0
Hygienes
7
100
Registrars
Motivators
12
33
Hygienes
24
66
Directors of Placement
Motivators
8
47
Hygienes
9
53
Total Motivators
20
33
Total Hygienes
40
67
University
Directors of Admissions
Motivators
Hygienes
Registrars
Motivators
Hygienes
Directors of Placement
Motivators
Hygienes
Total Motivators
9
28.1
23
71.9
7
30.4
16
69.6
14
51.9
13
48.1
30
36.6
52 63.4
Total Hygienes


151
Szura, J. P., & Vermillion, M. E. Effects of defensiveness
and self actualization on a Herzberg replication. Journal
of Vocational Behavior, 1975, 7, 181-187.
Tannenbaum, A. S., & Kuleck, W. J. The effect on organization
members of discrepancy between perceived and preferred
rewards implicit in work. Human Relations, 1978, 31,
809-822.
Thomas, S. C. An application of Herzberg's two-factor theory
of job satisfaction to selected community college adminis
trative roles (Doctoral Dissertation, University of
Florida, 1977). Dissertation Abstracts International,
1977, 38, 3326A.
Turman, C. L. The application of Herzberg's motivator-hygiene
theory to adult educational programming (Doctoral Disser
tation, George Washington University, 1976). Dissertation
Abstracts International, 1977, 37_, 5535A.
Vroom, V. H. Work and motivation. New York: Wiley, 1964.
Walsh, J. M. Herzberg's two-factor motivation theory applied
to a college undergraduate population (Doctoral Disserta
tion, Texas A & M University, 1971). Dissertation
Abstracts International, 1971, 32, 1406A.
Whitsett, D. A., & Winslow, E. K. An analysis of studies
critical of the motivator-hygiene theory. In F. Herzberg
(Ed.) The managerial choice: To be efficient and to
be human. Homewood, Illinois: Dow Jones-Irwin, 1976.
Wood, D. A., & LeBold, W. K. The multivariate nature of pro
fessional job satisfaction. Paper presented at the annual
conference of the Indiana Manpower Research Association,
Lafayette, Indiana, November 1967. (ERIC Document Repro
duction Service No. ED 023 578).
Yoder, D. ASPA handbook of personnel and industrial relations:
Official handbook of the American Society for Personnel
Administration. Dale Yoder & Herbert G. Henemann (Eds.).
Washington: Bureau of National Affairs, 1975.


30
mentioned by respondents in terms of job satisfaction. To il
lustrate, the job factor achievement (a motivators) was charac
terized in 41% of the 1,753 events on the job that led to
extreme satisfaction. However, the same factor was also
characterized in 11% of the 1,844 events on the job that led
to extreme dissatisfaction. >-The job factor salary, which is
categorized as a hygiene, is paradoxical because it was
mentioned by respondents with approximately the same frequency
in critical incidents related to job satisfaction as it was
mentioned relative to job dissatisfaction. Upon closer
examination, Herzberg et al. explained that salary sometimes
was found to contribute to job satisfaction because salary often
accompanied a person's achievement or was related to recognition
(Herzberg et al., 1959, p. 83). On the other hand, when salary
was mentioned by the respondents in terms of job dissatisfaction,
salary was related to company policy and administration. This
occurred primarily when the respondents believed that increases
in salary were not administered properly.
Herzberg's analysis of these 12 investigations further dem
onstrated that the respondents' feelings of job satisfaction
could be attributed to the job content factors (motivators),
which include achievement, recognition, the work itself, respon
sibility, advancement, and growth. The respondents' feelings of
job dissatisfaction could be attributed to the job context factors
(hygienes) which include company policy and administration, super
vision, relationships with supervisors, working conditions, salary,
relationships with peers, personal life, relationships with sub
ordinates, status, and job security (Herzberg, 1968, p. 57).


113
no significant difference (x2=0,df=l, p>.05). Therefore,
the null hypothesis is not rejected.
Comparisons Among Positions
Tables 31 to 34 compare the determinants of job satis
faction and dissatisfaction among Directors of Admissions,
Registrars, and Directors of Placement at the same type of
institution. Results are presented from data analyses which
were used to test for significant differences among the
positions.
Determinants of job satisfaction:
community college positions compared
The relative contribution of motivators and hygienes to
job satisfaction for the three community college positions
is summarized in Table 31. For community college Directors
of Admissions, the motivators achievement, recognition, the
possibility of growth, and the work itself contributed 83.3%
to their job satisfaction. The hygiene interpersonal relation
ships contributed 16.7%. For the community college Registrars,
the motivators achievement, recognition, the possibility of
growth, and responsibility contributed 83.7% to their job
satisfaction. The hygienes interpersonal relationships,
work conditions, and supervision-technical contributed 16.3%.
For the community college Directors of Placement, the moti
vators achievement, the work itself, recognition, and responsi
bility contributed 91% to their job satisfaction. The hygienes
interpersonal relationships and supervision-technical con
tributed 9%.


136
3. The determinants of job satisfaction differ among
mid-level positions at community colleges and
universities. Programs designed to nurture job
satisfaction and preclude job dissatisfaction for
these administrators should not be applied globally;
different positions have different needs.
4. The type of institution does not appear to have a
significant effect on the determinants of job satis
faction and dissatisfaction for these positions.
This further supports the need to design working
parameters based on type of position rather than on
type of institution.
Recommendations for Further Research
The results of this study indicate a need for additional
research in the following areas:
1. A replication of the present study comparing the
determinants of job satisfaction and job dissatis
faction for the same or similar mid-level administra
tors in institutions of varying sizes to investigate
possible affects of institutional size on the deter
minants of job satisfaction and dissatisfaction.
2. A longitudinal study to apply Herzberg's theory to
mid-level administrators to determine whether the
relative importance or strength of motivators and
hygienes varies as a function of longevity in a
position.


134
5. For the university administrators, the determinants
of job satisfaction, in order of significance, include
the motivators achievement, recognition, the work
itself, responsibility, and the possibility of growth.
6. Across the three positions, the determinants of job
dissatisfaction, in order of significance, include
the following motivators (M) and hygienes (H):
company policy and administration (H), achievement (M)
or its absence, interpersonal relationships (H), super
vision-technical (H), and salary (H).
7. For the community college administrators, the factors
that contribute to job dissatisfaction, in order of
significance, include interpersonal relationships (H),
company policy and administration (H), achievement (M),
the work itself (M), supervision-technical (H), salary
(H), and recognition (M).
8. For the university administrators, the determinants of
job dissatisfaction, in order of significance, include
achievement (M) or its absence, company policy and
administration (H), interpersonal relationships (H),
salary (H), supervision-technical (H), work conditions
(H), recognition (M), and the work itself (M).
9. There is no significant difference in the relative
contributions of motivators and hygienes to the job
satisfaction and job dissatisfaction between community
college and university mid-level administrators for
the positions studied.