Citation
An application of the reformulated +Herzberg) theory of job satisfaction to selected administrative affairs staff in the Florida State University System /

Material Information

Title:
An application of the reformulated +Herzberg) theory of job satisfaction to selected administrative affairs staff in the Florida State University System /
Added title page title:
Application of the reformulated +Herzberg) theory of job satisfaction ..
Creator:
Kozal, Albert Phillip, 1942-
Publication Date:
Copyright Date:
1979
Language:
English
Physical Description:
xv, 260 leaves : ; 28 cm.

Subjects

Subjects / Keywords:
Administrator guides ( jstor )
Data security ( jstor )
Employee motivation ( jstor )
Human resources management ( jstor )
Job satisfaction ( jstor )
Motivation research ( jstor )
Salary administration ( jstor )
Security guards ( jstor )
Support personnel ( jstor )
University administration ( jstor )
Dissertations, Academic -- Educational Administration and Supervision -- UF ( lcsh )
Educational Administration and Supervision thesis Ph. D ( lcsh )
Job satisfaction -- Florida ( lcsh )
City of Tallahassee ( local )
Genre:
bibliography ( marcgt )
non-fiction ( marcgt )

Notes

Thesis:
Thesis--University of Florida.
Bibliography:
Bibliography: leaves 252-259.
General Note:
Typescript.
General Note:
Vita.
Statement of Responsibility:
by Albert Phillip Kozal.

Record Information

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:
023028553 ( AlephBibNum )
05623437 ( OCLC )
AAK3624 ( NOTIS )

Downloads

This item has the following downloads:


Full Text












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








By


ALBERT PHILLIP KOZAL


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









UNIVERSITY OF FLORIDA


1979





























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















ACKNOWLEDGMENTS


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

preciation to the following individuals who assisted me with

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

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

without whose support and guidance this publication would not

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

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

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

assistance in this endeavor.

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

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

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

al?.ays be appreciated.

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

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

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

the lonely evenings and fatherless weekends.

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

answering my prayers.
















Table of Contents


Page

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

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

LIST OF FIGURES . . . . . xi

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



CHAPTER

I INTRODUCTION . . . . . . . 1

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


II REVIEW OF THE LITERATURE . . . . . 35

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










CHAPTER


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


III PRESENTATION OF DATA .....


. . . 69


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


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

. . . 84

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

. . . 96

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

. . . 109

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

. . 121

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

. . . . 134

. . . 136
. . . 139


Page










CHAPTER

IV DATA ANALYSIS AND DISCUSSION


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


pothesos .


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

. .


Discussion of Data to Related Research . .


V SI1UMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS . . . . . .

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


Page

. . . 157


APPENDICES


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


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

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


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


197

197
199
203
210















List of Tables


Table Page

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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











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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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


viii


Table


Page











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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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


Page


Table











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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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


Table


Page
















List of Figures


Figure Page

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

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

3 Lawler's Model of Job Satisfaction . . 45

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

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

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









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


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


By

Albert Phillip Kozal

March 1979

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


The focus of the current investigation was twofold:

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

lated (Herzberg) Theory to selected administrative affairs

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

the applicability of the Reformulated Theory in examining

job sa-isfaction and dissatisfaction associated with the ma-

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

curity and safety, director of personnel relations, director

of physical plant, and university controller.

The Reformulated Theory is based on the belief that

there are three distinct groups of factors which contribute

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

tiort: motivators, hygienes, and ambients. Motivators are

associated with job satisfaction and include achievement,

reccgniion, advanctnment, responsibility, and work itself.

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

job dissatisfaction and include supervision-technical,










interpersonal relations, company policy and administration,

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

ents, the most recently established classification, are those

factors which occur with equal frequency in satisfying as

well as dissatisfying job incidents. Factors included in

this classification are salary, status, growth possibility,

risk opportunity, and relationship with superordinates.

Twenty-five administrators in the Florida State Univer-

sity System, five in each of the aforementioned positions,

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

terview guides. Each guide consisted of demographic ques-

tions, a list of the major job responsibilities associated

with the position, and two questions concerning specific

overall job satisfaction/dissatisfaction. Using a modifica-

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

searcher asked each administrator to recall two experiences

related to each of the major job tasks associated with his

or her present position. The first experience requested of

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

tremely satisfied about a particular task area; the second,

a time when he or she felt extremely dissatisfied.

The critical aicidents were classified into one of Hoy's

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

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

dAta using Chi-square and a computer software program called

the "Probable Impact Exploration System."


xiii









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

data were found to support the motivator and hygiene ele-

ments of the theory. Motivators were found to be associated

more frequently with job satisfaction than hygienes or ambi-

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

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

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

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

lowed by responsibility and recognition. Work itself was

the only motivator found not to be associated more fre-

quenzly with job satisfaction.

Hygienes were associated more frequently with job di s-

satisfaction than motivators or ambients. For the 245 fac-

tors used to classify the dissatisfying incidents, 137 were

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

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

scnal relations were the most frequently mentioned hygienes.

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

more frequently in dissatisfying than in satisfying inci-

dents with two exceptions, personal life and job security.

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

tablished classificaLion, ambients, did not prove accurate.

Of the 494 factors used to classify the critical incidents

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

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

Th:rc: were considerable di ffrences noted between the

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









bygienes, or ambients which occurred in satisfying and dis-

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

to previous studies utilizing Herzberg's Two-Factor Theory

is also presented.
















CHAPTER I


INTRODUCTION


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

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

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

TOe.formirnce wcas the major dependent variable studied

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

dustry being directed toward maximizing worker output.

Elton Mayo and M ry ParKer Follett are the two individuals

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

inistrat ive theory. According to Kimbrough and Nunnery

(1976 rhec.rists of the period promoted the following

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

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

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

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

participation, and reason.

Research concerned explicitly with the study of job

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

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

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

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

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









survival was dependent upon what he called "effectiveness"

and "efficiency." Effectiveness was defined as the extent

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

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

individual's needs are satisfied. Barnard suggested that

an individual would remain with an organization only as

-crg as he was deriving sufficient satisfaction from his

involvement,

Roethlisberger and Dickson (1939) created new inter-

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

Hawthorne research in Management and the Worker. At the

Hawthorne Plant near Chicago a series of experiments were

conducted in the WesternElectric Company to determine the

effects of the physical environment upon productivity,

The results of these studies proved inconclusive, but in-

dicated that the problem was a socio-psychological one and

promoted interest in another series of experiments: The

new studiie-, conducted between 1928 and 1933, identified

the importance of informal group relations within the for-

rzi.l oirga.iz.itional structure.

Shortly after the completion of the Hawthorne Studies

irdus'trjal psychologists began focusing their attention on

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

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

the Amtrcrican Psychological Association, reported that be-

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

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










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

fortunately, despite the tremendous interest that has been

devoted to the study of job satisfaction, our understanding

of this complex phenomenon has not increased appreciably.

According to the research literature there are three

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

ressed so slowly:

1, The term job satisfaction has not been properly

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

tempted to measure and correlate it have ended in failure.

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

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

some aspects of a job while negative in other aspects.

2. The task of relating the findings of one study

with another became increasingly difficult, reported

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

of instruments used to measure job satisfaction. Data

collection techniques employed by those involved in re-

searching job satisfaction include questionnaires, inter-

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

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

Albright (1960) claimed that lack of uniformity severely

restricted comparability of research studies.

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

of consistency regarding the subjects studied, the

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

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










some studies an entire population was sampled whereas in

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

collar workers,

Hoppock (1935) regarded job satisfaction as any com-

bination of psychological, physiological, and environmental

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

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

Locke (1969) is more widely accepted among job satisfaction

theorists:

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

While job satisfaction has been variously defined,

there is general agreement among researchers that the study

of job satisfaction is an important and worthwhile undertak-

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

of job satisfaction was necessary for two reasons: First,

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

sirable by nature. Second, under certain circumstances

jo' satisfaction, particularly job dissatisfaction, may

have an impact on an organization through such behavior as

high turnover and absenteeism.

One of the most recent theories to be developed con-

cerning job satisfaction is the Two-Factor Theory proposed

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










Barbara Snyderman. In their book entitled The Motivation

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

to describe an event which made them feel exceptionally

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

ceptionally bad about their jobs. The respondents' state-

ments (critical incidents) were then content-analyzed and

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

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

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

tween conditions which contributed to job satisfaction and

those which caused job dissatisfaction. Conditions re-

ported to cause satisfaction were found to relate to the

content or intrinsic portion of their jobs. These factors

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

(1959) included six factors in this classification:

achievement, recognition, work itself, responsibility, ad-

vancement, and possibility of growth. Conditions which re-

sulted in feelings of dissatisfaction were found to relate

to the context or extrinsic aspect of their jobs, These

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

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

administration, supervision-technical working conditions,

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

sonal relations. As a result of their findings, Herzberg

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

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

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










satisfaction, but no job satisfaction. The researchers

also claimed that if the positive aspects of both satis-

fiers and dissatisfiers are present in the work situation

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

isfaction; however, should the satisfiers (motivators) be

rerovled from the work situation, indifference, not job

dissatisfaction, will result. Dissatisfaction, argued

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

aspects of the dLssatisfiers (hygienes) are not adequately

fulfilled.

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

cates among job satisfaction theorists, it also has its

share of critics. One of the most complete criticisms of

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

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

port the Two-Factor Theory and represented an oversimpli-

fication of the relationship between the sources of job

ssatisfatioi and dissatisfaction. In defense of Herzberg's

Theory, Whitsatt and Winslow (1967) argued that studies

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

only in methodology but also in interpretation. The Two-

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

clearly retained its utility and validity; however, they

.ronglly -recommended that modifications were necessary be-

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

tional s.I t Ing.









In an attempt to improve the credibility and applica-

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

posed an elaboration of the theory which they called the

Reformulated (Herzberg) Theory.


Statement of the Problem

This research study was undertaken in order to test

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

(:,srzberg) Theory to selected administrative affairs staff

i; the Florida State University System. Another objective

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

and dissatisfaction associated with major job tasks for

each of the following five administrative positions:

director of purchasing, director of security and safety,

director of personnel relations, director of physical

plant, and university controller.

In addition, the researcher sought the answers to the

following two questions:

1. What are the similarities and differences among

the five administrative positions in reference to

job satisfaction and job dissatisfaction?

2, Will the critical incidents reported by the re-

sponadnts in the five administrative staff po-

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

job satisfaction?










Theoretical Background

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

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

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

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

consists of three components instead of two: motivators,

!U.tgienes. and ambients,

Motivators, like those defined by Herzberg et al.

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

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

achievement, recognition, work itself, responsibility, and

adv-an)cement.

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

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

clude relationships with subordinates, relationships

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

job security, working conditions, and personal life.

Ambients, the distinctive factor in the Reformulated

Theoy,, contribute with equal frequency to job satisfaction

and dissatisfaction. Included in this category are salary,

growth possibility, risk opportunity, relationship with su-

perordiinates, and status,

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

on: three concepts:

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

sati sfaccion than to job disa tilfaction; however,

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

di sjs t isf ac t i on









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

satisfaction, but an abundance of hygienes may

contribute to job satisfaction.

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

satisfaction and dissatisfaction.


Justification for the Study

One issue that all researchers of job satisfaction are

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

important and needs to be expanded. Unanswered questions

regarding job satisfaction still remain; for example, the

controversy over whether the determinants of job satisfac-

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

rind of the employee, or whether job satisfaction is the

consequence cf an interaction between the employee and his

work environment (Locke, 1969).

Vaughn (1972) noted that understanding the source

ofi job satisfaction and dissatisfaction is important in it--

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

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

draw disprnporcionately on our national resources. Em-

ployees whose jobs negatively affect their physical and

mental health place an additional demand on the nation's

alre-ady overburdened health care delivery system. In

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

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

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










if they are unable to find another suitable position and

must turn to unemployment compensation for financial sup-

port.

Much of the concern of management and unions today

rests in the areas of organizational structure, decision-

making processes, job enrichment programs, supervisory

training, and automation and are based on the assumption

that these factors play a very important role in influenc-

ing the feelings, attitudes, and behavior of employees.

Consequently, they are extremely interested in evaluating

the impact these processes and programs have upon their

employees.

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

fied employee has not yet been fully realized in America.

A dissatisfied worker may demonstrate his or her dissatis-

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

down, work stoppage, and ultimately in employee termination.

Several researchers in the field consider the problem of

employee turnover to be the greatest problem facing organ-

izations today.

Brayfield and Crockett (1955) pointed out that atti-

tudinal studies conducted on worker turnover focused ex-

clusively on job satisfaction as a predictor of tenure.

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

tional journals, The Chronicle of Higher Education for ex-

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

cie particularly ii the upper echelons of educational










admnii strati on. The frequency of position turnovers at

this level may indicate the degree of job dissatisfaction

associated with these positions. However, contrary to

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

vacancies in the five staff positions selected for the

present study in comparison to other administrative posi-

tions within the university hierarchy, The present re-

search study is an examination of job satisfaction and

dissatisfaction among upper-level higher education admin-

istrators and an endeavor to discover whether certain

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

more than others to worker satisfaction and/or dissatis-

faction. From a practical side, this research study is

relevant to the selection and training of present and fu-

ture educational administrators and is important in the

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

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

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

the employee's motivation would be increased substantially.

Even though higher education is one of the nation's

largest industries (2.4 percent of the Gross National

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

the understanding of job satisfaction among educational

administrators, particularly those responsible for super-

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

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

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










research studies have been conducted involving job satis-

faction in education, very few studies have focused spe-

cifically on higher education. Furthermore, of those

studies concerned with higher education, the majority have

focused primarily on faculty satisfaction. This study is

one of the first investigations to concentrate solely on

administrative positions of a purely non-academic nature.

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

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

Theory has been applied in an educational setting. Accord-

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

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

academic administrators in higher education in only two

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

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

dent affairs administrators, both conducted within the

Florida State University System.

It is anticipated that the findings of this investi-

gation will contribute to the knowledge of job satisfac-

tion and dissatisfaction and will provide useful informa-

tion from which to better prepare educational administra-

tors for the tasks and demands associated with their po-

sitions, In addition, valuable insight can be gained from

investigation of these administrative positions which the

Florida State University System could conceivably use in

the development of job enrichment programs to better serve

the individual needs of each institution within the system,










Delimitations and Limitations of the Study

The following constraints were observed by the re-

searcher when seeking answers to the previously stated

questions (Page 7):

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

rectors of security and safety, directors of per-

sonnel relations, directors of physical plant, and

university controllers at selected universities

within the Florida State University System. The

institutions selected for the study were chosen on

the basis of their. organizational structure; the

selection process will be discussed further in

this chapter under the subheading "Sample Selec-

tion.

2. A separate interview guide was developed for each

of the five administrative positions. The format

of questions employed in each instrument was based

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

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

ical incident technique. With the exception of sev-

eral introductory demographic questions, the inter-

view guide consisted of questions concerning feel-

ings of job satisfaction and/or job dissatisfaction

associated with the major job responsibilities for

each position, and two specific questions concern-

ing overall job satisfaction and dissatisfaction.










There were four limitations in the study which must be

acknowledged:

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

ments of administrative affairs from institutions

within the Florida State University System, the

findings cannot and should not be generalized to

other populations.

2. The collection of data was based on information

provided by the respondents and is, therefore,

subject to their perception and interpretation.

To encourage honesty in responding, the researcher

assured each subject that the information contrib-

uted would be kept in strict confidence and would

be used only in the manner specified by the re-

searcher. Names of individuals and institutions

were not identified in the study.

3. Since the researcher administered the instruments

and classified the data according to Herzberg's

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

hygienes, and ambients, the interpretation of the

data may be subject to the threat of internal

validity.

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

components of their theory, they failed to define

the terms "adequate motivators' and "abundance, of

hygicnes" in reference to the motivator and hy-

giene components of the theory.










H hypotheses

The following hypotheses were developed by the re-

searcher to serve as a guide in testing the applicability

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

ministrative affairs staff in the Florida State University

System.

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

sition of director of purchasing, motivators, as

a group, will be associated more frequently with

job satisfaction than hygienes or ambients. Ma-

jor tasks identified in the State University Sys-

tem of Florida Administrative and Professional

Job Description #9325 (1975) for this position

include:

a. develop, review, coordinate, and evaluate all

purchasing policies, procedures, and work

methods

b. interpret and transmit policies and procedures

of governmental agencies

c, complete reports and studies as required by

university, state, and federal officials

d. assist in the equipping of new building con-

struction

e, select, supervise, coordinate, and evaluate

staff

f. prepare and control budget










g. conduct long-range planning and forecasting

studies

h. consult with directors, managers, depart-

ment heads and other administrative personnel

on a regular basis

i. develop specifications for all contracted

agreements.

2. For the aforementioned major job tasks associated

with the position of director of purchasing, hy-

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

quently with job dissatisfaction than motivators

or ambients.

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

sition of director of purchasing, ambients, as a

group, will be associated with. equal frequency

with job satisfaction and job dissatisfaction.

Major tasks identified in the State University

System of Florida Administrative and Professional

Job Description #9325 (1975) for this position

include:

a. develop, review, coordinate, and evaluate all

purchasing policies, procedures, and work

inethods

bI interpret and transmit policies and procedures

of grvcrnrnental agencies i

c. conmp le I reports and studies as required by

un.iv(ersirty. state, and federal officials










d. assist in the equipping of new building con-

struction

e. select, supervise, coordinate, and evaluate

staff

f. prepare and control budget

g. conduct long-range planning and forecasting

studies

h. consult with directors, managers, department

heads and other administrative personnel on

a regular basis

i. develop specifications for all contracted

agreements.

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

tion of director of security and safety, motiva-

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

quently with job satisfaction than hygienes or

amrbients. Major tasks identified in the State

University System of Florida Administrative and

Professional Job Description #1893 (1975) for

this position include:

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

forcement and security policies and pro-

cedures.

b. select, train, supervise, and evaluate staff

c. direct and/or participate in the investiga-

tion of crimes, other offrrnses, and automo-

bi le accidents










d. plan, organize, and participate in student,

university, and community programs

e. formulate and control budget

f. organize and supervise security and traffic

control programs related to special events

g. coordinate security program with city, state,

and federal agencies.

5. For the aforementioned major job tasks associated

with the position of director of security and

safety, hygienes, as a group, will be associated

more frequently with job dissatisfaction than mo-

tivators or ambients.

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

sition of director of security and safety, ambi-

ents, as a group, will be associated with equal

frequency with job satisfaction and job dissatis-

faction. Major tasks identified in the State

University System of Florida Administrative and

Professional Job Description #1893 (1975) for this

position include:

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

ment and security policies and procedures

b. select, train, supervise, and evaluate staff

c. direct and/or participate in the investiga-

tion of rimes, otber offenses, and automobile

accidents










d. plan, organize, and participate in student,

university, and community programs

e. formulate and control budget

f. organize and supervise security and traffic

control programs related to special events

g. coordinate security program with city, state,

and federal agencies.

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

tion of director of personnel relations, motiva-

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

quently with job satisfaction than hygienes or

ambients, Major tasks identified in the State

University System of Florida Administrative and

Professional Job Description #93361 (1975) for

this position include:

a. plan, recommend, implement, and interpret all

policies concerning personnel administration

and labor relations

b. direct the recruitment, employment orienta-

tion, and training of new employees

c. formulate and control budget

d. direct the maintenance of employee personnel

records

e. develop and maintain employee service programs

f, conduct .long-range p lannrirnF and forecasting

studies










g. coordinate program with other university,

state, and federal agencies

h, counsel and advise career service, administra-

tive and professional, and faculty administra-

tors in matters relating to fringe benefits

and personnel administration

i, select, train, coordinate, and evaluate staff

j. administer Workmen's Compensation, Wage and

Hour Agreement, and Unemployment Compensation.

8, For the aforementioned major job tasks associated

with the position of director of personnel rela-

tions, hygienes as a group, will be associated

more frequently with job dissatisfaction than mo-

tivators or ambients.

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

tion of director of personnel relations, ambients,

as a group, will be associated with equal fre-

quency with job satisfaction and job dissatisfac-

tion. Major tasks identified in the State Univer-

sity System of Florida Administrative and Profes-

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

sition include:

a. plan, recommend, implement, and interpret all

policies concerning personnel administration

and labor relations

b. direc.c the recruitment, employment orientation,

and training of new employees









c. formulate and control budget

d, direct the maintenance of employee personnel

records

e. develop and maintain employee service programs

f. conduct long-range planning and forecasting

studies

g. coordinate program with other university,

state, and federal agencies

h. counsel and advise career service, administra-

tive and professional, and faculty administra-

tors in matters relating to fringe benefits

and personal administration

i. select, train, coordinate, and evaluate staff

j. administer Workmen's Compensation, Wage and

Hour Agreement, and Unemployment Compensation.

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

tion of director of physical plant, motivators, as

a group, will be associated more frequently with

job satisfaction than hygienes or ambients. Major

tasks identified in the State University System of

Florida Administrative and Professional Job Des-

cription #9353 (1975) for this position include:

a. select, train, coordinate, and evaluate staff

b. plan, organize, and direct the operation and

maintenance of the physical plant

C. consult and advise campus. local, and state

officials










d. interpret, communicate, and recommend all poli-

cies within state and federal laws

e. prepare and control budget

f. initiate cost studies and conduct long-range

planning

g. assist architects, engineers, and contractors

with building construction and/or renovation.

11. For the aforementioned major job tasks associated

with the position of director ol physical plant,

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

quently with job dissatisfaction than motivators

or ambients.

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

tion of director of physical plant, ambients, as

a group, will be associated with equal frequency

with job satisfaction and job dissatisfaction.

Major tasks identified in the State University

System of Florida Administrative and Professional

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

clude:

a. select, train, coordinate, and evaluate staff

b. plan, organize, and direct the operation and

maintenance of the physical plant

c. consult and advise campus, local, and state

officials

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

icies within state and federal laws










e. prepare and control budget

i. initiate cost studies and conduct long-range

planning

g. assist architects, engineers, and contractors

with building construction and/or renovation.

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

tion of university controller, motivators, as a

group, will be associated more frequently with job

satisfaction than hygienes or ambients. Major

tasks identified in the State University System of

Florida Administrative and Professional Job Des-

cription #9297 (1975) for this position include:

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

counting function of a university

b, prepare periodic and special fiscal reports

c. budget analysis and control

d. develop and administer policies and procedures

within state and federal guidelines

e. interpret and communicate fiscal policies as

required by the Federal Government

f. select, train, coordinate, and evaluate staff

g. coordinate program with university, state, and

federal officials

h. supervise the receipt and disbursement of all

general university funds, and the billing and

collection of all general university receiv-

ables.










14. For the aforementioned job tasks associated with

the position of university controller, hygienes,

as a group, will be associated more frequently

with job dissatisfaction than motivators or am-

bients.

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

tion of university controller, ambients, as a

group, will be associated with equal frequency

with job satisfaction and job dissatisfaction.

Major tasks identified in the State University

System of Florida Administrative and Professional

Job Description #9297 (1975) for this position

include:

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

counting function of a university

b. prepare periodic and special fiscal reports

c. budget analysis and control

d. develop and administer policies and procedures

within state and federal guidelines

e. interpret and communicate fiscal policies as

required by the Federal Government

f. select, train, coordinate, and evaluate staff

g. coordinate program with university, state,

and federal officials

h, supervise the receipt and disbursement of all

general university funds, and the billing and

collection of all general university receiv-

:ble s.










16. For the five administrative positions researched

(director of purchasing, director of security and

safety, director of personnel relations, director

of physical plant, and university controller) mo-

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

quently with job satisfaction than will hygienes

or ambients.

17. For the five administrative positions researched

(director of purchasing, director of security and

safety, director of personnel relations, director

of physical plant, and university controller) hy-

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

quently with job dissatisfaction than will moti-

vators or ambients.

18. For the five administrative positions researched

(director of purchasing, director of security and

safety, director of personnel relations, director

of physical plant, and university controller) am-

bients, as a group, will be associated with equal

frequency with job satisfaction and dissatisfac-

tion.

19. For the five administrative positions researched

(director of purchasing, director of security and

safety, director of personnel relations, director

oP physical plant, and university controller) mo-

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

qulently, with overall job satisfaction than hy-

giJnes or amnbients.









20. For the five administrative positions researched

(director of purchasing, director of security and

safety, director of personnel relations, director

of physical plant, and university controller) hy-

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

quently with overall job dissatisfaction than mo-

tivators or ambients,

21. For the five administrative positions researched

(director of purchasing, director of security and

safety, director of personnel relations, director

of physical plant, and university controller) am-

bients, as a group, will be associated with equal

frequency in overall job satisfaction and overall

job dissatisfaction.


Definition of Terms

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

tribute to an employee's satisfaction and dissatisfaction

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

opportunity.

Critical incident. A situation which has been identified

a:; producing feelings of satisfaction or dissatisfaction

related to an individual's job.

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

mLnistrative officer at each university under the vice pres-

ident for administrative affairs whose major responsibility

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










and labor relations activities. He or she is responsible

for administration of a coordinated system of personnel

management for all administrative, professional, and career

service employees including retirement counseling and

fringe benefit programs. In addition, he or she assists

faculty supervisors in the administration of employee rela-

rions services.

Director of physical plant. The highest ranking adminjs-

trative officer at each university under the vice president

for administrative affairs whose major responsibility is

the management of all activities of the physical plant di-

vision. He or she is responsible for grounds maintenance,

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

tion and generation.

Director of purchasing. The highest ranking administrative

officer at each university under the vice president for ad-

.miuiscrative affairs whose major responsibility is the man-

agement of all activities of the purchasing division. He

or she is responsible, under state statutes and regula-

tions of the State Purchasing Division, for the acquisition

of all commodities and services required by the university,

bidding procedures, establishment of contracts, and lease

arrangements for equipment and premises.

Director of security and safety. The highest ranking ad-

ministrative officer at each university under the vice

president Lor administrative affairs whose major responsi-

bility is the management of all activities of the police










department in the protection of life and property within

the university community.

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

contribute to an employee's dissatisfaction and are related

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

ing conditions, company policy and administration, and in-

terpersonal relations.

Job satisfaction. The pleasoreable emotional state result-

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

tating the achievement of one's job values.

ojior job responsibilities. Duties assigned to, associated

with, or assumed by a particular administrator and identi-

fied in the State University System of Florida Administra-

tive and Professional Job Description.

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

ar1- associated with producing employee satisfaction and

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

for example, achievement, recognition, and responsibility.

University controller. The highest ranking administrative

officer at each university under the vice president for ad-

miiaistrative affairs whose major responsibility is the man-

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

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

accounting records, collection and disbursement of univer-

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

ation of' financiall. statements.









Research Methodology

The purpose of this research study, as previously

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

Reformulated (Herzberg) Theory and to examine job satis-

faction and dissatisfaction within five specific adminis-

trative positions in administrative affairs. A modifica-

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

technique which was refined and applied successfully by

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

data. Each respondent was asked to describe a situation

regarding his or her present position in which they felt

exceptionally good and another in which they felt excep-

tionally bad concerning the major job responsibilities as-

sociated with their position. Their responses then were

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

relating to job satisfaction and dissatisfaction.

According to Fox (1969) the critical incident tech-

nioue is an extremely useful instrument. It combines some

of the advantages of the impersonal interaction with the

fact that the respondents themselves select incidents which

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

cident techniques "avoids the problem of the perception of

the outuJde observer reading motives into the behavior of

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

often cited by researchers in the utilization of this

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

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

applici.-,tion of a different procedure.










Sample Selection

Individuals occupying five key administrative posi-

tions within administrative affairs in the Florida State

System were interviewed. The positions studied included:

director of purchasing, director of security and safety,

director of personnel relations, director of physical

plant, and university controller. The decision to include

cr exclude a particular university from the ilivescigation

was based upon the institution's administrative affairs

organizational structure. Consideration was given to those

institutions at which the administrative positions being

researched reported directly to the vice president for ad-

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

ganizational structures in existence throughout the Florida

Statt University System and the presence or absence of the

positions in question, it became necessary to interview at

lerst one administrative type from each of the campuses in

the Florida State University System, with the exception of

the University of West Florida in Pensacola. Institutions

included in the study were: University of Florida in

Gainesville; Florida State University in Tallahassee;

Florida Agricultural and Mechanical University in

Tallahassee; Florida Technological University in Orlando;

University of South Florida in Tampa; University of North

Florida in Jacksonville; Florida AtlanLic University in

Boca Raton; and Florida Internatioral University in Miami.










Instrumentat ion

Five parallel interview guides modeled after those

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

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

strumentf, were designed for the purpose of examining the

degree of job satisfaction and job dissatisfaction asso-

ciated with five administrative positions in administra-

:'iv affairs and the major job responsibilities associated

with each of these positions. The research instruments

also included several demographic questions which provided

the researcher with essential background information from

which to develop an administrative profile for each po-

sition.

The researcher reviewed several institutional and

Florida Sliate University System Position Descriptions be-

Afore selecting the major job responsibilities associated

witb each position. One document which proved helpful in

this undertaking was the Florida State University System

Position Description Statement for Administrative and Pro-

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

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

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

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

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

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

the pluipose of i denti ying major institutional job respon-

sijblitie








any major job responsibility from the interview guide

which they felt more accurately reflected their primary

responsibilities.

Data Collection

The data collection process employed by the researcher

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

a letter to the Vice Chancellor for Admrrnistratien and Sup-

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

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

search study and requested his cooperation and support in

this endeavor.

Stop two of the data collection process involved a

second letter authored Ly Mr. Steve McArthur and sent to

each of the administrative vice presidents at the eight

selected universities in the State University System. In

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

project, the letter requested each vice president to name

thr individuals at his/her institution who occupied the

positions selected for the study.

In step three the researcher then scheduled appoint-

lments with the individuals named to participate in the

stidy. The intcrvierws were scheduled during the first

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

particular period ensured that the majority of administra-

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

The fouILh aid final step in tLh dta collection pro-

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









approximately one hour. The researcher utilized the appro-

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

At the onset of each interview the researcher assured

each respondent that the information collected would be

used only for the purpose outlined by the researcher and,

under no circumstances, would the institution or person be

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

researcher briefly reiterated the purpose of the study for

each respondent.

Data Analysis

The first step in the data analysis involved classi-

fication of each critical incident reported to determine

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

ential: achievement, recognition, work itself, responsi-

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

ordinates, relationship with peers, supervision-technical,

co-pany policy and administration, job security, personal

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

sibility, risk opportunity, relationship with superordinates,

or status (ambients). Definitions developed by Herzberg

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

critical incident was indexed and recorded in a frequency

distribution based upon those factors (of the 16 factors)

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

instances to assign more than one factor to a particular

critical incident when it was determined that two factors

wer-e equally infJl u ai..










The statistical analysis of the data followed as the

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

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

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

this statistical procedure only if there were five or more

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

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

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

tistical procedure known as the Probable Impact Exploration

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

cedure would enable the researcher to estimate probabilities

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

ples were available for analysis and limits (ranges) had

not been previously established.

Organizat on of Subsequent Chapters

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

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

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

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

findings of this research study; Chapter IV presents analy-

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

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

conclusions, and suggestions for further research.















CHAPTER II


REVIEW OF THE LITERATURE


The following chapter consists of eight sections. The

f-.zt provides the basic foundation for understanding job

satisfaction and begins by reviewing theories involving in-

dividual needs, commonly referred to as need reduction or

gratification theories. The five theories discussed under

this; classification include Murray's Theory of Psychogenic

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

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

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

Section rto exxaines those theories which are relativ-

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

include Vroom's Validation, Instrumentality and Expectancy

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

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

e-lin Cornell Approach.

Section three rvi ews the traditional theory of job

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

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

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

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









Section seven examines in detail the most recent

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

and Miskel Reformulated (Herzberg) Theory.

The final section presents a review of studies con-

ducted in higher education which focus on non-academic

administrators.


Need Reduction/Gratification Theories
of Job Satisfaction

One of the first theories to concern itself with the

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

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

number of people utilizing various instruments (interviews,

questionnnires, and psychological tests) from which he de-

veloped a list of 20 social motives called "psychogenic

needs." Included in the list were such characteristics as

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

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

ca;.-gcri ae the needs of man.

One of the most recognized and most often cited the-

ories concerning worker satisfaction is Abraham Maslow's

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

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

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

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

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

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










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

Hierarchy).







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

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

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

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

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



Figure 1. Maslow's Hierarchy of Needs


MasJow theorized that each need level is related to the

state of satisfaction or dissatisfaction of other needs. As

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

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

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

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










capable of becoming. Maslow's Need Hierarchy Theory is

based on the premise that the lower order needs are never

completely satisfied, and if their satisfaction is deprived

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

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

actualization and esteem) are rarely satisfied and must be

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

acTs as a motivator.

Even though Maslow's Hierarchy of Needs Theory is not

well supported by empirical research, there appears to be a

general consensus in the research literature that when more

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

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

that out of 470 people representing various occupations, job

security, work responsibilities, and self-actualization were

the strongest job satisfiers.

Another theory which focuses on the needs of individ-

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

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

the assumption that people have certain needs which are, to

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

cluded that indLviduals have three basic needs which they

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

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

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

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

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










hierarchy, the fulfillment of lower order needs is not a

prerequisite for the emergence of higher order needs.

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

changeability within and between need levels. Within a

specific need class an individual may turn toward other ob-

jectives if unable to attain a specific one. An individual

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

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

ferability within a need level. Alderfer (1969) theorized

that between need categories two cycles of transfer exist:

The first cycle occurs between existence and growth needs,

whereas the second cycle is present between relatedness

needs and growth neeas. Should an individual become frus-

traLted in satisfying relatedness needs, his or her atten-

tion will tuin toward existence needs for greater material

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

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

Existence needs include material substances and the

process involved in attaining these items. Needs classi-

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

benefits. Relatedness needs include persons or groups in-

volved in sharing thoughts and feelings and consist of

family, friends, supervisors, and subordinates. Growth

needs pertain to environmental settings and the process

thp individual undergoes in generating creative effects

on himnse:l and the environment.










MASLOW ALDERFER


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

Love

Esteem
Growth
Self-Actualization


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



In his book entitled the Human Side of Enterprise,

Douglas McGregor (1960) identified two opposing points of

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

view as Theory X; the second, Theory Y.

Theory X, often referred to as the traditional view of

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

tsiree assumptions:

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

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

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

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

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









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

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

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

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

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

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

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

diviauals will exercise self-direction and self-control in

the achiJe'rment of organizational objectives if and to the

extent zhey commit themselves to those objectives.

The Work Adjustment Theory, the final theory discussed

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

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

tween an individual and his environment and assumes that

pecile ,strive to achieve and maintain a close relationship

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

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









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

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

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

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

depends largely on the degree of correspondence between

what an individual needs from his environment and what the

environment provides.


Expectancy and Other Relativistic
Theories of Job Satisfaction

One of the most prominent theories among active re-

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

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

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

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

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

Valence is defined as an individual's perception of

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

by performing effectively. An outcome has positive valence

when a person desires to attain it and a negative valence

if the person does not desire the outcome.

The second concept, instrumentality, is the degree to

which an individual believes that one outcome is associated

with the attainment of other outcomes (Georgeopoulous,

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

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

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

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










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

the second outcome will result if the first outcome occurs,

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

initely not occur if the first outcome occur.

Expectancy represents an individual's belief that a

particular outcome is associated with his behavior; for ex-

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

result in higher performance. The beliefs vary in scope

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

outcome will definitely follow the behavior whereas the

"0.0" indicates that it will not.

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

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

extent to which an individual perceives that he or she can

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

perceives that such performance will produce a desired out-

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

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

job satisfaction is:


V. = (V Ijk

k = .


where V. = valence of outcome j,

Vk = valence of outcome k,

In number of ouL;-tcors,

Ijk = perc ei ved instrumentality of outcome

j for the attainment of outcome Jk










Expectancy Theory is primarily a theory of the individ-

ual which attempts to explain the process factors affecting

an individual's choices between alternative acts of behavior.

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

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

to his work role (Vroom, 1964).

Expectancy Theory concerns itself with situational

va'iables as they are perceived by the individual rather

than variables as they might be measured or estimated by

someone other than the individual. The theory assumes that

i is the perceived value of the variables which affects the

individual's behavior.

Expectancy Theory is a point or view which does not

specify which factors relate in what ways to satisfaction

or dissatisfaction. Instead, it speculates on the possi-

bility tha- satisfaction is a relativistic phenomenon; for

example, "persons develop different personal standards for

evaluating the amount of whatever kinds of satisfactions

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

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

sistent interactionist theories to datF, a problem arises

concerning tho double usage of the concept of valence. On

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

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

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

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

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






45 .


Researchers such as Campbell, Borgen, Eastes, Johansson,

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

cluded that empirical tests provide moderate support for

the V.I.E. Theory.

Lawler and Porter (1967) offered an interesting vari-

ation to the Expectancy Theory and treated satisfaction as

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

cf Job Satisfaction).


Intrinsic
Rewards


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


Extrinsic
Rewards


Figure 3. Lawler's Model of Job Satisfaction


According to Lawler's model, performance leads to two

types of rewards, extrinsic and intrinsic. Extrinsic re-

wards are seen as being imperfectly related to performance

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

tion, and security contingent upon performance. Intrinsic

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

that they refer to feelings of accomplishment which can be

given by the individual to himself. Thus, the relationship

between intrinsic rewards and performance is seen as more

di to-ti ve in nature.










Equity Theory is another theory of job satisfaction

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

is based on the assumption that individuals have an expec-

tation of an "equitable" reward level which they receive

from a social exchange. Employees have perceptions of their

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

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

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

also have perceptions of others' work-related outcomes and

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

Dunnette, 1976).

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

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

Tlpuits are attributes which are brought to the exchange and

are perceived as relevant to the exchange. An attribute is

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

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

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

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

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

tive to his inputs equal to rewards others receive relative

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

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

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

to another, the individual will experience job dissatis-

f'c t i on.










Although there have been several equity theory formu-

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

by many researchers to be the most complete. Adams claimed

that inequity exists when an individual perceives that the

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

outcome/input ratio of another person. Equity Theory is

vre-r individualistic, its orientation always through the

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

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

respond to the inputs and outcomes perceived to be function-

ing by other parties to the exchange relationship.

A strategy approach to the study of job satisfaction,

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

Kendaii, and Hulin. The approach measured several aspects

of job satisfaction through an instrument called the Job

Description Index (J.D.I.).

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

tions of thoir strategy:

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

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

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

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










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

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

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

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

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

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

The Cornell Studies do not represent a theory in and of

tihelmreves, but provide a useful guide from which to build

a theory of job satisfaction.


Traditional Theory of
Job Satisfaction -

Bockmar (1971) described the TraGicional Theory o job

satisfaTction as being the total body of feeling an individ-

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

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

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










and dissatisfaction. Midway between satisfaction and dis-

satisfaction is a condition of neutrality in which the in-

dividual is neither satisfied nor dissatisfied (see Figure 4

for an illustration of Bockman's Traditional Model of Job

Satisfaction).

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

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

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

tinuum unless the presence of other factors counterbalance

this effect. Consequently, adding or improving a factor,

salary for instance, causes movement in a positive direc-

tion. Supporters of the Traditional Theory feel that if the

presence of a variable in the work situation leads to job

satisfaction, then logically its absence will lead to job

dissatisfaction.

Carroll presented the following illustration:

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


Job Factors

Negative or Absent Positive or Present


Dissatisfaction Satisfaction

Neutrality


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









Herzberg's Two-Factor Theory
of Job Satisfaction

In their book entitled The Motivation to Work. Herzberg,

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

tain types of factors are more commonly associated with feel-

ings of satisfaction whereas other factors are more frequent-

ly associated with feelings of dissatisfaction. Herzberg

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

gineers and accountants in Pittsburg, Pennsylvania.

The methodology employed by Herzherg and associates

has its origin in the critical incident method developed by

Flanagan (1954). Subjects were asked to describe incidents

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

isfaction, the reasons why these incidents caused the

chaingefs in satisfaction, the duration of the changes, and

heir impact on the performance of the individual.

n. first question asked was:

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

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

spondent felt exceptionally bad about his or her job.

iierzberg and his staff analyzed the content of the in-

te0rview statements and divided thenor into "thought units"

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

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

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









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

(1959) developed their theory on job attitudes called the

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

associatess found that there were two sets of factors respon-

sible for bringing about either job satisfaction or job dis-

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

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

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

The second set of factors identified concerned the environ-

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

wa. called "hvienles" or "dissatisfiers."

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

ory into the following four concepuo:

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

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



Satisfaction (Satisfiers/ No Satisfaction
S i Motiva ors)


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


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









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

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

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

factors were :identified as being motivators: advancement,

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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









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

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

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

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

satisfiers in their initial study: salary, working condi-

tions, supervision-technical, interpersonal relations, and

company policy and administration. Three additional factors

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

of later experimentation: status, personal life, and job

security.

The eight hygienes or dissatisfiers as defined by

Herzberg (1966) include:

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

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









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

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

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

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

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

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

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

aspects of. both the motivators (satisfiers) and hygiene

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

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








removed, indifference not dissatisfaction will result. Dis-

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

dissatisfiers are present. In more specific terms, Herzberg

stated:

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

One point which is often overlooked in the research lit-

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

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

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

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

After conducting 12 different investigations involving a

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

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

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

all factors contributing to job dissatisfaction consisted of

bIlgion' factors.

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

salary as a hygiene in their original study. The problem

steaomeo from the fact that salary appeared in reports

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

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









researchers discovered that when salary was mentioned in a

report classified as low satisfacLion, it was generally be-

cause the employee felt that he or she either deserved more

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

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

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

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

performance.

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

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

Herzberg (1971) reported that it is the most replicated

study in contemporary industrial psychology. Aebi (1973)

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

of 158 times.


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

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

search of supervisory personnel of public utilities, ob-

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

At 21 utility companies 111 male supervisors were asked to

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

experiences (critical incidents) were then classified ac-

cording to Herzborg's taxonomy of hygienes and motivators.

Tno researchers found thai (with the exception of achieve-

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

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

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









context of the job and fell under IIerzberg's classification

of hygiene.

In a research study of 82 scientists and engineers,

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

ing \%ith an organization were not necessarily opposite the

reasons for which one might leave an organization. Reasons

for remaining were more closely related to motivators or

content elements while reasons for departing were more

closely aligned with hygienes or context elements.

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

in researching employees on five different industrial jobs.

Hle reported that job characteristics grouped naturally into

motivator-hygiene classifications, with the exception of one

motivator which acted as a hygiene.

iHerzberg again proved his theory in a study involving

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

replicated Herzberg's findings using 50 women employed by

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

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

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

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

ent more often in incidents classified as satisfying as com-

pared to those incidents classified as dissatisfying. She

also found that among those factors classified as hygienes,

company policy and administration, working conditions, per-

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

.soIlurce of di:sa.Lis faction.









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

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

Beckman, 1971) found that content items were related more

often to satisfaction and context items to dissatisfac-

tion.

Thomas (1977) provided evidence supporting Herzberg's

theory in a study of community college academic, business,

and student personnel administrators. Motivators were round

to contribute significantly more to job satisfaction than

did hygienes for each administrative officer. She also re-

ported that hygienes contributed significantly more to job

dissatisfaction than did motivators. The motivators,

achievement, work itself, responsibility, and recognition

vwere mentioned more often in positive than negative inci-

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

gienes, company policy and administration, interpersonal

relations, working conditions, and supervision-technical

were m-.ntioned in significantly more negative than positive

incidents.

In an investigation of five administrative positions

in student personnel within the Florida State University

System, Groseth (1978) also fond strong support for

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

chief student personnel administrators, directors' of finan-

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

sidered is one group, motivators contributed much more to

cri.i ti iniicdents labeled satisfying than did hygienes.









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

than irotivators to critical incidents classified as dissat-

isfying. The most frequently mentioned motivators in the

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

as the most. frequently mentioned hygienes were company pol-

icy and administration, interpersonal relations, and working

conditions.

Even though Herzberg's Two-Factor Theory has received

considerable criticism since it was originated in 1959, the

majority of the studies, according to the research litera-

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

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

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

Theory.


Research Critical of the Two-Factor
Theory of Job Satisfaction

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

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

cerns the terminology employed by researchers when defining

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

the satisfying component of the theory as motivators and the

dissatisfying element, hygienes. Wolf (1970) claimed that

the motivaLor factor has been referred to by several dif-

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

and the satisfied. Similarly, hygiene factors have been

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

fac trn.








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

Theory was criticized ior three reasons: First, the theory

was methodologically bound; second, it was based on faulty

research; third, it was inconsistent with past research

findings.

Researchers argue that the Two-Factor Theory is only

sirtported when the original critical incident technique is

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

defense bias. Vroom (1964) put the argument succinctly

when he stated:

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

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

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

spondents, the results would havc beer just the opposite

from those found in his study.

In another criticism oE Herzberg's theory, Evans

(1970) suggested that when individuals are asked to describe

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

will respond much differently than those individuals with

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

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

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








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

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

sponsibiility for them and attribute them to elements over

which they have little or no control. Persons with high

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

ate and realistic in their responses and will acknowledge

trezi ov.n contributions and those of the environment,

rhrctnei they be good or bad.

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

basis of using content analysis of interview data in con-

trast with more direct methods of determining satisfaction.

Sucies utilizing other methodologies, Q sorts and Q analy-

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

dence of the two factors (motivators and hygienes).

Peoihaps the most universal criticism of Herzberg's

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

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

recognition, is associated with good job sequences while the

hygiene, interpersonal relations with supervisors and peers,

is associated with bad job sequences.

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

tcs as being not completely determined by the classifica-

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

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

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

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

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

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









Ewen (1964) noted two additional criticisms of

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

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

that since Herzberg et al. only investigated a very small

fraction of jobs (male engineers and accountants) they

should have replicated their study using different workers

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

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

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

structural interview used in their study. He also noted

that no parallel form or test-retest reliability coefficient

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

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

ity and validity aspects of the critical incident technique

appeared justifiable and that any information gathered in

this manner is both reliable and valid.

Hinrichs and Miischkind (1967' argued that Herzberg's

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

searchr was ot based solely on satisfaction in a current

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

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

satisfied with their jobs, whether it be in their current

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

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

tribu- ions of various job factors to job satisfaction or

job dissatisfaction because there is no indication of what

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









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

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

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

or implied by researchers in their studies. According to

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

va.tors combined contribute more to job satisfaction than to

j. dissatisfacti-on and all hygienes combined contribute

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

est version (only motivators determine satisfaction, only

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

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

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

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

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

:;r .-- frequer t ;.y

berniront' and Dunnette (1966) found content and context

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

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

,were more predominan t in both satisfying and dissatisfying




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

Despite the considerable amount of criticism levied

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

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

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









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

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

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

can provide a basis for further job satisfaction research

if the following procedures are adhered to by researchers:

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

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

3. That individual differences should be
taken into consideration

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

In an attempt to satisfy the above objectives, Hoy

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

Factor Theory and called it simply the Reformulated

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

the Reformulated Theory consists of three factors instead

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

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

factors which are associated wit prod.ucjng employee job

satisfaction. Five factors were included in the motivator

classic fcation: acliievaient, recognition, advancement, re-

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

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

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

c(l. :l'd









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

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

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

only six factors were included in this category instead of

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

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

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

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

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

fr~xc :cluded frno this classification.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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










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

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

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

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


Dissatisfying


Satisfying


Explanation


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




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

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


Motivators as a
group:
Achievement
Recognition
Work Itself
Responsibility
Advancement


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

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


Satisfying


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









According to Hoy and Miskel (1978) the Reformulated

The1-ory elncompasses tlhe following three hypotheses:

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

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

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

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

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

ports labeled high satisfaction nearly as frequently as it

appeared in those labeled low satisfaction. Herzberg dis-

covererd that when salary was mentioned in a report classi-

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

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

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

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

or har salary and performance. Hoy and Miskel classified

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

and as a dissatisficr.

Growth possibility, the second factor included in the

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

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

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

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

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

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









The third ambient, risk opportunity, may generate

oitier satisfaction or dissatisfaction depending on an in-

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

to work situations in which opportunities for achievement,

recognition, and advancement are high, and who are less

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

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

search studies concerning the det terminancs of job satisfac-

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

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

listed fourth as source of employee dissatisfaction.

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

factor, rel tionships to supdrordinates, as an ambient.

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

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

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

v dui feels he or she is being adequately compensated for

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

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

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










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

The final segmnen of this chapter presents research

which has been conducted in the area of job satisfaction

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

uc.at;on.

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

iiiois who were involved in administration, Knox (1953)

concluded that working ccnditjons are appreciated more by

the more satisfied worker as compared to the less satisfied

worker. Fators such as effective supervision, freedom of

teaching methods, and qualified administrators were rated

much higher by satisfied respondents.

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

ministrators, found that they derived their greatest job

sat isacr.ion frc involvement with students, exercising

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

stuf.en- personnel administrators were much more concerned

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

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

de nts derive their greatest job satisfaction from the na-

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

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

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

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

other university vdministrators.









In an investigation involving university administrators

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

moaters related to security and job satisfaction, adminis-

trators were greatly concerned with the fringe benefits and

administrative policies of the institution. Other factors

found to influence administrator job satisfaction included

salary, provisions for attending professional meetings and

crtferences, and the opportunity to become involved in bud-

getary matters. Positions sampled in the study included:

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

ing, and directors of research.

Strickland (1973) surveyed 89 chief business officers

by means or a three-part questionnaire which was designed

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

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

satisfying, regarding their present position. In each case

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

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

fluential factor in their present position. It was re-

ported that over two-thirds of the responses were supportive

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

clear3ly non-supportive, ard lhe remraindeT only partially

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

those incidents clas-ifieC d s satisfying whereas hygiene

wore found to be significant in incidents labeled dissatis-

Cying tb, tbhe respundenils.









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

visions located in the Southeast, found evidence that the

lea;eorship of chief student personnel administrators was

positively related to the job satisfaction of their de-

c rtment heads.

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

sar.rchpe 402 student personnel workers employed in various

Pt' Jistrati-c levels throughout several western states.

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

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

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

dividuals in lower salary level positions indicate a lower

degree of job satisfaction than individuals who earn more

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

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

rLTy of job opportunities are available to them. Converse-

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

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

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

Fct;.or heo-ry credibility.

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

presidents is colleges and universities found evidence to

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

dividuals in the study was asked to select one factor from

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

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

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









hygiene factors. Jackson (1975) concluded that middle-

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

higher degree of job satisfaction from motivators as com-

pared to hygiene factors.

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

c-rning job satisfaction among women holding the title of

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

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

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

control, and the possibility of growth were the primary

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

person0al, relations, and contenL of work were the primary

sources of dissatisfaction. Factors which were related to

job content were reported to be much more significant in

both satisfying and dissatisfying situations than were



One of the most recent studies to support Herzberg's

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

inC the critical incident technique, twelve chief academic,

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

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

itha for each t-ype of administrative position, motivators

contributcd much more to role satisfaction than did hy-

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

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

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

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









in considerably more positive than negative incidents. Com-

pany policy and interpersonal relations were by far the most

iprdoniJnnant bygienes present.

The most recent application of Herzberg's Two-Factor

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

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

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

chief student personnel administrator; the director of finan-

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

housing; and the director of counseling. The motivators,

recognition, achievement, and work itself were mentioned

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

The most frequently mentioned hygienes were interpersonal

relaticeships, working conditions, and company policy and

admiJn it ratio J o
















CHAPTER III


PRESENTATION OF 'DATA


In this chapter the data presented were collected from

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

Florida Stare University System. Five administrators were

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

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

sonnel relations, director of physical plant, and university

controller. Each administrator was personally interviewed

by the researcher using one of five interview guides de-

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

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

list of major job responsibilities; associated with his/her

position and to make whatever change- considered necessary,

each administrator was asked co recall two experiences (one

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

current major job responsibi lititjs. Each experience (criti-

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

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

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

pervi sion-tcchni crl relationship with suhbordi nates and

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

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










status, growth possibility, risk opportunity, relationship

with superordinates (ambients). The researcher, using his

21 hypotheses as a guide, then proceeded to analyze the

data using Chi-square and a computer software program called

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

on the Bavesian Statistical Decision Process.

This !hapor Ji subdivided into six sections. The

it five sections present a separate data analysis for

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

rector of security and safety, director of personnel rela-

tions, director ol physical plant, university controller)

and the final section discusses data related to the entire

administrative group. The first section presents data re-

iated specifically to the position of director of pur-

choasing.


Director of Purchasing


Profile

Of the five directors of purchasing selected in the

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

rector of purchasing." The others were called "director

of university purchasing." The average length of time

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

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

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

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

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









directly from private etcerprise. Three of the directors

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

Bachelor of Arts degree and two reported having no formal

college education. Salaries for the position ranged from

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

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

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

-crs were females (recently appointed).

The major 3ob responsibilities identified in the

Florida Srate University System Administrative and Profes-

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

searche- as the mosi imporLant tasks associated with the

position proved to be accurate. Two directors mentioned

having addi;iona3 responsibilities to those listed on the

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

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

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

ing a central receiving aid storage facility.


Satisfying Experj.ences

In discussion of tihe n.ne major job responsibilities

with the researcher, the five directors of purchasing des-

ciibred a to1al of 45 satisfying experiences. In eight

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

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

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

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









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

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

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

cribing satisfying experiences than ambients or hygienes.

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

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

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

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

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

tors of purchasing, representing 66 percent of the total.

The most frequently occurring motivators were achievement

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

hygiene factors, associLatd with the satisfying experiences

criticala l incidents). Tn the ambient classification, three

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

maj.r job respjonsribi Lities associated with the position of

director of purcias:ing, the researcher employed a computer

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

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

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









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



% of Total
Factor Classification Number (N=53)





-chievement .5 28

eccognitioT1 4 8

Work Itself 6 11

Responsibility o10 19

Total ?,otivators 35 66


Am"bien Lts

Growth Possibilit !y 4

Risk Opport uity 2

Relationship With
Superordinates 3 6

'total Ambients 6 11




Supervision-Technical 4 8

interparsonal Relations 7 13

Company Policy and
Administration 1 2

Total Hygienes 12 23









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

cur in other directors of purchasing positions with similar

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

there are two advantages to using this technique. First,

it enables the researcher to estimate the probability of oc-

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

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

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

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

bnrnpit of this technique, little meaningful analysis, if

any, c iou i -rdertaken.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

bients, and hygienes (as individual groups) contributes to

satis'ying experiences for directors of purchasing.

The data presented in Table 2 illustrate that for those

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

purchasin;s and whose job responsibilities are similar in

description to the nine major tasks commonly associated with

the position, the probability of a1 mcntivator contributing to

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

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









Table 2

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



Factor Classification
Motivators Ambients Hygienes



.-::ar of Possible
Occurrences 45 45 45

*Exchangeability 15 15 15

Expected Outcoma 17 17 17

Observed OuCl come 35 6 12

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

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


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



iob satisfaction was 6.7 and 24.2 respectively. The data in

the category of motivators, with a probability of occurrence

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

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

occur more frequently in incidents classified as satisfying

t-han eiiter ambients or hygin'-s.









Dissatisfying Experiences

Of the 45 dissatisfying experiences (critical incidents)

reported by the directors of purchasing, 23 were classified

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

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

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

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

nlo more than two factors were assigned. Although there

were considerably more hygienes used to describe dissatis-

fying incidents than ambients, this was not the case when

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

isfying experiences for directors of purchasing are classi-

fied in Table 3 according to motivators, ambients and hy-

gienes.

The data in Table 3 show that with the possible ex-

ception of company policy and administration (29%), there

was no dominant hygiene related to the dissatisfying inci-

dents for directors of purchasing. Interpersonal relations

was the second most frequently mentioned hygiene (15%).

Four of the six hygiene factors were represented, the ex-

ceptions being personal life and job security. It is note-

worthy that four out of five motivators were mentioned as

being sources of dissatisfaction. The motivators, achieve-

ment and work itself, were present in 33 percent of the dis-

satisfying experiences reported. One ambient, growth pos-

sibility, was idceLified as a source of dissatisfaction.









Table 3

Classification of Factors in Dissatisfying
Incidents for Directors of Purchasing


Factor Classification N




l'o:ivators

Achievement

Recognition

Work Itself

Responsibility

Total Motivators


Ambients

Growth Possibility

Total Ambients


Hygienes

Supervision-Technical

Interpersonal Relations

Company Policy and
Administration

Working Conditions

Totua. H!ygienes


umber


% of Total
(N=52)


In Table 4 the probability of motivators, ambients, and

hygie.ne (as individual groups) contributing to dissatisfying

experiences for directors of purchasing is illustrated,


~ ~~









The P.I.E.S. technique was used to analyze the data. This

procedure was also utilized in classifying the satisfying

incidents for the directors of purchasing.


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




Factor Classification
Motivators Ambients Hyg enes



Number of Poisible
Occurrences 45 45 45

*Exchage a bili ty 15 15 15

Expected Outcome 17 17 17

Observed Outcome 23 1 28

Probability i )f Out-
co:e Being < (23) 78.8 (1) 1.8 (28) 93.3

Probability of Out-
come Being > (23) 21.2 (1) 98.2 (28) 6.7


Standard Deviation 7.5, 50% Probability Interval 12 to 22
*Exchangeability Point one would consider giving equal odds
that the value would be less or greater than ( )



it is clear from the data in Table 4 that for those in-

dividuals functioning in the capacity of directors of pur-

ch:asing and whose job responsibil]ities art- similar in nature

to whe nine major tasks associated with the position, the

probability of a hygiene contributing to an individual's









dissatisfaction was 93.3. The probability of a motivator

or an ambient being the source of an individual's dissatis-

faction was 78.8 and 1.8 respectively. Thea.e data are not

contradictory to Ioy's and Miskel's Reformulated (IIerzberg)

Theory in that hygienes, as a group, were found to occur

more frequently in incidents classified as dissatisfying

fcr the directors of purchasing than either motivators or

a-bients. In should be noted that Hoy and Miskel did hy-

pothesize that a lack of adequate motivators could con-

ceivably contribute to job dissatisfaction; however, in

discussing their theory they failed to define the term

"adequate motivators."


Satisfying/Dissatisfying Experiences

Out of the 105 factors assigned the 90 critical inci-

dents reported by the directors of purchasing (45 satisfying

and 45 dissatisfying) 7 ambients were found to be present.

Table 5 is a breakdown of all critical incidents (satisfy-

ing and dissatisfying) according to motivators, ambients,

and hygienes for the position of director of purchasing.

The percentages of each row total are included in paren-

theses.

The data in Table 5 indicate the unequal representa-

tion of ambient factors in both satisfying and dissatisfy-

ing incidents. These findings appear to be contradictory

to Hoy's and Miskel's theory that ambients, as a group,

occur with eanal frequency in both satisfying and dissatis-

yving incidents. The fact that ambients, as a group,









Table 5
Distribution of all Critical Incidents
(Satisfying and Dissatisfying) by Factor
Classification for Directors of Purchasing




Factor Classification

Incident Type Motivators Ambients Hygienes Total



atisi'ying 35 6 12 53
(66%) (11%) (23%) (100%)

Dissatisfying 23 1 28 52
(44%) (2%) (54%) (100%)

Total Incidents 58 7 40 105
(55%) (7%) (38%) (]00%)




comprised 7 percent of the total raises some question, in the

opinion of the researcher, concerning the validity of this

classification in Hoy's and Miskel's theory.


Overall Job Satisfaction/Dissatisfaction

The final two questions -asked the directors of purchas-

ing in the interviews concerned their overall job satisfac-

tion and dissatisfaction (see Appendix A). Each director

was asked to describe the most overall satisfying single in-

cident in his/her position and conversely, an incident which

caused the most overall job dissatisfaction. Of the 7 fac-

tors used to classify the most overall satisfying job ex-

perience, 4 were motivators (FRS%), 1 was an ambient (14%),

and 2 were hygienes (29%.). Faru ors which contributed to

ove-rall job sa:ti..isnct oni are c' ssified in Table G.




Full Text

PAGE 1

AN APPLICATION OF THE REFORMULATED (HERZBERG) THEORY OF JOB SATISFACTION TO SELECTED ADMINISTRATIVE AFFAIRS STAFF IN THE FLORIDA STATE UNIVERSITY SYSTEM By ALBERT PHILLIP KOZAL A 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 1979

PAGE 2

?o my beautiful wife, Pamela, and son, Christopher, who are my life

PAGE 3

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS I would like to take this opportunity to express my appreciation to the following individuals who assisted me with this research study, First, I extend ray sincere thanks to the chairman of my doctoral committee, Dr. C. Arthur Sandeen, without whose support and guidance this publication would not have been possible. Next, I would like to recognize the other members of my doctoral committee, Dr. James L. Wattenbarger , Dr. Ralph Kimbrough, and Dr. Thomas Goodale for their helpful assistance in this endeavor. I am deeply indebted to Mrs. Angie Fremen and to my wife, Pamela, who devoted many long hours to the typing of this manuscript. Their support, patience, and understanding will a 1 w ,i y s ta e appreciated. A special thanks to ray lovely wife, Pamela, and son, Christopher, for their love, understanding, and personal sacrifice. I realize that I shall never be able to make up for the lonely evenings and fatherless weekends. Finally, and most important, I thank the Good Lord for answering my prayers. 111

PAGE 4

Table of Contents Page ACKNOWLEDGMENTS iii LIST OF TABLES vii LIST OF FIGURES xi ABSTRACT ..... xli CHAPTER I INTRODUCTION 1 Statement of Problem 7 Theoretical Background 3 Justification of the Study ; Delimitations and Limitations of the Study. . 13 Hypotheses . ..... 15 Definition of Terms 26 Research Methodology 29 Sample Selection 30 Instrumentation 31 Data Collection 32 Data Analysis 33 Organization of Subsequent Chapters .... 34 II REVIEW OF THE LITERATURE . 35 Need Reduction/Gratification Theories of Job Satisfaction ............. 36 Expectancy and Other Relativistic Theories of Job Satisfaction , 42 The Traditional Theory of Job Satisfaction. . 48 Kerzberg's Two-Factor Theory of Job Satisfaction 50 Research in Support of the Two-Factor Theory of Job Satisfaction 56 Research Critical of the Two-Factor Theory of Job Satisfaction ........ 59 Ho .v ' s a n u M i s kel ' s R e f < > r mu 1 a I e d (Herzberg) Theory 63 1 v

PAGE 5

CHAPTER Page 11 (Cont.) -Job Satisfaction Research Among NonInstructional Administrators in Higher Education 69 III PRESENTATION OF DATA 74 Director of Purchasing 75 Profile 75 Satisfying Experiences .... 76 Dissatisfying Experiences 81 Satisfying/Dissatisfying Experiences 84 Overall Job Sabisf action/ Dissatisfaction 85 Director of Security and Safety 88 Profile 88 Satisfying Experiences 89 Dissatisfying Experiences 92 Satisfying/Dissatisfying Experiences 96 Overall Joo Satisfaction/ Dissatisfaction ..... 97 Director of Personnel Relations 100 Profile 100 Satisfying Experiences ..... 101 Dissatisfying Experiences ......... 105 Satisfying/Dissatisfying Experiences 109 Overall Job Satisfaction/ Dissatisfaction 110 Director of Physical Plant 113 Profile 113 Satisfying Experiences 114 Dissatisfying Experiences 117 Satisfying/Dissatisfying Experiences 121 Overall Job Satisfaction/ Dissatisfaction 122 University Controller .... 126 Profile' 126 Satisfying Experiences 127 Dissatisfying Experiences 131 Satisfying/Dissatisfying Experiences 134 Overall Job Satisfaction/ Dissatisfaction 136 The Five Positions 139

PAGE 6

CHAPTER Page IV DATA ANALYSIS AND DISCUSSION 157 Discussion of Hypotheses 157 Hypothesis 1 157 Hypothesis 2 . 160 Hypothesis 3 161 Hypothesis 4 163 Hypothesis 5 . , 165 Hypothesis 6 ..... 166 Hypothesis 7 168 Hypothesis 8 170 Hypothesis 9 ..... 171 Hypothesis 10 .... . 173 Hypothesis 11 175 Hypothesis 12 176 Hypothesis 13 178 Hypothesis 14 .... 180 Hypothesis 15 182 Hypothesis 16 . . 183 Hypothesis 17 185 Hypothesis 18 ... 186 Hypothesis 19 187 Hypothesis ^.u . 188 Hypothesis 21 188 Discussion of Data to Related Research . . . 189 V SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS 197 Summary 197 Major Findings 199 Conclusions 203 Suggestions for Further Research ...... 210 APPENDICES A INTERVIEW GUIDE DIRECTOR OF PURCHASING . . 213 E INTERVIEW GUIDE DIRECTOR OF SECURITY AND SAFETY 221 C INTERVIEW GUIDE DIRECTOR OF PERSONNEL RELATIONS 228 D INTERVIEW GUIDE DIRECTOR OF PHYSICAL * PLANT 237 E INTERVIEW GUIDE UNIVERSITY CONTROLLER . . . 244 BIBLIOGRAPHY , 252 BIOGRAPHICAL SKETCH 260

PAGE 7

List of Tables Table Page 1 Classification of Factors in Satisfying Incidents for Directors of Purchasing .... 78 2 The Probability of Motivators, Arcbients, and Hygienes (As Individual Groups) Contributing to Satisfying Experiences for Directors of Purchasing 80 3 Classification of Factors in Dissatisfying Incidents for Directors of Purchasing .... 82 4 The Probability of Motivators, Ambients, and Hygienes (As Individual Groups) Contributing to the Dissatisfying Experiences for Directors of Purchasing ... 83 5 Distribution of all Critical Incidents (Satisfying and Dissatisfying) by Factor Classification for Directors of Purchasing ......... 85 6 Classification of Factors Contributing to Overall Job Satisfaction icr. Directors of Purchasing 86 7 Classification of Factors Contributing to Overall Job Dissatisfaction for Directors of Purchasing 87 8 Classification of Factors in Satisfying Incidents for Directors of Security and Safety 90 9 The Probability of Motivators, Ambients, and Hygienes (As Individual Groups) Contributing to Satisfying Experiences for Directors of Security and Safety .... 92 10 Classification of Factors in Dissatisfying Incidents for Directors of Security and Safety 93 vii

PAGE 8

Table Page 11 The Probability of Motivators, Ambients, and Hygienes (As Individual Groups) Contributing to the Dissatisfying Experiences for Directors of Security and Safety 95 12 Distribution of all Critical Incidents (Satisfying and Dissatisfying) by Factor Classification for Directors of Security and Safety 96 13 Classification of Factors Contributing to Overall Job Satisfaction for Directors of Security and Safety 98 -iiifciO L. .cation of Factors Contributing to Overall Job Dissatisfaction for Directors of Security and Safety 99 15 Classification of Factors in Satisfying Incidents for Directors of Personnel Relations 3 02 16 The Probability of Motivators, Ambients, and Hygienes (As Individual Groups) Contributing to Satisfying Experiences for Directors of Personnel Relations . . . 104 17 Classification of Factors in Dissatisfying Incidents for Directors of Personnel Relations 106 IS The Probability of Motivators, Ambients, and Hygienes (As Individual Groups) Contributing to the Dissatisfying Experiences for Directors of Personnel Relations 108 19 Distribution of all Critical Incidents (Satisfying and Dissatisfying) by Factor Classification for Directors of Personnel Relations . . , 109 20 Classification of Factors Contributing to Overall Job Satisfaction for Directors of Personnel Relations Ill 21 Classification of Factors Contributing to O v er a 1 1 Job D i s s a t i s f a c t ion for D i r e c t o r s of Personnel Relations 312

PAGE 9

Table Page 22 Classification of Factors in Satisfying Incidents for Directors of Physical Plant 115 23 The Probability of Motivators, Ambients, and Hygienes (As Individual Groups) Contributing to Satisfying Experiences for Directors of Physical Plant 117 24 Classification of Factors in Dissatisfying Incidents for Directors of Physical Plant 119 25 The Probability of Motivators, Ambients, and Hygienes (As Individual Groups) Contributing to the Dissatisfying Experiences for Directors of Physical Plant 120 26 Distribution of all Critical Incidents (Satisfying and Dissatisfying) by Factor Classification for Directors of Physical Plant ..... 122 27 Classification of Factors Contributing to Overall Job Satisfaction for Directors of Physical Plant 124 28 Classification of Factors Contributing to Overall Job Dissatisfaction for Directors of Physical Plant 125 29 Classification of Factors in Satisfying Incidents for University Controllers .... 128 30 The Probability of Motivators, Ambients, and Hygienes (As Individual Groups) Contributing to Satisfying Experiences for University Controllers 130 3J Classification of Factors in Dissatisfying Incidents for University Controllers .... 132 32 The Probability of Motivators, Ambients, and Hygienes (As Individual Groups) Contributing to the Dissatisfying Experiences for University Controllers . . . 133 33 Distribution of all Critical Incidents (Satisfying and Dissatisfying) by Factor Classification for University Controllers. . 135

PAGE 10

Table Page 34 Classification of Factors Contributing to Overall Job Satisfaction for University Controllers 137 35 Classification of Factors Contributing to Overall Job Dissatisfaction for University Controllers 138 36 Classification of Factors in Satisfying Incidents for the Five Administrative Types (As One Group) 140 37 Motivators, Ambients, and Hygienes Contributing to the Satisfying Incidents for the Five Administrative Positions 142 38 Classification of Factors in Dissatisfying Incidents for the Five Administrative Types (As One Gr up) 146 39 Motivators.. Ambients, and Hygienes Contributing to the Dissatisfying Incidents for the Five Administrative Positions 148 40 Distribution of all Critical Incidents (Satisfying and Dissatisfying) by Factor Classification for the Five Administrative Positions 151 41 Classification of Factors Contributing to Overall Job Satisfaction for the Five Administrative Positions .... 153 42 Classification of Factors Contributing to Overall Job Dissatisfaction for the Five Administrative Positions 155

PAGE 11

List of Figures Figure Page 1 Maslow's Hierarchy of Needs . 37 A comparison of Maslow's Need Hierarchy to Alelerfer's E.R.G. Need Hierarchy .... 40 3 Lawler's Model of Job Satisfaction ..... 45 4 Bookman's Traditional Model of Job Satisfaction . 49 5 Herzberg's Two-Factor Attitude Model .... 5] 6 Hoy's and Miskel's proposed modification of Herzberg ' s Two-Factor Theory 66 ;•; :l

PAGE 12

Abstract of Dissertation Presented to the Graduate Council of the University of Florida in Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements for the Degree of Doctor of Philosophy AN APPLICATION OF THE REFORMULATED (HERZBERG) THEORY OF JOB SATISFACTION TO SELECTED ADMINISTRATIVE AFFAIRS STAFF IN THE FLORIDA STATE UNIVERSITY SYSTEM By Albert Phillip Kozal March 1979 Chairman: Dr. C. Arthur Sandeen Major Department : Educational Administration The focus of the current investigation was twofold: (1) to test the applicability of Hoy's and Miskel's Reformulated (Herzberg) Theory to selected administrative affairs staff in the Florida State University System and (2) to test the applicability of the Reformulated Theory in examining job satisfaction and dissatisfaction associated with the major job tasks of the director of purchasing, director of security and safety, director of personnel relations, director of physical plant, and university controller. The Reformulated Theory is based on the belief that there are three distinct groups of f8ctors which contribute to an individual's job satisfaction and/or job dissatisfaction: motivators, hygienes, and amb tents. Motivators are associated with job satisfaction and include achievement, recognition, advancement , responsibility, and work itself. Hygienes, on the other hand, are those factors related to iob dissatisfaction and include supervision-technical,

PAGE 13

interpersonal relations, company policy and administration, working conditions, job security, and personal life. Arabients, the most recently established classification, are those factors which occur with equal frequency in satisfying as well as dissatisfying job incidents. Factors included in this classification are salary, status, growth possibility, risk opportunity, and relationship with superordinat.es. Twentyfive administrators in the Florida State University System, five in each of the aforementioned positions, were interviewed by the researcher using one of the five interview guides. Each guide consisted, of demographic questions, a list of the major job responsibilities associated with the position, and two questions concerning specific overall job saxisf action/dissatisfaction. Using a modification of Flanagan's critical incident technique, the researcher asked each administrator to recall two experiencesrelated to each of the major job tasks associated with his or her present, position. The first experience requested of each respondent concerned a time when he or she felt extremely satisfied about a particular task area; the second, a time when he or she felt extremely dissatisfied. The critical Incidents were classified into one of Hoy's ana Miskel's 5 motivators, 6 hygienes, or 5 ambients. The researcher, using his 21 hypotheses as a guide, analyzed the data using Chi --square and a computer software program called the "Probable Impact Exploration System.''

PAGE 14

Hoy's and Miskel's theory was not supported; however, data were found to support the motivator and hygiene elements of the theory. Motivators were found to be associated more frequently with job satisfaction than hygienes or ambients. Out of 249 factors used to classify the reported satisfying incidents, 170 were motivators (68%), 61 were hygienes (24%), and 18 were classified as ambients (7%). Achievement was the most frequently occurring motivator followed by responsibility and recognition. Work itself was the only motivator found not to be associated more frequently with job satisfaction. Hygienes were associated more frequently with job dissatisfaction than motivators or ambients. For the 245 factors used to classify the dissatisfying incidents, 137 were hygienes (57%), 101 were motivators (41%), and 7 were ambients (3%). Company policy and administration and interpersonal relations were the .most frequently mentioned hygienes. All six of Hoy's and Miskel's hygienes were found to occur more frequently in dissatisfying than in satisfying incidents with two exceptions, personal life and job security. The data concerning Hoy's and Miskel's most recently established classification, ambients, did not prove accurate. Of the 494 factors used to classify the critical incidents in the .study, only 25 were identified as ambients, 18 in satisfying incidents (4%), and 7 in dissatisfying (1%). There were considerable differences noted between the five administrative positions in the typo of motivators.

PAGE 15

hygienes, or ambieuts which occurred in satisfying and dissatisfying incidents. A discussion of the data in relation to previous studies utilizing Herzberg's Two-Factor Theory is also presented.

PAGE 16

CHAPTER I INTRODUCTION There was very little interest in the study of job satisfaction until the early 1930 's at which time the human relations movement began to emerge. Prior to 1930 job performance was the major dependent variable studied (Wanous, 1976).. the major thrust in both education and industry being directed toward maximizing worker output. Elton Mayo and Mary Parser Follett are the two individuals most often credited with creating this new emphasis in administrative theory. According to Kirtbrough and Nunnery (1976'j, theorists of the period promoted the followingfour concepts: (a) building and maintaining harmonious buiran relations, (b) meeting the psycho-social needs of employees, (c) the significance of the informal organization, and (d) organizational authority based on knowledge, participation, and reason. Research concerned explicitly with the study of job satisf action dates back to Hoppock's (1935) community survej regarding working adults. Chester Barnard (1938), who wrote The Function of_ the_E>:e_c_utlye, was one of the first to differentiate between the forma] and informal aspects of an organization. he theorized that an organization ' a 1

PAGE 17

survival was dependent upon what he called "effectiveness" and "efficiency." Effectiveness was defined as the extent to which the organization's goals are accomplished. Efficiency, on the other hand, referred to the extent that an individual's needs are satisfied. Barnard suggested that an individual would remain with an organization only as long as lie was deriving sufficient satisfaction from his involvement . Roethlisberger and Dickson (1939) created new interest in job satisfaction with their classic summary of the Hawthorne research in Manage me nt and the Worker., At the Hawthorne Plant near Chicago a series of experiments were conducted in the Western Electric Company to determine the effects of the physical environment upon productivity r The results of these studies proved inconclusive, but indicated that the problem was a socio-psychological one and promoted interest in another series of experiments. The new studies,, conducted between 1928 and 1933, identified the importance of informal group relations within the form a I. c r g a n i z a t i o n a 1 structure,, Shortly after the completion of the Hawthorne Studies industrial psychologists began focusing their attention on the worker as a "feeling" and "experiencing" human being, Quinn (1974), in a recent literature search conducted by the American Psychological Association, reported that between 3 967 and 1972, 556 studies were published concerning job satisfaction. Locke (1969) estimated that well over

PAGE 18

4,. 000 articles had been written on the subject by 1969. Unfortunately, despite the tremendous interest that has been devoted to the study of job satisfaction, our understanding of this complex phenomenon has not increased appreciably. According to the research literature there are three reasons as to why the study of job satisfaction has progressed so slowly: 1 , The term job satisfaction has not been properly identified and, as a result, many studies which have attempted to measure and correlate it have ended in failure. It is a multi-dimensional attitude, claimed Sedlock (1966) and Harwood and Brown (1969), that can be positive toward some aspects of a job while negative in other aspects. 2» The task of relating the findings of one study with another became increasingly difficult, reported Fournet, Distefano, and Pryer (1966), due to the variety of instruments used to measure job satisfaction. Data collection techniques employed by those involved in researching job satisfaction include questionnaires, interviews, rank-order studies, sentence completion tests, and "critical incident" inquiries. Glennon. Owens, Smith, and Albright (1960) claimed that lack of uniformity severely restricted comparability of research studies. 3. According to Wanous and Lawler (1972), the lack of consistency regarding the subjects studied, the time of the studies, and the location of the studies also hampered eornparabili by . Thomas (1977) noted that in

PAGE 19

some studies an entire population was sampled whereas in ethers the study was restricted to blue-collar or whitecollar workers, Hoppock (.1935) regarded job satisfaction as any combination of psychological, physiological, and environmental circumstances that would cause a person to say. "I am satisfied with my job." However, the definition proposed by Locke (1963) is more widely accepted, among job satisfaction theorists: The pleasurable emotional state resulting from the appraisal of one's job as achieving or facilitating the achievement of one's job values . . . . Job satisfaction is a function of the perceived relationship between wii~.t one wants from one's job and what one perceives it as offering. (Locke, 1969, p. 10) While job satisfaction has been variously defined, there is general agreement among researchers that the study of job satisfaction is an important and worthwhile undertaking. Smith, Kendall, and Hulin (1969) felt that the study of job satisfaction was necessary for two reasons: First, job satisfaction is an end in itself and is therefore desirable by nature. Second, under certain circumstances job satisfaction, particularly job dissatisfaction, may have an impact on an organization through such behavior as high turnover and absenteeism. One of the most recent theories to be developed concerning job satisfaction is the Two-Factor Theory proposed by Frederick Her^berg, Bernard Mausner, and

PAGE 20

Barbara Snyderman. In their book entitled The Motivation to Work (1959), 203 accountants and engineers were asked to describe an event which made them feel exceptionally good about their jobs and another in which they felt exceptionally bad about their jobs. The respondents' statements (critical incidents) were then content-analyzed and provided the basis from which Herzberg and associates fornulated their theory on job attitudes. The researchers, as a result of their study, were able to distinguish between conditions which contributed to job satisfaction and those which caused job dissatisfaction. Conditions reported to cause satisfaction were found to relate to the content or intrinsic portion of their jobs. These factors were called ' satisf iers" or "motivators." Herzberg et al„ (1959) included six factors in this classification: achievement, recognition, work itself, responsibility, advancement, and possibility of growth. Conditions which resulted in feelings of dissatisfaction were found to relate to the context or extrinsic aspect of their jobs. These factors were called "dissatisf iers'' or "hygienes." Eight factors were included in this category: company policy and administration , supervision-technical , working conditions , salary, personal life, job security, status, and interpersonal relations. As a result of their findings, Herzberg et al. (1959) theorized that the opposite of job satisfaction is not job dissatisfaction, it is no satisfaction; conversely, the opposite of job dissatisfaction is not

PAGE 21

satisfaction, but no job satisfaction. The researchers also claimed that if the positive aspects of both satisfiers and dissatisf iers are present in the work situation in sufficient levels, the result will be greater job satisfaction; however, should the satisfiers (motivators) be removed from the work situation, indifference, not job dissatisfaction, will result, Dissatisfaction, argued Eerzberg et al. (1959), will only occur when the negative aspects of the dissatisf iers (hygienes) are not adequately fulfilled. Although Kerzberg's Two-Factor Theory has many advocates among job satisfaction theorists, it a.lso has its share of critics. One of the most complete criticisms of Kerzberg's Two-Factor Theory was published by House and Widgor (1967). They concluded that the data did not support the Two-Factor Theory and represented an oversimplification of the relationship between the sources of job satisfaction and dissatisfaction. In defense of Herzberg's Theory, Whitsett and Winslow (1967) argued that studies critical of Herzberg et al. (1959) findings were weak not only in methodology but also in interpretation. The TwoFactor Theory, claimed Whitsett and Winslow (1967), had clearly retained its utility and validity; however, they strongly recommended that modifications were necessary before the theory could be adequately applied to an educational set t 'ne .

PAGE 22

In an attempt to improve the credibility and applicability of the Two-Factor Theory, Hoy and Miskel (1978) proposed an elaboration of the theory which they called the Reformulated (Herzberg) Theory. Stateme n t of th e Prob lem This research study was undertaken in order to test the applicability of Hoy's and Miskel r s (1978) Reformulated (Herzberg) Theory to selected administrative affairs staff in the Florida State University System. Another objective of the study was to examine the level of job satisfaction and dissatisfaction associated with major job tasks for each of the following five administrative positions: director of purchasing, director of security and safety, director of personnel relations, director of physical plant, and university controller. In addition, the researcher sought the answers to the folio w i n g t wo q u e s t i o n s : 1, What are the similarities and differences among the five administrative positions in reference to job satisfaction and job dissatisfaction? 2 t Will the critical incidents reported by the respondents in the five administrative staff positions support Hoy's and Miskel "s theory of job satisfaction?

PAGE 23

Th eoretic a l Back ground Hoy's and Miskel's Reformulated (Herzberg) Theory, the basis of this research study, was developed in 1978 as an extension to the Herzberg et al. (1959) Two-Factor Theory. However, unlike Herzberg 's theory, the Reformulated Theory consists of three components instead of two: motivators . hygienes., and ambients, Motivators, like those defined by Herzberg et al. (1359), are factors which related to job satisfaction. Hoy and Miskel (1978) included five factors in this group: achievement, recognition, work itself, responsibility, and advancement . Hygienes, on the other hand, are associated with producing job dissatisfaction. Factors in this category include relationships with subordinates, relationships with peers, supervision-technical, policy and administration j o b s e c u r i t y , wo r k i n g con d i t i c n s , a n d p e r s o n a 1 life. Ambients, the distinctive factor in the Reformulated Theory, contribute with equal frequency to job satisfaction and dissatisfaction. Included in this category are salary, growth possibility, risk opportunity, relationship with sup e r o v d i n a t e s , a n d s t a t u s . According to Hoy and Miskel (1978) the theory is based on three concepts: 1. Motivators, as a group, con Tribute more to job satisfaction than to job dissatisfaction; however, a lack of adequate motivators mav contribute to d i s s a t i s f a c t i on .

PAGE 24

2. Hygienes, as a group, contribute more to job dissatisf action, but an abundance of hygienes may contribute to job satisfaction. 3. Ambients, as a group, contribute equally to job satisfaction and dissatisfaction. Justif ica ti on fo r the S t udy One issue that all researchers of job satisfaction are able to agree on is that the study of job sa.tisf action is important and needs to be expanded. Unanswered questions regarding job satisfaction still remain: for example, the controversy over whether the determinants of job satisfaction lie solely in the job itself, reside wholly in the mind of the employee, or whether job satisfaction is the consequence of an interaction between the employee and his work environment (Locke, 1969). Vaughn (1972) noted that understanding the source of job satisfaction and dissatisfaction is important in itself because of the mental health aspect. Similarly, Quiirn (1974) suggested that dissatisfied workers may draw disproportionately on our national resources. Employees whose jobs negatively affect their physical and mental health place an additional demand on the nation's already overburdened health care delivery system. In addition, workers who are dismissed from their jobs because or events related to job dissatisfaction place a strain on society, particularly at the community level,

PAGE 25

10 if they are unable to find another suitable position and must turn to unemployment compensation for financial support . Much of the concern of management and unions today rests in the areas of organizational structure, decisionmaking processes, job enrichment programs, supervisory training, and automation and are based on the assumption that these factors play a very important role in influencing the feelings, attitudes, and behavior of employees. Consequently, they are extremely interested in evaluating the impact these processes and programs have upon their employees . According to Sheppard (197G) the cost of a dissatisfied employee has not yet been fully realized in America. A dissatisfied worker may demonstrate his or her dissatisfaction in many ways: tardiness, absenteeism, work slow down, work stoppage, and ultimately in employee termination, Several researchers in the field consider the problem of employee turnover to be the greatest problem facing organizations today. Brayfield and Crockett (1955) pointed out that atti1 udinal studies conducted on worker turnover focused exclusively on job satisfaction as a predictor of tenure. According to Thomas (1977) one need only scan the educational journals, The Chronicle of Higher Educ atio n for exa m p 1 e , to r e a "I i z e t h at t h e re are a. b u n d ant position v a cancies, particularly in the upper echelons of educational

PAGE 26

11 administration. The frequency of position turnovers at this level may indicate the degree of job dissatisfaction associated with these positions. However, contrary to Thomas' (1977) observation, there have been relatively few vacancies in the five staff positions selected for the present study in comparison to other administrative positions within the university hierarchy. The present research study is an examination of lob satisfaction and dissatisfaction among upper-level higher education administrators and an endeavor to discover whether certain factors (motivators, ambients, and hygienes) contribute more than others to worker satisfaction and/or dissatisfaction. From a practical side, this research study is relevant to the selection and training of present and future educational administrators and is important in the development of position assignments. Ford and Borgatta (1970) theorized that if a job could be developed to pro-."ide greater job satisfaction, for the worker, the level of the employee's motivation would be increased substantially, Even though higher education is one of the nation's largest industries (2.4 percent of the Gross National Product in 1974-1975), little effort has been devoted to the understanding of job satisfaction among educational administrators, particularly those responsible for supervising the non-academic operation of our institutions. After an extensive review of the literature by the researcher, ir became evident that, although numerous

PAGE 27

12 research studies have been conducted involving job satisfaction in education, very few studies have focused specifically on higher education. Furthermore, of those studies concerned with higher education, the majority have focused primarily on faculty satisfaction. This study is one of the first investigations to concentrate solely on administrative positions of a purely non-academic nature. The study, to the researcher's knowledge, is the first attempt in which Hoy's and Miskel's Reformulated (Herzberg) Theory has been applied in an educational setting. According to the literature researched, Herzberg' s theory, the basis of the Reformulated Theory, has been applied to nonacademic administrators in higher education in only two other instances' the Thomas (1977) study of community college administrators, and the Groseth (19 78) study of student affairs administrators, both conducted within the Florida State University System. It is anticipated that the findings of this investigation will contribute to the knowledge of job satisfaction and dissatisfaction and will provide useful information from which to better prepare educational administrators for the tasks and demands associated with their positions.. In addition, valuable insight can be gained from investigation of these administrative positions which the Florida State University System could conceivably use in the development of job enrichment programs to better serve the individual needs of each institution within the system..

PAGE 28

13 Delimitatio ns and Limita tions o f the Study The following const raints were observed by the researcher when seeking answers to the previously stated questions (Page 7): 1. The study focused on directors of purchasing, directors of security and safety, directors of personnel relations, directors of physical plant, and university controllers at selected universities within the Florida State University System. The institutions selected for the study were chosen on the basis of their organizational structure; the selection process will be discussed further in this chapter under the subheading "Sample Selection . ' 2. & separate interview guide was developed for each of the five administrative positions. The format of questions employed in each instrument was based on a modified version of Flanagan's (1954) and Herzberg's, Mausner's, and Snyderman ' s (1959) critical incident technique. With the exception of several introductory demographic questions, the interview guide consisted of questions concerning feelings of job satisfaction and/or job dissatisfaction associated with the major job responsibilities for each position, and two specific questions concerning ov erall job satisfaction and dissatisfaction.

PAGE 29

14 There were four limitations in the study which must be acknowledged: 1. Since the study involved only staff in the departments of administrative affairs from institutions within the Florida State University System, the findings cannot and should not be generalized to other populations. 2. The collection of data was based on information provided by the respondents and is, therefore, subject to their perception and interpretation. To encourage honesty in responding, the researcher assured each subject that the information contributed would he kept in strict confidence and would be used only in the manner specified by the researcher. Names of individuals and institutions were not identified in the study. 3. Since the researcher administered the instruments and classified the data according to Herzberg's and Key's and Miskel's nomenclature (motivators, hygienes, and ambients), the interpretation of the data may be subject to the threat of internal validity. 4. In Hoy's and Miskel's discussion of the various components of their theory, they failed to define the terms "adequate motivators' and "abundance of hygienes" in reference to the motivator and hygiene components of the theory.

PAGE 30

15 Hypotheses The following hypotheses were developed by the researcher to serve as a guide in testing the applicability of Koy s s and Miskel's Reformulated Theory to selected administrative affairs staff in the Florida State University System. ] , For the major job tasks associated with the position of director of purchasing, motivators, as a group, will be associated more frequently with job satisfaction than hygienes or ambients. Major tasks identified in the State University System of Florida Administrative and Professional Job Description #9325 (1975) for this position include : a. develop, review, coordinate, and evaluate all purchasing policies, procedures, and work methods b. interpret and transmit policies and procedures of governmental agencies c. complete reports and studies as required by university, state, and federal officials d. assist in the equipping of new building construction 6c select, supervise, coordinate, and evaluate staff f. prepare and control budget

PAGE 31

16 g. conduct long-range planning and forecasting studies h. consult with directors, managers, department heads and other administrative personnel on a regular basis i. develop specifications for all contracted agreements , 2 . For the aforementioned major job tasks associated with the position of director of purchasing, hygienes, as a group, will be associated more frequently with job dissatisfaction than motivators or ambients. 3. For the major job tasks associated with the position of director of purchasing, ambients, as a group, will be associated with, equal frequency with job satisfaction and job dissatisfaction. Major tasks identified in the State University System of Florida Administrative and Professional Job Description #9325 (1975) for this position include : a. develop, review, coordinate, and evaluate all purchasing policies, procedures, and work methods b« interpret and transmit policies and procedures o f g r » v e rnmenta] a g e n c i e s c. complete reports and studios as required by university, state, and federal officials

PAGE 32

17 cl . assist in the equipping of new building construction e. select, supervise, coordinate, and evaluate staff f. prepare and control budget g. conduct long-range planning and forecasting studies h. consult with directors, managers, department heads and other administrative personnel on a regular basis i, develop specifications for all contracted agreements. 4. For the major job tasks associated with the position of director of security and safety, motivators, as a group, will be associated more frequently with job satisfaction than hygienes or ambients. Major tasks identified in the State University System of Florida Administrative and Professional Job Description #1893 (1975) for this position include: a. plan, coordinate, and evaluate all law enforcement and security policies and procedures. b. select, train, supervise, and evaluate staff c . direct and/or participate in the investigation of crimes, other offenses, and automobile accidents

PAGE 33

18 d. plan, organize, and participate in student, university, and community programs e. formulate and control budget f. organize and supervise security and traffic control programs related to special events g. coordinate security program with city, state, and federal agencies. 5. For the aforementioned major job tasks associated with the position of director of security a,nd safety, hygienes, as a group, will be associated more frequently with job dissatisfaction than motivators or ambients. 6. For the major job tasks associated with the position of director of security and safety, ambients, as a group, will be associated with equal frequency with job satisfaction and job dissatisfaction. Major tasks identified in the State University System of Florida Administrative and Professional Job Description #1393 (1975) for this position include: a. plan, coordinate, and evaluate all law enforcement and security policies and procedures b. select, train, supervise, and evaluate staff c. direct and/or participate in the investigation of crimes, other offenses, and automobile accident s

PAGE 34

19 d. plan, organize, and participate in student, university, and community programs e. formulate and control budget f. organize and supervise security and traffic control programs related to special events g. coordinate security program with city, state, and federal agencies . 7. For the major job tasks associated with the position of director of personnel relations, motivators, as a group, will be associated more frequently with job satisfaction than hygienes or ambientSc Major tasks identified in the State University System of Florida Administrative and Professional Job Description #93381 (1975) for this position include): a. plan, recommend, implement, and interpret all policies concerning personnel administration and labor relations b« direct the recruitmen t , employment orientation, and training of new employees c, formulate and control budget d, direct the maintenance of employee personnel records e. develop and maintain employee service programs f. conduct long-range planning and forecasting studies

PAGE 35

20 g< coordinate program with other university, state, and federal agencies h c counsel and advise career service, administrative and professional, and faculty administrators in matters relating to fringe benefits and personnel administration i, select, train, coordinate, and evaluate staff j, administer Workmen's Compensation, Wage and Hour Agreement, and Unemployment Compensation. 8, For the aforementioned major job tasks associated with the position of director of personnel relations, hygienes as a group, will be associated more frequently with job dissatisfaction than motivators or ambients. 9. For the major job tasks associated with the position of director of personnel relations, ambients, as a group, will be associated with equal frequency with job satisfaction and job dissatisfaction. Major tasks identified in the State University System of Florida Administrative and Professional Job Description #93361 (1975) for this pos i i: i on i n c 1 ude : a. plan, recommend, implement, and interpret all policies concerning personnel administration and labor relations b. direct the recruitment, employment orientation, and training of new employees

PAGE 36

21 c. formulate and control budget d. direct the maintenance of employee personnel records e„ develop and maintain employee service programs i. conduct long-range planning and forecasting studies g. coordinate program with other university, state, and federal agencies h. counsel and advise career service, administrative and professional, and faculty administrators in matters relating to fringe benefits and personnel administration i. select, train, coordinate, and evaluate staff j , administer Workmen's Compensation, Wage and Hour Agreement, and Unemployment Compensation. For the major job tasks associated with the position of director of physical plant, motivators, as a group, will be associated more frequently with job satisfaction than hygienes or ambient s„ Major tasks identified in the State University System of Florida Administrative and Professional Job Description #9353 (1975) for this position include: a, select, train, coordinate, and evaluate staff b. plan, organize, and direct, the operation and maintenance of the physical plant C consult and advise campus, local, and state officials

PAGE 37

22 d. interpret, communicate, and recommend all policies within state and federal laws e. prepare and control budget f. initiate cost studies and conduct long-range planning g. assist architects, engineers, and contractors with building construction and/or renovation. 11. For the aforementioned major job tasks associated with the position of director ox physical plant, hygienes, as a group, will be associated more frequently with job dissatisfaction than motivators or ambient s. 12. For the major job tasks associated with the position of director of physical plant, ambients, as a group, will be associated with equal frequency with job satisfaction and job dissatisfaction. Major tasks identified in the State University Syscem of Florida Administrative and Professional Job Description #9353 (1975) for this position include : a„ select, train, coordinate, and evaluate staff b, plan, organize, and direct the operation and maintenance of the physical plant c, consult and advise campus, local, and state officials d, interpret, communicate, and recommend all policies within state and federal la.ws

PAGE 38

2 3 e. prepare and control budget i. initiate cost studies and conduct long-range planning g. assist architects, engineers, and contractors with building construction and/or renovation. 13. For the major job tasks associated with the position oi university controller, motivators, as a group, will be associated more frequently with job satisfaction than hygienes or arabients. Major tasks identified in the State University System of Florida Administrative and Professional Job Description #9297 (1975) for this position include: a. plan, organize, and direct the fiscal and accounting function of a university b s prepare periodic and special fiscal reports c. budget analysis and control d. develop and administer policies and procedures within state and federal guidelines e. interpret and communicate fiscal policies as required by the Federal Government f. select, train, coordinate, and evaluate staff g. coordinate program with university, state, and federal officials h. supervise the receipt and disbursement of all general university funds, and the billing and collection of all general university receivables.

PAGE 39

24 14. For the aforementioned job tasks associated with the position of university controller, hygienes, as a group, will be associated more frequently with job dissatisfaction than motivators or ambient s . 15, For the major job tasks associated with the position of university controller, ambients, as a group, will be associated with equal frequency with job satisfaction and job dissatisfaction. Major tasks identified in the State University System of Florida Administrative and Professional Job Description #9297 (1975) for this position include: a. plan, organize, and direct the fiscal and accounting function of a university b. prepp.re periodic and special fiscal reports c. budget analysis and control d. develop and administer policies and procedures within state and federal guidelines e. interpret and communicate fiscal policies as required by che Federal Government f. select, train, coordinate, and evaluate staff g. coordinate program with university, state, and federal officials h. supervise the receipt and disbursement of all general university funds, and the billing and collection of all general university receivables.

PAGE 40

25 16. For the five administrative positions researched (director of purchasing, director of security and safety, director of personnel relations, director of physical plant, and university controller) motivators, as a group, will be associated more frequently with job satisfaction than will hygienes or ambient s. 17. For the five administrative positions researched (director of purchasing, director of security and safety, director of personnel relations, director of physical plant, and university controller) hygienes, as a group, will be associated more frequently with job dissatisfaction than will motivators or ambients, 18. For the five administrative positions researched (director of purchasing, director of security and safety, director of personnel relations, director of physical plant, and university controller) ambieats, as a group, will be associated with equal frequency with job satisfaction and dissatisfaction. 19. For the five administrative positions researched (director of purchasing, director of security and safety, director of persennei relations, director o f p h y sic a 1 plane, an d u n i. v e sit y c o n t r o Her ) mo tivators, as a group, will be associated more frequently with o ve ral I job satisfaction than hygienes or ambients.

PAGE 41

26 20. For the five administrative positions researched (director of purchasing, director of security and safety, director of personnel relations, director of physical plant, and university controller) hygienes, as a group, will be associated more frequently with overall job dissatisfaction than motivators or ambients, 21, For the five administrative positions researched (director of purchasing, director of security and safety., director of personnel relations, director of physical plant, and university controller) ambients,, as a. group, will be associated with equal frequency in overa ll job satisfaction and overall job dissatisfaction. Definiti on of Term s Amb ients . Factors which, according to Hoy and Miskel, contribute to an employee's satisfaction and dissatisfaction with equal frequency; for example, salary, status, and risk opportunity. Cr i t i cal i ncidgn t . A situation which has been identified as producing feelings of satisfaction or dissatisfaction related to an individual's job. Director of personnel relations. The highest ranking administrative officer at each university under the vice pi'esident for administrative affairs whose major responsibility is the management of all aspects of personnel administration

PAGE 42

27 and labor relations activities. He or she is responsible for administration of a coordinated system of personnel management for all administrative, professional, and career service employees including retirement counseling and fringe benefit programs. In addition, he or she assists faculty supervisors in the administration of employee relations services. Di rector of physical pla nt. The highest ranking administrative officer at each university under the vice president for administrative affairs whose major responsibility is the management of all activities of the physical plant division. He or she is responsible for grounds maintenance. building maintenance, telephone service, utility distribution and generation. Director of purchasing . The highest ranking administrative officer at each university under the vice president for administrative affairs whose major responsibility is the management of all activities of the purchasing division. He or she is responsible, under state statutes and regulations of the State Purchasing Division, for the acquisition of all commodities and services required by the university bidding procedures, establishment of contracts,, and lease arrangements for equipment and premises. Direct or of security and safety. The highest ranking administrative officer at each university under the vice presidenl for administrative affairs whose major responsibility is the management of all activities of the police

PAGE 43

28 department in the protection of life and property within the university community. Hygienes . Factors which, according to Herzberg et al . , contribute to an employee's dissatisfaction and are related to the context portion of a person's job; for example, working conditions, company policy and administration, and interpersonal rel at ions . Job satisfaction , The pleasureable emotional state resulting from the appraisal of one's job as achieving or facilitating the achievement of one's job values. Maj or job responsibilities. Duties assigned to, associated with, or assumed by a particular administrator and identified in the State University System of Florida Administrative and Professional Job Description. Moti vators . Factors which, according to Herzberg et al . , are associated with producing employee satisfaction and are related to the content portion of an individual's job; for example, achievement, recognition, and responsibility. University controller . The highest ranking administrative officer at each university under the vice president for administrative affairs whose major responsibility is the management of all activities of the finance and accounting division. Re or she is responsible for the maintenance of accounting records, collection and disbursement of university funds, control of the annual budget, and "the preparation of financial statements.

PAGE 44

29 Resear ch Me thodolog v The purpose of this research study, as previously stated, was to test the applicability of Hoy's and Miskel's Reformulated (Herzberg) Theory and to examine job satisfaction and dissatisfaction within five specific administrative positions in administrative affairs. A modification of Flanagan's (1954) critical incident technique, a technique which was refined and applied successfully by Herzberg et al . (1959), was utilized in the collection of data. Each respondent was asked to describe a situation regarding his or her present position in which they felt exceptionally good and another in which they felt exceptionally bad concerning the major job responsibilities associated with their position. Their responses then were classified on the basis of Hoy's and Miskel's 16 factors relating to job satisfaction and dissatisfaction. According to Fox (1969) the critical incident technique is an extremely useful Instrument. It combines some of the advantages of the impersonal interaction with the fact that the respondents themselves select incidents which they feel are significant to the study. The critical incident technique "avoids the problem of the perception of the outside observer reading motives into the behavior of the respondent" (Fox, 1969, p. 559). A second advantage often cited by researchers in the utilization of this technique is that the respondent is allowed to provide information which would not otherwise be easily obtained by application of a different procedure.

PAGE 45

30 Sample Selectio n Individuals occupying five key administrative positions within administrative affairs in the Florida State System were interviewed. The positions studied included: director of purchasing, director of security and safety, director of personnel relations, director of physical plant, and university controller. The decision to include or exclude a particular university from the investigation was based upon the institution's administrative affairs organizational structure. Consideration was given to those institutions at which the administrative positions being researched reported directly to the vice president for administrative affairs. However, due to the variety of organizational structures in existence throughout the Florida State University System and the presence or absence of the positions in question, it became necessary to interview at least one administrative type from each of the campuses in the Florida State University System, with the exception of the university of West Florida in Pensacola. Institutions included in the study were; University of Florida in Gainesville; Florida State University in Tallahassee; Florida Agricultural and Mechanical University in Tallahassee; Florida Technological University in Orlando; University of South Florida in Tampa; University of North Florida in Jacksonville; Florida Atlantic University in Boca Raton; and Florida International University in Miami,

PAGE 46

31 I as t r ura entation Five parallel interview guides modeled after those utilized by Herzberg et al. (1959), Thomas (1977), and Groseth (1978) were developed by the researcher. The instruments were designed for the purpose of examining the degree of job satisfaction and job dissatisfaction associated with five administrative positions in administrative affairs and the major job responsibilities associated with each of these positions. The research instruments also included several demographic questions which provided the researcher with essential background, information from which to develop an administrative profile for each position. The researcher reviewed several institutional and Florida Slate University System Position Descriptions before selecting the major job responsibilities associated with each position. One document which proved helpful in this undertaking was the Florida State University System Position Description Statement for Administrative and Professional Staff (1975), Class Codes #9353, #9297. #1893, ."9325, and #9336 „ In addition, personal appointments were made with the director of purchasing (Baumer, 1978); director of physical plant (Greene, 1978); director of campus security (Shuler, 1978); and director of personnel relations (Button, 1978) at the University of Florida for the purpose of identifying major institutional job responsibilities, Respondents were encouraged to add or delete

PAGE 47

32 any major job responsibility from the interview guide which they felt more accurately reflected their primary responsibi lities . Data Col lectio n The data collection process employed by the researcher consisted of four basic steps The first involved sending a letter to the Vice Chancellor for Administration and Support for the Florida State University System, Mr. Steve McArthur, which briefly explained the purpose of the research study and requested his cooperation and support in this endeavor. Step two of the data collection process involved a second letter authored by Mr. Steve McArthur and sent to each of the administrative vice presidents at the eight selected universities in the State University System. In addition to soliciting support and cooperation tor the project , the letter requested each vice president to name the individuals at his/her institution who occupied the positions selected for the study. In step three the researcher then scheduled appointments with the individuals named to participate in the study. The interviews were scheduled during the first par!, of October, 1978. Arranging the interviews for this particular period ensured that the majority of administrator::; were available to participate in the study. The fourth and final step in the data collection process wan the interview itself , Each interview Lasted

PAGE 48

33 approximately one hour. The researcher utilized the appropriate Interview Guide (see Appendices A, B, C, D, and E). At the onset of each interview the researcher assured each respondent that the information collected would be used only for the purpose outlined by the researcher and, under no circumstances, would the institution or person be identified in the study. Also, as standard procedure, the researcher briefly reiterated the purpose of the study for each respondent . ^jrA nalysis The first step in the data analysis involved classification of each critical incident reported to determine which of Hoy's and Missel's 16 factors was the most influential: achievement , recognition, work itself, responsibility, or advancement (motivators); relationship with subordinates, relationship with peers, supervision-technical , company policy and administration, job security, personal life, or working conditions (hygienes); salary, growth possibility, risk opportunity, relationship with superordinat.es or status (ambients) . Definitions developed by Herzberg et al. (1959) and Hoy and Miskel (1978) were employed. Each critical inc. ..dent was indexed and recorded in a frequency distribution based upon those factors (of the 16 factors) found to be the most dominant. It v/as necessary in some instances to assign more than one factor to a particular critical incident when it was determined that two factors were eq ual ly i n f 1 uen I i a i. .

PAGE 49

34 The statistical analysis of the data followed as the next ateo in the process. The researcher, adhering to the recommendations of Fox (1969), Siegel (1956), and Roscoe (1975) concerning the proper use of Chi-square, utilized this statistical procedure only if there were five or more responses in at least 80 percent of the cells in the; Chisquare. In situations where there were less than five responses to a cell, the researcher employed a Bayesian statistical procedure known as the Probable Impact Exploration System (P.I.E.S.). According to Nickens (1977), the procedure would enable the researcher to estimate probabilities of impact ranges on data where only a minimal number of samples were available for analysis and limits (ranges) had not been previously established. PlflS ; -\n i^zat^L o n_ _q f_ Subse quent Ch a pters The second chapter presents an in-depth review of the research literature concerning the involvement of job satisfaction theories, with particular emphasis devoted to administrators in higher education. Chapter III contains the findings of this research study; Chapter IV presents analyses and discussion of the data in relation to the 21 hypotheses, The final chapter consists of a summary of the study, conclusions, and suggestions for further research.

PAGE 50

CHAPTER II REVIEW OF THE LITERATURE The following ohaptei consists of eight sections. The first provides the basic f oundat Lon for understanding job satisfaction and begins by reviewing theories involving individual needs,, commonly referred to as need reduction or gratification theories. The five theories discussed under this classification include Murray's Theory of Psychogenic Needs, Maslow's Hierarchy of Needs Theory, Alderfer's Existence, Reiatedness and Growth (E.R.G.) Theory. McGregor's Theory X and Theory Y. and the Work Adjustment Theory. Section two examines those theories which are relativist"! c or expectancy in nature. The four theories discussed include Vroom's Validation, Instrumentality and Expectancy (V.T.E.) Theory, Lawlor and Porter's Intrinsic/Extrinsic Theory, Adam's Equity Theory and the Smith, Kendall and Kulin Cornell Approach, Section thi'ee reviews the traditional theory of job satisfaction, and sections four, five and six present an in-depth examination of Herzberg ' s Two-Factor Theory. Some of the more prominent research studies, both supportive and critical of Herzberg r s theory, are discussed. 35

PAGE 51

36 Section seven examines in detail the most recent theory to emerge in the area of job satisfaction, the Hoy and Miskel Reformulated (Herzberg) Theory. The final section presents a review of studies conducted in higher education which focus on non-academic administrators . Need Reduct ion/Grat ifi catio n Theori es o f Job Sat i s_ fa ction One of the first theories to concern itself with the needs of man was proposed by Henry A. Murray (1938) and was known as the Theory of Psychogenic Needs. Murray studied a number of people utilizing various instruments (interviews, questionnaires, and psychological tests) from which he developed a list of 20 social motives called "psychogenic needs.' 1 Included in the list were such characteristics as achievement , dominance, nurturance, order, and play. This was one of the first attempts on the part of a theorist to categorize the needs of man. One of the most recognized and most often cited theories concerning worker satisfaction is Abraham Maslow's Hierarchy of Needs Theory. Maslow's theory consists of five levels of needs: (a) physiological, (b) safety, (c) belongingness or love, (d) esteem, and (e) self-actualization. Each need level is related to the next in a hierarchial fashion (Maslow 1954) with self-actualization needs at the top of the hierarchy and physio J ogical needs located

PAGE 52

37 at the bottom (see Figure 1 for a diagram of Maslow's Need Hierarchy) . / Self actualization : to become everything that one is capable of becoming (measure up to our /own criteria of success Esteem needs: selfrespect, positive selfevaluation, prestige (dependent on others) Belongingness and love needs: love, affection, friends companionship (dependent on self & others) Safety needs: protection from the elements (dependent on self & others) Physiological needs: hunger, thirst, sex, etc, (dependent on self) Figure 1. Maslow's Hierarchy of Needs Maslow theorized that each need level is related to the state of satisfaction or dissatisfaction of other needs. As one of the lower level needs becomes satisfied, a person's interest switches to the next higher level need, etc. The ultimate goal of man, according to Maslow (1954), is to attain self -actualization or become everything thai, one is

PAGE 53

38 capable of becoming. Maslow's Need Hierarchy Theory is based on the premise that the lower order needs are never completely satisfied, and if their satisfaction is deprived for a given period of time, they evolve into strong motivators. The higher order needs on the other hand (selfactualization and esteem) are rarely satisfied and must be continually sought. Once a need is satisfied, it no longer c-.cz s as a motivator. Even though Maslow's Hierarchy of Needs Theory is not well supported by empirical research, there appears to be a general consensus in the research literature that when more of Maslow's basic needs are satisfied, the individual's job satisfaction is likely to be greater. Blai (1964) found that out of 470 pecple representing various occupations, job security, work responsibilities, and self-actualization were the strongest job satisfiers. Another theory which focuses on the needs of individuals and is closely related to Maslow's Need Hierarchy Theory is Aiderfer's E.R.G. Theory. This theory is based on the assumption that people have certain needs which are, to some degree, satisfied by their jobs. Alderfer (1969) concluded that individuals have three basic needs which they constantly strive to satisfy: (a) existence needs, (b) relatedness needs, and (c) growth needs. Although these three needs are arranged in a quasi-hierarchial fashion, with existence needs at the bottom and growth needs on top, the order js not strictly adhered to Unlike Maslow's

PAGE 54

39 hierarchy, the fulfillment of lower order needs is not a prerequisite for the emergence of higher order needs. Inherent in the E.R.G. Theory is the concept of interchangeability within and between need levels. Within a specific need class an individual may turn toward other objectives if unable to attain a specific one. An individual who focuses attention on an increase in fringe benefits if his or her salary is unsatisfactory is an example of transferability within a need level. Alderfer (1969) theorized that between need categories two cycles cf transfer exist: The first cycle occurs between existence and growth needs, whereas the second cycle is present between relatedness needs and growth neeas. Should an individual become frustrated in satisfying relatedness needs, his or her attention will turn toward existence needs for greater material gratification (see Figure 2 for a -omparison between Maslow's Need Hierarchy and Alder fer's E.R.G. Hierarchy). Existence needs include material substances and the process involved in attaining these items. Needs classified in this category include: food, water, pay, fringe benefits. Relatedness needs include persons or groups involved in sharing thoughts and feelings and consist, of family, friends, supervisors, and subordinates. Growth needs pertain to environmental settings and the process the individual undergoes in generating creative effects on himself and the environment.

PAGE 55

40 MASLOW ALDERFER Physiological Safety Love Esteem Actualization Existence Relate dness Growth Figure 2. A comparison of Maslov's Need Hierarchy to Alderfer's E.R.G. Need Hierarchy In his book entitled the Hu man S ide of E nterprise, Douglas McGregor (1960) identified two opposing points of view regarding the nature of man, He referred to the first view as Theory X; the second, Theory Y. Theory X, often referred to as the traditional view of man, is based on the lower order needs and the following three assumpt ions : i. The average human being has an inherent dislike for work and will avoid it if he can . 2. Because of the human characteristic of dislike of work, most people must be coerced, controlled, directed, or threatened with punishment in order to put forth adequate effort toward the achievement of organizational objectives. 3. The average human being prefers to be directed, wishes to avoid responsibility, has relatively little ambition, and wants security above all. (McGregor. 1960, pp. 33-34) Theory Y, a more flattering view of man, is based on the higher order needs and these six assumptions:

PAGE 56

41 1. The expenditure of physical and mental effort in work is as natural as play or rest . 2. External control and the threat of punishment are not the only means of bringing about effort toward organizational objectives. Man will exercise selfdirection and self-control in the service of objectives to which he is committed. 3. Commitment to objectives is related to the rewards associated with their achievement . 4. The average human being learns, under proper conditions, not only to accept but also to seek responsibility. 5. The capacity to exercise high degrees of imagination, ingenuity, and creativity in the solution of organizational problems is widely,, not narrowly, distributed in the population. 8. Under conditions of modern industrial life, the intellectual potentialities of the average human being are only partially utilized. (McGregor, 1960, pp. 47-48) McGregor's cheory is based upon the assumption that individuals will exercise self-direction and self-control in the achievement of organizational objectives if and to the extent they commit themselves to those objectives. Ihe i'fork Adjustment Theory, the final theory discussed in this section, was developed by Dawis, Lofquist, and Weiss (1968). The theory focuses on the interaction between an individual and his environment and assumes that people strive to achieve and maintain a close relationship with their environments. The theory consists of three basic components (a.) the re-enforcer system of the work

PAGE 57

42 environment (the rewards available from a job), (b) the individual's needs (what an individual desires to obtain from the work environment), and (c) the individual's abilities. Satisfaction on the job, according to Dawis et al. (1968) depends largely on the degree of correspondence between what an individual needs from his environment and what the e n v i ronmen t provides . Expectancy and Other Relativistic The or ies o f Job Satisfaction One of the most prominent theories among active researchers in the field of motivation is known as the Expectancy or V.I.E. Theory. This theory was first formalized by Vrocm (1964) in his book entitled Work and Motivation . The theory involves four concepts: (a) valence, (b) expectancy, (c) instrumentality, and (d ) force. Valence is defined as an individual's perception of the value of Che reward or out core that might be obtained by performing effectively. An outcome has positive valence when a person desires to attain it and a negative valence if tine person does not desire the outcome. The second concept, instrumentality, is the degree to which an indlvidua I believes that one outcome is associated with the attainment of other outcomes ( Georgeopoulous, Mahoney, and Jones 1957). For example, an outstanding performance will most likely result in an increase in salary. Instrumentality relates one outcome to another. It is similar to a correlation coefficient in chat it varies from a

PAGE 58

4 3 "plus one'' to a "negative one." P. plus one indicates that the second outcome will result if the first outcome occurs, and a negative one indicates that a second outcome will definitely not occur if the first outcome occurs. Expectancy represents an individual's belief that a particular outcome is associated with his behavior; for exarcple, increased effort on the part of an individual will result in higher performance. The beliefs vary in scope from a "1.0" to "0,0." A "1,0" indicates that a particular outcome will definitely follow the behavior whereas the "0.0" indicates that it will not. Broedling (1975) theorized that the V..I.E. Theory is based on the premise that motivation is "the result of the extent to which an individual perceives that he or she can and wants to perform well and the extent to which he or she perceives that such performance will produce a desired outcome' (Broedling, 1975. p. 67). As defined by Vroom (cited in Mitchell, 1974, p. 1054) job satisfaction is: 3 <^ k jk' k = 1 where V. = valence of outcome j , V, valence of outcome k, n number of outcomes, I., = perceived instrumentality of outcome j for the attainment of outcome k

PAGE 59

44 Expectancy Theory is primarily a theory of the individual which attempts to explain the process factors affecting an individual's choices between alternative acts of behavior. If an individual views money as a reward, then the more money he makes from his job, the more attracted he will be to his work role (Vroom, 1964). Expectancy Theory concerns itself with situational variables as they are perceived by the individual rather chan variables as they might be measured or estimated by someone other than the individual. The theory assumes that it is the perceived value of the variables which affects the ind ividuai ' s behavior . Expectancy Theory is a point of view which does not specify which factors relate in what ways to satisfaction or dissatisfaction. Instead, it speculates on the possibility that satisfaction is a relativistic phenomenon; for example 3 'persons develop different personal standards for evaluating the amount of whatever kinds of satisfactions the work offers" (Zytowski. 1968, p. 400). Although Vroom (1964) provides one of the most consistent interactionist: theories to date, a problem arises concerning the double usage of the concept of valence. On ore band, the valence of an object or outcome is defined as "one's desire for or anticipated satisfaction with something not yet attained" and on another, it is used synonymously with "one's degree of satisfaction with objects which one now possesses" (Vroom, 1964, pp. 100-101).

PAGE 60

45 Researchers such as Campbell, Borgea, Eastes, Johansson and Peterson (1968) and Graen, Dawis, and Weiss (1969) concluded that empirical tests provide moderate support for the VM.E. Theory. Lawler and Porter (1967) offered an interesting variation to the Expectancy Theory and treated satisfaction as a function of performance (see Figure 3 for Lawler' s Mode] cf Job Satisfaction). Intrinsic Rewards Performance Ac comp lishment Perceived Equitable \^_Revard = Job Satisfaction Extrinsic Rewards Figure 3. Lawler 's Model of Job Satisfaction According to Lawler' s mode], performance leads to two types of rev^ards, extrinsic and intrinsic. Extrinsic rewards are seen as being imperfectly related to performance due to the difficulty of making rewards such as pay, promotion, and security contingent upon performance. Intrinsic rewards, contend Lawler and Porter (1967). are different in that they refer to feelings of accomplishment which can be given by the individual to himself. Thus, the relationship between intrinsic rewards and performance is seen as more d i re c 1. 1 v e i n ? l at u r e .

PAGE 61

46 Equity Theory is another theory of job satisfaction which is closely related to Vroom's Expectancy Theory. It is based on the assumption that individuals have an expectation of an "equitable" reward level which they receive from a social exchange. Employees have perceptions of their \vcri;-reiatec] outcomes (pay, recognition, and status) as well as work-related inputs (job efforts, aptitude, and personal sacrifice) made in order to be on the job each day. People also have perceptions of others' work-related outcomes and inputs (Motowidlo, Dowell, Hopp, Borman, Johnson, and Dunnette, 1976). Tuttle and Ha-zei (1974) suggest that the theory revolves around the basic concepts oi : input" and "outcome." Inputs are at tributes which are brought to the exchange and are perceived as relevant to the exchange. An attribute is relevant if the person expects to receive a return. Outcomes, on the ether hand, are an individual's receipt for the exchange. Outcomes may be positive (pay, status, good parking) or they may be negative (monotony, poor working conditions). If an individual perceives his rewards relative to his inputs equal to rewards others receive relative to their inputs, the individual will experience job satisfaction , However, if an individual perceives his rewards as being unequal, over-rewarded or under-rewarded relative to another, the individual will experience job dissatisfaction.

PAGE 62

47 Although there have been several equity theory formulations proposed, Adams' Equity Theory (1965) is considered by many researchers to be the most complete. Adams claimed that inequity exists when an individual perceives that the ratio of his outcomes to his inputs are not equal to the outcome/input ratio of another person. Equity Theory is vary individualistic, its orientation always through the eyes of the individual. Inputs and outcomes which are perceived to be functioning by the person may or may not correspond to the inputs and outcomes perceived to be functioning by other parties to the exchange relationship. A strategy approach to the study of job satisfaction, called the Cornell Studies, was developed in 1969 by Smith, Kendall, and Hulin. The approach measured several aspects of job satisfaction through an instrument called the Job Description Index (J.D.I. ). Smith et al . (1969) listed the following ten implications of their strategy: 1. An adequate model of satisfaction must take into account interactive effects among variables, 2. Relationships between satisfaction and overt behavior vary from situation to situation. 3. Relationships between satisfaction and behavior cannot be reasonably expected unless the behavior can be considered to be appropriate means of expressing satisfaction and dissatisfaction . 4. The manner in which questions are asked affects the time perspective of the respondent and therefore affects the alternatives ho considers.

PAGE 63

48 5. Satisfaction is a product of other variables and may or may not. serve as a cause in itself. 6. There may be a relationship between satisfaction and behavior since the same variables producing the satisfaction might also produce the behavior, or changes in behavior may act to change the situation and, therefore, satisfaction. 7. The relationship between satisfaction and performance will vary depending on the aspect of the job being studied. 8. The importance of each aspect of the job situation influences the individual's feeling of satisfaction. Importance is considered to be a function of the discrepancy between the existing situation and the alternatives available/ 9. Legitimacy, the group norms defining the legitimate requirements for a job for a specified, group, influence the acceptance of a task and the attitude toward it. 10. It is, therefore, the interrelationship of objective factors of the job, of individual capacities and experience, of alternatives available in the company and the community, and of the values of the individual, that can be expected to predict satisfaction and performance . (Smith et al., 1969, p. 165) The Cornell Studies do not represent a theory in and of themselves, but provide a useful guide from which to build a theory of job satisfaction. Tradi tional Theory of Job Satisf action Bookman (1971) described the Traditional Theory of /job satisfaction as being the total body of feeling an individual has about his or her job. This feel inencompasses both job-related and environment-related factors and fluctuates on a single continuum between a condition of satisfacti*

PAGE 64

49 and dissatisfaction. Midway between satisfaction and dissatisfaction is a condition of neutrality in which the individual is neither satisfied nor dissatisfied (see Figure 4 for an illustration of Bookman's Traditional Model of Job Satisfaction) . Bockman (1971) theorized that if an individual is deprived of pay, advancement, recognition, or a combination of factors, he moves toward the negative end of the continuum unless the presence of other factors counterbalance this effect, Consequently, adding or improving a factor, salary for instance, causes movement in a positive direction, Supporters of the Traditional Theory feel that if the presence of a variable in the work situation leads to job satisfaction, then logically its absence will lead to .job dissat i sf a c t ion . Carroll presented the following illustration: If a worker earns $200 per month and gets a $40 increase, he will be pushed further on the satisfaction continuum than if he only received a $20 increase. If his salary is cut by $20, he will logically be pushed on the end continuum toward the dissatisfaction, (Carroll, 1969, p. 6) Job FactorsNegative or Absent Positive or Present Dissatisfaction Satisfaction Neutrality Figure 4. Bookman's Traditional Model of Job Satisfaction

PAGE 65

50 H erzberg ' s Two-Factor _ Theo ry of Job _ Satisfaction In their book entitled The Moti vation to Work , Herzberg, Mausner, and Snyderman (1959) developed the concept that certain types of factors are more commonly associated with feelings of satisfaction whereas other factors are more frequently associated with feelings of dissatisfaction. Herzberg et al . (1959) tested this unique concept on 203 male engineers and accountants in Pittsburg, Pennsylvania. The methodology employed by Herzberg and associates has its origin in the critical incident method developed by Flanagan (1954). Subjects were asked to describe incidents which led to marked increases or defeases in their job satisfaction, the reasons why these incidents caused the changes in satisfaction, the duration of the changes, and their impact on the performance of the individual. Thefirst question asked was: Think of a time in the past when you felt exceptionally good about your job. It may have been on this job or any other. Can you think of such a high point in your feelings about your job? Please tell me about it. (Herzberg. Mausner, and Snyderman, 1959, p. 20) The second question asked for an example of when the respondent felt exceptionally bad about his or her job. Herzberg and his staff analyzed the content, of the interview statements and divided them into "thought units" about a single event or condition thai; evoked a particular feeling, or a description of a single effect of events (Moxley, 1977).

PAGE 66

51 Based on the outcome of this data, Herzberg et al., (1959) developed their theory on job attitudes called the Two-Factor Theory or Motivator-Hygiene Theory. Herzberg and associates found that there were two sets of factors responsible for bringing about either job satisfaction or job dissatisfaction. The first set of factors involved the actual doing oi the job (the job content or intrinsic aspects of the job) and was referred to as "satisfiers" or ''motivators.' The second ser. of factors identified concerned the environmental setting cf the job (the surrounding conditions) and was called "hygienes." or "dissatisf iers . " Cummiags and El Salmi (1968) divided the Herzberg theory into the following four concept: 1. Job satisfaction and job dissatisfaction are unrelated and are not opposite one another on a single bipolar continuum. Instead, they are separate and distinct continua (see Figure 5 for Herzberg 7 s Two -Factor Attitude Model ) . 2. The opposite of job satisfaction is not job dissatisfaction; it is no job satisfaction. Conversely; the opposite of job dissatisfaction is net job satisfaction, it is no job dissatisfaction. Satisfaction (Satisfiers/ N Satisfaction } _~~ Motivators) . . . r, .. (Dissatisf ier/ ~ . . . . . No Dissatisfaction v „ . _ . ' Dissatisfaction Hygienes ) Figure 5. Herzberg' s Two-Factor Attitude Model

PAGE 67

52 3. Job satisfaction is determined by the feeling the employee has towards the conte nt of his job or job environment. Content; job factors are classified as: achievement, recognition, advancement, responsibility, and work itself. These factors were mentioned most often by those interviewed as factors which gave the most sat.i sf action. 4. Job dissatisfaction is determined by the feelings the individual has toward the context of his job. Context factors include: company policy and administration, technical aspects of supervision, interpersonal relations with supervision, salary, and working conditions. These factors were mentioned most often as causing the employee the most dissatisfaction. (Cummings and El Salmi, 1968, p. 133) In the Herzberg et al , (1959) original study, only five factors were identified as being motivators: advancement, achievement, recognition, work itself, and respensibili ty . It was not until later that Herzberg discovered a sixth motivating factor, which he called "possibility of growth." The six motivators or satisfiers as defined by Herzberg et al. (1959) and Herzberg (1968) follow: 1, Advancement refers to actual changes in the~~si a t us or position -of an individual in an organization, It also includes the probability of or hope of advancement. 2.. Achievement refers to all events which lead toward realization of the worker's personal objectives (successful completion of a job, finding a solution to a problem;, or seeing the results of one's own work). The definition also includes the opposite — failure to achieve. 3. Recognition comprises some act ox praise, notice (positive recognition) or blame (negative recognition) toward the employee iron the work environment (a peer, professional colleague, supervisor, or the goneral public).

PAGE 68

53 4. Work itself denotes the actual doing of the job or the tasks of the job as a source of good or bad feelings. It also refers to the opportunity to complete an assigned unit of work. 5. R esponsibil ity relates to authority and includes those sequences of events in which the worker mentioned satisfaction derived from being given responsibility for his own work or the work of others, or being given new responsibility. Also included were those incidents in which there was a loss of satisfaction from lack of responsibility . 6. Po s s ib i 1 i t y o f _g£QWth refers to growth in specific skill areas as well as growth in status which would enable the individual to move onward and upward in a company. This factor also encompasses the lack of opportunity for growth. (Herzberg, 196G , pp. 193-198) Herzberg et al. (1959) identified five hygienes or dissatisfiers in their initial, study: salary, working conditions, supervision-technical, interpersonal relations, and company policy and administration, Three additional factors were found to contribute to job dissatisfaction as a result of later experimentation: status, personal life, and job security . The eight hygienes or dissat isf iers as defined by Herzberg (1986) include: 1. Salary includes all sequences of events in which some type of compensation (wage or salary increase) play a role. Unfulfilled expectations to receive an expected salary increase is also included in this category. 2. Working condi lions, refers to the physical conditions of work and the facilities available for performing the work (adequate tools, s p a c e , 1 i g b t i n g . or v e n t i 1 a t i o n ) .

PAGE 69

54 3. Superv isio ntechni cal includes those events in which the competence or incompetence of the supervisor are the critical factors. Statements concerning a supervisor's willingness or unwillingness to delegate responsibility or his willingness or unwillingness to instruct are included. 4. Interperson al relations involve actual verbalization about the characteristics of the interaction between the worker and another individual. Three categories of interpersonal relations are specified: those involving subordinates, those involving peers, those concerning supervisors. 5. Company policy and administra tion includes fa~c~Eo?: s in which some overall aspect of the company is involved. Herzberg (1959) identified two types: the first concerns the adequacy or inadequacy of a company's organization and management; the second involves the positive or negative effects of the company's personnel policies. 6. Status refers to the sequence of events in which the respondent specifically mentioned that a change in status affected his or her feelings about the job (attaining a larger office, use of a company car, or having a pe r sonal secre t ary ) . 7. Persona l li fe involves situations in which some aspect of the job affects the individual's personal life in such a manner that the respondent's feelings about his job are affected (a family-opposed job transfer) . 8. Job security refers to signs of job security (continued employment, tenure, and financial safeguards). Feelings alone of security or insecurity were not accepted. (Herzberg, 19GG, pp. 193-19S) • Herzberg, et al. (1959) theorized that if the positive aspects of both the motivators (satisfiers) and hygienes (dissatisf iers) are present in sufficient levels, then job satisfaction will be high. However, if the motivators are

PAGE 70

fi;. ved, Indifference not dissatisfaction will result. Disiction will only occur if the negative aspects of the rs are present. In more specific terms, Herzberg Poor working conditions, bad company policies and administration, and bad superion will lead to job dissatisfaction. Good company policies, good administration, good supervision and good working conditions will not lead to positive job attitude. In opposition to this, as far as our data has gone, recognition, achievement, interesting work, responsibility, and advancement all lead to positive attitudes. Their absence will much less frequently lead to job satisfaction. (Herzberg, et ai. 1959, p. 82^ One point which is often overlooked in the research literature is that reversals may occui in the Two-Factor Theory. Herzberg admitted that there could be times when moti• »rs may act :».s hygienes and, conversely, times when hygj snes may I »n as motivators (Herzberg. et al . 1959). condu L2 different investigations involving a drawn from 1,685 employees, Herzberg (1968) reported that SI percent of all the factors contributing to job satis. n were classified us motivators and that 69 percent of all factors contributing to job dissatisfaction consisted of "6 . Herzberg, et al. (1959) found it difficult to classify salary as a hygiene in their original study. The problem stemmed from the foci thai salary appeared in reports led lo" -union as often as 11 appeared In the reaction. Upon further investigation,

PAGE 71

56 researchers discovered that when salary was mentioned in a report classified as low satisfaction, it was generally because the employee felt that he or she either deserved more money or that a given increase was not based on performance. On the other hand, when salary was listed in reports labeled as high satisfaction, the employee viewed salary in a positive light and felt that his or her increase was based upon z erformance . To date, a tremendous amount ox research has been stimulated by Herzberg' s Two-Factor Theory. Grigaliunas and Herzberg (1971) reported that it is the most replicated study in contemporary industrial psychology. Aebi (1973) noted that the Two -Factor Theory had been tested in excess of 158 times. Rese arch in _ Supp ort o f th e Two-Fact or Theory _of_ J ob Satis fact ion Schwartz, Jenusaitis, and Stark (1963), in their research of supervisory personnel of public utilities, obtained results in support of Herzberg' s Two-Factor Theory. At 21 utility companies 111 male supervisors were asked to recall two work experiences, one good and one bad. These experiences (critical incidents) were then classified according to Herzberg 's taxonomy of hygienes and motivators. The researchers found thai (with the exception of achievement) recognition, work itself, responsibility, and advancement acted as motivators. They also found that factors leading to job dissatisfaction were those related to the

PAGE 72

57 context of the job and fell under Herzberg's classification of hygiene. In a research study of 82 scientists and engineers, f riedlander and Walton (3 964) found that reasons for remaining with an organization worn not necessarily opposite the tons for which one might leave an organization. Reasons for remaining were more closely l'elated to motivators or content elements while reasons for departing were more closely aligned with hygienes or context elements. Myers (1964) found support for the Two-Factor Theory in researching employees on five different industrial jobs. He reported that job characteristics grouped naturally into motivator-hygiene classifications, with the exception of one motivator which acted as a hygiene. Herzbe-rg again proved his theory in a study involving PinniBfa supervisors in 1965. Walt (cited in Herzberg, 1966) replicated Herzberg's findings using 50 women employed by the government in research. The study by Walt (1966) was significant in that it was the first replication of the TwoFactor Theory in which women were used as subjects. Achievement, work itself, responsibility, and recognition were present more often in incidents classified as satisfying as compared to those incidents classified as dissatisfying. She also found that among those factors classified as hygieni company policy and administration, » ndil tons, peril Life, and mosl comm a Ly • '. fa< ( I on .

PAGE 73

58 In a more recent study of 85 managerial level male employees between the ages of 60 and 65, Salch (cited in Bookman, 1971) found that content items were related more often to satisfaction and context items to dissatisfaction Thomas (1977) provided evidence supporting Herzberg ' s theory in a study of community college academic, business, and student personnel administrators. Motivators were found to contribute significantly more to job satisfaction than did hygienes for each administrative officer. She also reported that hygienes contributed significantly more to job dissatisfaction than did motivators. The motivators, achievement, work itself, responsibility, and recognition were mentioned more often in positive than negative incident.',. Conversely, with the exception of salary, the hygienes, company policy and administration, interpersonal relations, working conditions, and supervision-technical were mentioned in significantly more negative than positive inci dents . In an investigation of five administrative positions in student personnel within the Florida State University System, Groseth (1978) also found strong support for Herzberg' s Two-Factor Theory. His study revealed that when chief student personnel administrators, directors of financial! aid, student union, bousing and counseling were considered as one group, motivators contributed much more to '.lit I'm] Incidents labeled satisfying than did hygienes.

PAGE 74

59 Hygienes, on the other hand, wore found to contribute more than motivators to critical incidents classified as dissatisfy ing. The mosl Frequently mentioned motivators in the Study were recognition, achievement, and work itself, whereas the most Frequently mentioned hygienes were company policy and administration, Interpersonal relations, and working >ns. Even tnough Herzberg's Two-Factor Theory has received considerable criticism since it was originated in 1959, the majority of the studies, according to the research literature, appear to be supportive of the theory. Studies which have employee! the Herzberg technique , or a modified form of it, have, with few exceptions, su^orted the Two-Factor Theory . Research Critical o f t he TwoFactor Theory of Job S a tisfaction One of the first criticisms of Herzberg's Two-Factor :>vy is net directed toward the theory itself, but concerns the terminology employed by researchers when defining the theory and its concepts. Herzberg et al. (1959) labeled satisfying component of the theory as motivators and the tatisfying element, hygienes. Wolf (1970) claimed that the motivator factor has been referred to by several differ nt terms: the job content factor, the intrinsic factor, mri the satisfier. Similarly hygiene factors have bi ••. . extr i nsi c fa< I |ob con Factors,

PAGE 75

60 House and Widgor (1967) contended that the Two-Factor Theory was criticized for three reasons: First, the theory was methodologically bound; second, it was based on faulty research; third, it was inconsistent with past research findings . Ptesearchers argue that the Two-Factor Theory is only supported when the original critical incident technique is used. They suggest this takes advantage of an individual's defense bias. Vroom (1964) put the argument succinctly wh e n he stated: It is . . . possible that obtained differences between stated sources of satisfaction stem from defensive processes within the individual respondent. Persons may be more likely to attribute the causes of satisfaction to their own achievements and accomplishments on the job, On the other hand, they may be more likely to attribute their dissatisfaction not to personal inadequacies, but to factors in the work environment. (Vroom, 1964, p. 129) Reacting to Vroom' s explanation, Kerzberg (1966) argued that if this type of defense mechanism were employed by respondents, the results would have been just the opposite from those found in his study. In another criticism of Herzberg's theory, Evans (1970) suggested that when individuals are asked to describe certain aspects of their lives, those with low self-esteem will reswond much differently than those individuals with high self-esteem. When questioned about the "good" aspects of their lives, individuals having low self-esteem will tend to accept full responsibility for an outcome;

PAGE 76

61 1 iver, when questioned about the "bad" aspects, the individual!-; with low self-esteem will usually deny having any responsibility for them and attribute them to elements over which they have little or no control. Persons with high self-esteem, on the other hand, will tend to be more accural istic in their responses and will acknowledge wn contributions and those of the environment, thej be good or bad. Bra; (1960) discounted Herzberg's findings on the :is of using content analysis of interview data in cont with more direct methods of determining satisfaction. Studies u1 Llizing other methodologies, Q so^ts and Q analyses, forced-choice, and ratings do not support the independence of the two factors (motivators and hygienes) . 1 rhaps the most universal criticism of Herzberg's ". -Fricto~ Theory concerns the potential overlap of his 11 • : factors. For example, the motivator, a ion, is associated with good job sequences while the •ne, interpersonal relations with supervisors and peers, is a. c >-50ciated with bad job sequences. Graen (1966) criticized the coding of Herzberg's factors as being aot completely do t< n Ln 1 by the classificaof th( ''.at: 1 but dependent upon the rater's interpretntion. Such a lack of control could allow the same response to be classified differently by different raters. Gr (19i the dimensions if the various situations rlbed i 1 I 1 ref led more of the preta t iu:i than the

PAGE 77

62 Ewen (1964) noted two additional criticisms of Herzberg' s study; the first concerned sample size, and the second, validity of the instrument. Ewen (1964) argued that since Herzberg et al . only investigated a very small fraction of jobs (male engineers and accountants) they should have replicated their study using different workers in different work situations before proposing recommendations to industry. Ewen (1964) claimed that Herzberg et al . (1969) presented no evidence for the validity of the semistructural interview used in their study. He also noted that no parallel form or test-retest reliability coefficient was used in Herzberg' s study, In opposition to this criticism, Andexson and Nilsson (1964) claimed that the reliability ana validity aspects of the critical incident technique appeared justifiable and that any information gathered in this manner is both reliable and valid. Hinrichs and Mischkind (1967 s1 argued that Herzberg 's data did not adequately test his own notion because his research was not based solely on satisfaction in a current job situation. Herzberg et al . (1959) requested his subjects to indicate a time when they were satisfied or dissatisfied with their jobs., whether it be in their current position or any other job they may have had in the past. As a result, one cannot draw iufererces concerning the contributions of various job factors to job satisfaction or job dissatisfaction because there is no indication of what specific work experience was being reported on.

PAGE 78

63 King (1970) theorized that much of the confusion surrounding Herzberg's theory is due to the five different versions of the Two-Factor Theory that, have either been sta,ted or implied by researchers in their studies. According to King (1970) these versions range from the weakest, (all motivators combined contribute more to job satisfaction than to jot dissatisfaction, and all hygienes combined contribute more to dissatisfaction than to satisfaction) to the strongest version (only motivators determine satisfaction, only hygienes determine dissatisfaction.) . In a study of 1,021 life insurance agents, Ewen (1964) discovered that some factors acted in the opposite direction predicted by Kerzberg. Ewen conciud3d that while intx'insic and extrinsic factors can bo roth sources of satisfaction and dissatisfaction, extrinsic factors are present Wernirnont and Dunnette (1966) found content and context items each to be sources of satisfaction and dissatisfaction in a. study oi: scientists and engineers. Content items were more predominant in both satisfying and dissatisfying situations . Hoy ' s a nd Miskel's Reformulated (Hgrzb er g) Theory Despite the considerable amount of criticism levied against Herzberg's Two-Factor Theory and the fact that the thoorv has some definite weaknesses, a number of researchers feel that the theory should not be abandoned but improved.

PAGE 79

64 upon instead. In their book entitled E ducat ional Administra tjon: Theor y, Research, and Practi ce, Hoy and Miskel (1978) are among those who feel that Herzberg' s Two-Factor Theory can provide a basis for further job satisfaction research if the following procedures are adhered to by researchers: 1. The development ox an acceptable version of the theory, one that is stated in specific terms 2. The expansion of the number of motivators and hygiene factors 3. That individual differences should be taken into consideration 4. The elimination of, or reinterpretation of cne concept of unidimensionality . (Hoy L Miskel, 1978, p. 1P C <) In an attempt to satisfy the above objectives.. Hey and Miskel (1978) proposed an extension to Herzberg's TwoFactor Theory and called it simply the Reformulated (Herzberg) Theory. Unlike Herzberg's Two-Factor Theory, the Reformulated Theory consists of three factors instead of two: motivators, hygienes, and ambients. Motivators, as defined by Herzberg et ?i. (1959), are factors which are associated with producing employee job satisfaction, Five factors were included in the motivator classification: achiev anient , recognition, advancement, responsibility, and work itself. When contrasted to Herzberg': Two-Factor Theory, which consisted of six motivator factors, only the possibility of growth factor was not included

PAGE 80

OTi Hoy's and Miskel's definition of hygienes, as Hersberg's, ref ers to those factors which contribute to an employee's job dissatisfaction, Unlike Herzberg's theory, only six factors were included in this category instead of eignt. They were: relationship with subordinates/relationship with peers (interpersonal relations), supervisionteehiiical, conpa.ny policy and administration, job security, working conditions., and persona 1 life. Salary and status factors, although included in Herzberg's theory as hygienes, were excluded from this classification. tobients the third and distinctive component in the Reformulated (Kerzbergl Theory, are defined by Hoy and Miskel as moss factors which occur with equal frequency j.i: both satisfying ana dissatisfying Incidents. The five airbients as defined by Hoy and Miskei are: ] Salary refers to all those sequences of events' in which compensation plays a. role. This is the same definition used by Herzberg et al . (1959). s Status refers to a series of events in which the respondent specifically cites a change in status and how it affects his or her feelings about the job. 3 Grow th possibi lity refers to growth in specific types of skill areas and the Likelihood of an individual advancing within an organization. Also included within this definition are those situations in which there is a lack of opportunity for growth. This is the same definition which was used by Herzberg et al. (1959).

PAGE 81

66 Hoy Ri sk oppo rtunity refers to the desirability of seeking rewards in the motivator group, which have a lower probability of success over those in the hygiene group, which have a higher probability of success . Relat ionsh ip with sup erordi nates refers to instances involving some actual verbalization about the characteristics of the interaction between the worker and his/her supervisor. (Hoy & Miskel, 1978, p. 110) s and Miskel's proposed modification of Herzberg' heory is illustrated in Figure 6. Dissatisfying Satisfying Explanation 1. All motivator's, as a group, contribute more to satisfaction than dissatisfaction . Motivators as c group: Achievement Recognition Work Itself Responsibility Advancement All arr:b±ents : contribute equally to satisf act ion an»_~ dissatisfaction. Ambient s as a group: Salary Growth Possibility Risk Opportunity Relationship Superordinates Status Hygienes as a group: Rela t i onship Subordinates Relationship Peers S u p e r -Tec h n i c a 1 Policy & Admin Job Security Personal Life Work! rnr Conditions Di Si n .s i\ J ng All hygienes as a group, contribute mere to dissatisfaction than satisfaction . Satisfying FiKirrfi r \s and Miskel's proposed modification I i e r z b e r g ' s Tw o F a c t o r T h e o r y

PAGE 82

67 According to Hoy and Miskel (1978) the Reformulated Theory encompasses the following three hypotheses: 1. All motivators, as a group, contribute more to job satisfaction than to job dissatisfaction; however, a lack of adequate motivators can. contribute to dissatisfaction. 2. All hygienes, as a group, contribute more to job dissatisfaction than to satisfaction, but an abundance of hygienes can c c n t r :". b u t e to j o b s a t i s f a c t i o n . 3. All ambients, as a group, contribute equally to satisfaction and dissatisfaction. (Hoy and Miskel, 1978, p. 109) Horzberg et al. (1959) experienced difficulty in classifying salary due to the fact that it appeared in those reports labeled high satisfaction nearly as frequently as it appeared in those labeled low satisfaction. Herzborg discovered that when salary was mentioned in a report classified as low satisfaction, it was generally because the employee felt he or she deserved more money. Wolf (1970) reported that salary can also act as a motivator, particularly when an individual can see a direct relationship between his or her salary and performance. Hoy and Miskel classified salary as an ambient since it may act as both a satisfier and as a dissatisf i er . Growth possibility, the second factor included in the ambient group, may function as both a motivator or a hygiene dex>ending upon the situation. It functions as a motivator when an individual is presented with the opportunity for advancement and/or the opportunity to improve his personal skills within ar organisation, and as a hygiene if one is defiled the opportunity for growth.

PAGE 83

6S The third ambient, risk opportunity, may generate either satisfaction or dissatisfaction depending on an individual's orientation. Kogan and Wallach (1964) claimed that certain types of individuals are attracted to a job because of the financial safeguards the position offers. These people, according to Kogan and Wallach (1964), are concerned with the material aspects of the environment. and prefer a job where hygiene components are high. Conversely, there are other individual types who are attracted to work situations in which opportunities for achievement, recognition, and advancement are high, and who are less concerned about job security (Hoy & Miskel, 1978). Herzberg et al. (1959), following a review of 15 research studies concerning the determinants of job satisfaction, found that while supervision was the second most frequently mentioned source of worker satisf action , it was listed fourth as a source of empi03.ee dissatisfaction. Because of this fact, Hoy and Miskel (1978) classified the factor-, relationships to suuerordinates . as an ambient. Status, the fifth ambient factor in Hoy's and Miskel 's classification scheme, wa.s also found to act as both a satisf ier and as a dissatisfier depending or whether the individual I'eels he or she is being adequately compensated for his or her work. Compensation in this case does not refer to salary, but includes such items as a company car, unlimited expense account, or a Larger office, etc.

PAGE 84

09 Job Satisfacti on Re s earch Amo ng Non-Instructional A dmin i str at or s in H ig her Education The final segment of this chapter presents research which has been conducted in the area of job satisfaction among non-academic administrators in the field of higher educate on , In a study of 1,439 graduates at the University of Illinois who were involved in administration, Knox (1953) concluded that working conditions are appreciated more by the raore satisfied worker as compared to the less satisfied worker, Factors such as effective supervision, freedom of teaching methods, and qualified administrators were rated much higher by satisfied respondents. Cheatham (1964), in a study of student personnel administrators, found that they derived their greatest job satisfaction from involvement with students, exercising leadership, and working in a team situation. As a group, student personnel administrators were much more concerned about the intrinsic rewards of their positions. In a related study, Scott; (1965) found evidence that deans of students derive their greatest job satisfaction from the nature cf the position and from their involvement with studentsDissatisfaction, he found, was caused by the demands of the position: irregular hours and the general lack of appreciation and support on the part of the faculty and other univers Lty administrators .

PAGE 85

70 In an investigation involving university administrators not possessing academic rank, Elins (1971) found that in matters related to security and job satisfaction, administrators were greatly concerned with the fringe benefits and administrative policies of the institution. Other factors found to influence administrator job satisfaction included salary, provisions for attending professional meetings and conferences, and the opportunity to become involved in budgetary matters. Positions sampled in the study included: bursars, directors of physical plant, directors of purchasing, and directors of research. Strickland (1973) surveyed 89 chief business officers by means of a three-part questionnaire which was designed to test Herzberg's Two-Factor Theory. Each respondent was asked to describe two incidents, one satisfying and one dissatisfying, regarding their present position. In each case the individual was to select one factor from Herzberg's list of six motivators and eight hygienes which was the most influential factor in their present position. It was reported that over two-thirds of the responses were supportive of Herzberg's TwoFactor Theory. Three percent were found clearly non-supportive, and the remainder only partially supportive. Motivators proved to be highly significant in those incidents classified as satisfying whereas hygienes wore found to be significant in incidents labeled dissatisfying by the respondents.

PAGE 86

71 Bowling(1973), in a study of 11 student affairs divisions located in the Southeast, found evidence that the leadership of chief student personnel administrators was positively related to the job satisfaction of their department heads. Utilizing a 36-item questionnaire , Ohanesian (1974) researched 402 student personnel workers employed in various administrative levels throughout several western states. She reported the following trends from her study: individuals in the higher level positions seem to indicate a higher satisfaction level, than those in lower level positions; individuals in lower salary level positions indicate a lower degree of job satisfaction than individuals who earn more m o vi e y ; a n d i n d i v 1 du a 1 s who indicate high job s a t i s f a c t i o n feel that recognition, status, advancement , input, and variety ol job opportunities are available to them. ConverseIv, persons indicating low job satisfaction did not feel thai such opportunities were available to them. Ohanesian (1374.) concluded that these findings give Herzberg's TwoFactor Theory credibility. Jackson's (1975) study of middle managers and vice presidents in colleges and universities found evidence to support Herzberg's Two-Factor Theory. Each of the 442 individuals in the study was asked to select one factor from 48 pair:-: whirl; provided the greatest satisfaction for them. The list of 4 8 pairs was the result of pairing Herzberg's et al.'s (1959) six motivators with each of his eight

PAGE 87

72 hygiene factors. Jackson (1975) concluded that middlemanagers, as well as their vj ce presidents, obtained a higher degree of job satisfaction from motivators as compared to hygiene factors. A significant study was conducted by Haun (1975) concerning job satisfaction among women holding the title of cr-an or department head who performed primarily administrative duties. The results of her research indicated that achievement, content of work, interpersonal relations, job control, and the possibility of growth were the primary sat.isfiers. university policy and administration, interpersonal relations, and content of work were the primary sources of dissatisfaction. Factors which were related to job content were reported to be much more significant in both satisfying and dissatisfying situations than were hygienes . One of the most recent studies to support Herzberg's Two-Factor Theory was conducted by Thomas (1977). Utilizing the critical incident technique, twelve chief academic, student personnel, and business officers ".-ere surveyed from within Florida's Community College System. Thomas reported that for each type of administrative position, motivators contributed much more to role satisfaction than did hygienes. Hygienes, on the other hand, were found to contribute much move to job dissatisfaction than did motivators. The most common motivator was achievement; however, work itself, responsibility, and recognition were present

PAGE 88

73 in considerably more positive than negative incidents. Company policy and interpersonal relations were by far the most predominant hygienes present. The most recent application of Herzberg ' s Two-Factor Theory reported in the literature was conducted by Groseth (1978) and focused on five student personnel administrative positions in the Florida State University System: the chief student, personnel administrator: the director of financial aid; the director of the student union; the director of housing; and the director of counseling. The motivators. recognition, achievement, and work itself were mentioned more often in .incidents classified as satisfying in nature. The most frequently mentioned hygienes were intto. personal relationships, working conditions, and company policy and adraini strati;..n .

PAGE 89

CHAPTER III PRESENTATION OF DATA In this chapter the data presented were collected from interviews with 25 administrative affairs staff in the Florida Stare University System, Five administrators were interviewed in each of the following positions: director of purchasing, director of security and safety, director of personnel relations, director of physical plant, and university controller. Each administrator was personally interviewed by the researcher using one of five interview guides developed specifically for each position (see Appendices A, B, 0. D, ana E). After having the opportunity to review the list of major job responsibilities associated with his/her position and to make whatever change? considered necessary, each administrator was asked to recall two experiences (one satisfying and one dissatisfying) related to each of his/her current major job responsibilities. Each experience (critical incident,) ^v
PAGE 90

75 status, growth possibility, risk opportunity, relationship with superordinates (ambients). The researcher, using his 21 hypotheses as a guide, then proceeded to analyze the data using Chi -square and a computer software program called che "Probable impact Exploration System" (P.I.E.S.) based on the Bayesi.au Statistical Decision Process. This chapter is subdivided into six sections. The f-"-st five sections present a separate data analysis for each administrative position (director of purchasing, director of security and safety, director of personnel relations, director of physical plant, university controller) and the final section discusses data related to the entire administrative group. The first section presents data related specifically to the position of director of purchasing . Director of Pu rchasing Profile Of the five directors of purchasing selected in the sanroJe. all but two were referred to by the title of "director of purchasing." The others were called "director of university purchasing." The average length of time served in this capacity was 7.2 years with the range being from 1 year to 14 years. With the exception of two directors each had held a previous administrative position at the same institution prior to being appointed director of purchasing. The other two persons were recruited

PAGE 91

76 directly from private enterprise. Three of the directors had earned the equivalent of a Bachelor of Science or Bachelor of Arts degree and two reported having no formal college education. Salaries for the position ranged from a low of $19,000 to a high of $24,500, the average being $20,970. The mean age of the group was 47.6 years with the ran-e being 38 to 56 years of age. Two of the five directors were females (recently appointed). The major job responsibilities identified in the Florida State University System Administrative and Professional Job Description £9325 (1975) and selected by the researches as the most Important tasks associated with the position proved to be accurate. Two directors mentioned having additional responsibilities to those listed on the Interview Guide (see Appendix A). One reported coordinating -he canrous insurance program, while the other named coordinating and directing the campus mail service and supervising a centra] receiving and storage facility. Satisfying Experiences In discussion of the n.,ne major job responsibilities with the researcher, the five directors of purchasing described a total of 45 satisfying experiences. In eight caseo the researcher found it necessary to assign more than one factor to the incident; however, no more than two factors were assigned to any given inciden tors used to classify the satisfying experiences Of the 53 fae-

PAGE 92

77 (critical incidents), 35 were' motivators (66%), 6 were ambients (11%), and 12 were hygienes (23%). Considerably more motivators were used by the directors of purchasing in describing satisfying experiences than ambients or hygienes. (X" (2) 25.53, p /ooi). The classification of satisfying experiences ^ according to motivators, ambients, and hygienes for directors of purchasing is shown in Table 1. Fou2 of Key's and Miskel's five motivators were present ir? the 35 satisfying incidents described by the directors of purchasing, representing 66 percent of the total. The most frequently occurring motivators were achievement (28%) and responsibility (3 9%). There were few ambient or hygiene factors associated with the satisfying experiences (critical incidents). Tn the ambient classification, three out of the five factors were present resulting in 11 percent of the tot a.! . The situation was similar for hygienes in that three our of six factors were present. Interpersonal relations (13%) was the third most frequently indicated factor. Motivators outnumbered ambients and hygiene; combined by e margin of nearly 2 to 1. In an effort, to further examine the extent to which motivators, ambients. and hvgienos were related to the nine major job responsibilities associated with the position of director of purchasing, the researcher employed a computer software program called the "Probable Impact Exploration Svstern," better known as P.T.E.S. This technique was utilized in an attempt to predict the probability that the

PAGE 93

78 Table 1 Classification of Factors in Satisfying Incidents for Directors of Purchasing % of Total Factor Classification Number (N=53) Mot iva tors .Achievement Recognition Work Itself Responsibility local Motivators Ambien t s Growth Possibility p. i s k p p o r t u a i 1 y B e 1 a t i o n s h i p T »'s ; i t h Superordinates Total Ambients Hy gienes Supervision -Technical Interpersonal Relations Company Policy and Adm i nistration Total Hygienes 15 28 4 8 6 11 10 19 35 66 2 4 1 2 3 6 6 i ] 4

PAGE 94

79 three factors (motivators, ambients, and hygienes) would recur in other directors of purchasing positions with similartypes of job responsibilities. According to Nickens (1977), there are two advantages to using this technique. First, it enables the researcher to estimate the probability of occurrence of a given factor when range limits have not been previously established. Second, in situations where the sa.'r.le size is relatively small, the P.I.E.S. technique permits thy data to be analyzed statistically. Without the benefit of this technique, little meaningful analysis, if any, could be undertaken. The researcher was prohibited from utilizing Chi-square because there were feww than five frequencies for many of the factors. According to Seigel (1956), Chi-square should not be administered in situations where 20 percent of the frequency ceils contain less than five responses and also in cases where no frequencies are recorded in a cell. Table 2 presents data in which the probability of motivators, ambients. and hygienes (as individual groups) contributes to satisfying experiences for directors of purchasing. The data presented in Table 2 illustrate that for those individuals functioning in the capacity of a director of purchasing and whose job responsibilities are similar in description to the nine major tasks commonly associated with the position, the probability of a motivator contributing to an individual's job satisfaction was 99.2. The probability of an ambient or hygiene factor contributing to a person's

PAGE 95

80 Table 2 The Probability of Motivators, Arnbients. and Hygienes (As Individual Groups) Contributing to Satisfying Experiences for Directors of Purchasing Factor Cla ss ification Motivators Arnbients Hygienes Number of Possible Occurrences 'Exehangeab i 1 i t y Expected Outcome Observed Out come Probability of Outcome Being ^ Probability of Outcome B e i i i g J>

PAGE 96

81 Dissati sfyi ng Experie nces Of the 45 dissatisfying experiences (critical incidents) reported by the directors of purchasing, 23 were classified as motivators (44%) 1 as an ambient (2%), and 28 as hygienes (54%). It was necessary in seven situations for the researcher to assign more than one factor to an incident; however, as in the case of satisfying experiences, no more than two factors were assigned. Although there were considerably more hygienes used to describe dissatisfying incidents than arabients, this was not the case when compared to motivators (X 2 (2) = 23,86, p ^001). Dissatisfying experiences for directors of purchasing are classified in Table 3 according to motivators, ambients and hygienes, The data in Table 3 show that with the possible exception of company policy and administration (29%), there was no dominant hygiene related to the dissatisfying incidents for directors of purchasing. Interpersonal relations was the second most frequently mentioned hygiene (15%). Four of the six hygiene factors were represented, the exceptions being personal life and job security. It is noteworthy that four out of five motivators were mentioned as being sources of dissatisfaction. The motivators, achievement and work itself, were present in 33 percent of the dissatisfying experiences reported. One ambient, growth possibility, ivas identified as a source of dissatisfaction.

PAGE 97

82 Table 3 Classification of Factors in Dissatisfying Incidents for Directors of Purchasing Recognition Working Conditions Total Hygienes Factor Classification Number of Total (N=52) 'ot ivators Achievement 7 14 1 2 Work Itself 10 19 Responsibility 5 10 Total Motivators 23 4 4 Ambien ts Growth Possibility 1 2 Total Ambients 1 2 Hygie nes Supervision-Technical 3 _ 6 Interpersonal Relations 8 15 Company Policy and Administration 15 29 2 4 28 54 In Table 4 the probability of motivators, ambients, and hygienes (as individual groups) contributing to dissatisfying experiences for directors of purchasing is illustrated.

PAGE 98

83 The P.I.E.S. technique was used to analyze the data. This procedure was also utilized in classifying the satisfying incidents for the directors of purchasing. Table 4 The Probability of Motivators, Ambients, and Hygienes (As Individual Groups) Contributing to the Dissatisfying Experiences for Directors of Purchasing F a c tor Classification Motivators Ambients Hygienes Number of Possible 45 45 45 15 15 15 17 17 17 bserved Outcome 23 1 28 c c u r r e n c e s Exchangeability Expected Outcom oos Probability of Outcome Being < (23) 78.8 (1) 1.8 (28) 93.3 Probability of Outcome Being > (23) 21.2 (1) 98.2 (28) 6.7 Standard Deviation 7.5, 50% Probability Interval 12 to 22 Exchangeability Point one would consider giving equal odds that the value would be less or greater than ( ) it is clear from the data in Table 4 that for those individuals functioning in the capacity of directors of purchasing and whose job responsibilities are similar in nature to the aine major tasks associated with the position, the probability of a hygiene contributing to an individual's

PAGE 99

84 dissatisfaction was 93.3. The probability of a motivator or an ambient being the source of an individual's dissatisfaction was 78.8 and 1.8 respectively. These data are not contradictory to Hoy's and Miskel's Reformulated (Herzberg) Theory in that hygienes, as a group, were found to occur more frequently in incidents classified as dissatisfying fcr the directors of purchasing than either motivators or ambients. In should be noted that Hoy and Miskel did hypothesize that a lack of adequate motivators could conceivably contribute to job dissatisfaction; however, in discussing their theory they failed to define the term "adequate motivators . " Sat isfy in g /Diss atisfying Experiences Out of the 105 factors assigned the 90 critical incidents reported by the directors of purchasing (45 satisfying and 45 dissatisfying) 7 ambients were found to be present. Table 5 is a breakdown of all critical incidents (satisfying and dissatisfying) according to motivators, ambients, and hygienes for the position of director of purchasing. The percentages of each row total are included in parenThe data in Table 5 indicate the unequal representation of ambient factors in both satisfying and dissatisfying incidents. These findings appear to be contradictory to Hoy's and Miskel's theory that ambients, as a group, occur with equal frequency in both satisfying and dissatisfying incidents. The fact that ambients, as a group,

PAGE 100

85 Table 5 Distribution of all Critical Incidents (Satisfying and Dissatisfying) by Factor Classification for Directors of Purchasing Factor Classification Incident Type Motivators Ambients Hygienes Total 35 6 12 53 (66%) (11%) (23%) (100%) Dissatisfying 2? l 28 52 (44%) (2%) (54%) (100%) Total Incidents 58 7 40 105 rotal m^aenrs ^ ^^ (3g%) (]0{)%) comprised 7 percent of the total raises some question, in the opinion of the researcher, concerning the validity of this classification in Hoy's and Miskei's theory. v e ia 11 Job S atisfaction/Pis sa tisfaction The final two questions asked the directors of purchasing in the interviews concerned their overall job satisfaction and dissatisfaction (see Appendix A). Each director was asked to describe the most overall satisfying single incident in his/her position and conversely, an incident which caused the most overall job dissatisfaction. Of the 7 factors used to classify the most overall satisfying job experience, 4 were motivators (58%), 1 was an ambient (14%), and 2 were hygienes (29%). Factors which contributed to overall job satisfaction are classified in Table 6.

PAGE 101

86 Table 6 Classification of Factors Contributing to Overall Job Satisfaction for Directors of Purchasing Factor Classification Number % of Total (N=7) ors Work Itself Responsibility Total Motivators 29 29 58 Ambien ts Growt h Poss ib i 1 i t y Total Ambients 14 14 H ygiene s Personal Life Total Hygienes 14 14 29 There were no dominant factors in the experiences related by the directors concerning,their overall job satisfaction. The motivators, work itself and responsibility, were each mentioned twice and comprised 58 percent of the total. The only ambient indicated was growth possibility (14%) in addition to the hygienes job security and personal life (29%). Of the five factors used to classify the most

PAGE 102

87 overall dissatisfying job experience, 1 was a motivator (20%), no ambient s were identified, and 4 were hygienes (80%). Factors contributing to overall job dissatisfaction are presented in Table 7. Table 7 Classification of Factors Contributing to Overall Job Dissatisfaction for Directors of Purchasing Factor Classification Number % of Total (N=5) Mot ivators Advancement Total Motivator 20 20 Amhients None Reported Hygienes Company Policy and Administration Interpersonal Relations Working Conditions Total Hygienes 20 40 20 80 Four hygienes and one motivator -were found to bo responsible for contributing to overall job dissatisfaction for directors of purchasing. Of the lour hygienes related to job

PAGE 103

S8 dissatisfaction, two wore classified as interpersonal relations (40%); working conditions (20%) and company policy and administration (20%) each was mentioned once. Advancement was the single motivator indicated as a source of job dissatisfaction. Director of Security and Safety Profile vaThe directors of security and safety are known by a riety of titles throughout the Florida State University System. One version or another of the following titles was used: "Director of University Police, "University Police Director II," or "Director of Public Safety." The average length of service for this group was 10.6 years, the range being 3.5 years to 25 years. Four persons had earned a Bachelor of Arts or Bachelor of Science degree with emphasis either in criminology or in sociology. One director, the youngest of the group, had acquired a masters degree in police administration. Salaries for the position ranged from a low of $21,900 to a high of $26,800, the average being $24,800. The average age of the directors was 47 years old, the range being 36 years to 54 years. Without exception all directors of security and safety were men (statewide). The seven major job responsibilities which were selected by the researcher from the Florida State University System Administrative and Professional Job Description #1893 (1975) proved to be accurate. There were no additions

PAGE 104

89 or deletions suggested by the directors concerning the list of job tasks. Sat i s f ying Experien ces Discussions with the directors of security and safety concerning their seven major job responsibilities produced 35 satisfying experiences, 'ft was necessary for the researcher (in ten instances) to assign more than one factor to the satisfying experiences. Of the 45 factors used in the classification, 27 were motivators (60%), 4 were ambients (9%), and 14 were hygienes (31%). Motivators occurred much more frequently than either ambients or hygienes in those incidents classified as satisfying by the directors of security and safety (X^ (2) •= 17.74 r p C001). These satisfying experiences, categorized into motivators, ambients and hygienes, are presented ic. Table 8. Four out of five motivators were present in the satisfying experiences described by the directors of security and safety. Achievement, recognition, work itself, and responsibility were the four motivators identified. Together, these tour factors comprisoc 80 percent of the total. Achievement was by Car the most frequently mentioned motivator (31%). Only two ambients, salary and relationship with superordinates , were mentioned as being sources of satisfaction (9%), In the 14 hygienes that were identified in the satisfying incidents, interpersonal relations occurred most frequently (18%). Motivators outnumbered ambients and hygienes combined by a margin of nearly 2 to 1.

PAGE 105

90 Table 8 Classification of Factors in Satisfying Incidents for Directors of Security and Safety Factor Classification Niimhfi r h£± I'^at ors Achievement Eecogni tion stork Itself R e s p o n s i b i 1 i t y Total Motivators 14 6 2 5 27 % of Total (N=45) 31 13 4 11 60 Arnbients Salary Relationship With Super or din ares T o t a 1 Arab i e n t s nygienes Super vis ion -Technical Interpersonal Relations Company Policy and A dm i n i s t r a t i o n Wo r k i n g Conditions Total Hygienes 3 8 2 1. 14 7 18 4 2

PAGE 106

91 The seven major job responsibilities associated with the director of security and safety position were further analyzed to determine the extent to which motivators., ambients, and hygienes were related to satisfying experiences. The researcher utilized the P.I.E.S. technique, a computer software program developed by Dr. John Nickens (1977) at the University of Florida. Table 9 presents data concerning the probability of motivators, ambients , and hygienes (as individual groups) contributing to satisfying experiences for directors of security and safety. The data presented in Table 9 illustrate that for those individuals functioning in the capacity of a director of security and safety and whose job responsibilities are similar in description to the seven major tasks commonly associated with the position, the probability of a motivator contributing to an individual's job satisfaction was high (98,9); conversely, the probability of an ambient factor contributing to a person's job satisfaction was low (5.5). The probability of hygienes occurring in satisfying incidents was not as profound as in the case of motivators (54.0). Motivators, with the probability of occurrence being less than 93.9, strongly supported Hoy's and Miskel's theory chat, as a group, motivators occur more frequently in experiences (critical incidents) classified a s s a t j. s f y i n g t h a. n e :i t h e r amb i e n t s o r h y g i e n e s .

PAGE 107

92 Table 9 The Probability of Motivators, Ambients, and Hygienes (As Individual Groups) Contributing to Satisfying Experiences for Directors of Security and Safety Facx or Classificatio n _ Motivators Ambients Hygienes Siiniber of Possible Occurrences 35 f E xc hangeab i 1 i t y 1 1 . 7 Expected Outcome 13.6 Observed Outcome 27 P robab i lit y o x Out come Being < (27) 98.9 Probability of Outcome Being > (27) 1.1

PAGE 108

o;3 2 / case when compared to motivators (X (2) = 16.0, p /.GDI). Table 10 presents the classification of dissatisfying experiences for directors of security and safety according to mot ivators , ambients , and hygi enes . Table 10 Classification of Factors in Dissatisfying Incidents for Directors of Security and Safety Factor Classification Number % ?£ Total (N=42) Mot i v a t or s Achievement 4 io Recogn i t ion 9 21 Work Itself 5 12 Total Motivators 18 43 Amb ients Relationship With Superordinates 2 5 Total Ambients 2 5 Hygi enes Super vis ion -Technical I n t e r p e r s o n a J R elations Comp a n y Policy an d Adrainistra t ion Wo r k i n g C o n d i t i o n s Total Hygienes 2

PAGE 109

94 Interpersonal relations (29%) and company policy and administration (14%) were the two major hygienes present in the dissatisfying incidents of the directors of security and safety. Four out of six hygienes were present; the exceptions, personal life and job security. Although only three out of Hoy's and Miskel's five motivators were present (achievement , recognition, and work itself), they represented 43 percent of the total. Recognition (21%) was the chief motivator present in the dissatisfying incidents and work itself (12%) was rated second. The only ambient factor to be mentioned as a source of dissatisfaction was relationship with superordinates . Table 11 presents the probability of motivators, arnbients and hygienes (as individual groups) contributing to dissatisfying experiences for directors of security and safety. The data were analyzed according to the P.I.E.S. technique. This procedure was also employed in classifying the satisfying incidents of the directors of security and safety. According to the data in Table 11. for those individuals functioning in the capacity of director of security and safety and whose job responsibilities are similar in description to the seven major tasks commonly associated with the position, the probability of a hygiene contributing to an individual's dissatisfaction was 91.9; on the other hand, the probability of a motivator or an ambient contributing to a person's job dissatisfaction was 78 . 8 and 2.3 respectively.

PAGE 110

95 Table ] 1 The Probability of Motivators, Ambients, and Hygienes (As Individual Groups) Contributing to the Dissatisfying Experiences for Directors of Security and Safety Fa ctor Classification Motivators Ambients Hygienes Number of Possible -Exchan geabil i ty Expected Outcome Observed Out come Probability of Outcome Being <( (18) 78 . S (2) 2.3 (22) 91.9 Probability of Outcome Being } (18) 21.2 (2) 97.7 (22) 8.1 25

PAGE 111

> 96 Sat. isf v ing/Dissatisfying Experi encves Of the 87 factors assigned to the 70 critical incidents described by the directors of security and safety (35 satisfying and 35 dissatisfying), 6 ambients were present. Table 12 presents a breakdown of all critical incidents (satisfying and dissatisfying) by motivators, ambients and hygienes for directors of security ana safety. The percentages of each row total are included in parentheses. Table 12 Distribution of all Critical Incidents (Satisfying and Dissatisfying) by Factor Classification for Directors of Security and Safety Factor Classifica tion Incident Type Motivators Ambients Hygienes Total Satisfying 27 4 14 45 (60%) (9%) (31%) (100%) Dissatisfying 13 2 22 42 (43%) (5%) (52%) (100%) Total Incidents 45 6 36 87 (52%) (7%) (41%) (100%) The disproportionate number of ambient factors occurring in both satisfying and dissatisfying incidents is presented in Table 12. These findings appear io be contradictory to Hoy's and Miskei's theory that ambients. as a group, occur with equal! frequency in both satisfying and dissatisfying

PAGE 112

97 incidents. The fact that ambients, as a group, comprised only ? percent of the total factors raises some question. in the opinion of the researcher, concerning the validity of this classification in Hoy's and Miskel's theory. ve r a 1 l_Jc iP__Sati sfact ion /Dissat i sfaction The final two interview questions asked the directors cf security and safety concerned their overall job satisfaction and dissatisfaction (see Appendix B). Each question was studied to determine which of the three groups (motivators, ambients, or hygienes) was most responsible for an individual's overall job satisfaction and job dissatisfaction. Of the six factors used to classify the most overall satisfying job experience, all were motivators (100%). Table 13 presents a classification of factors found to contribute to o v e r all j ob s at i s f a c t i o n . According to Table 13, motivators were the predominate far. tors in the experiences related by the directors of security and safety to their overall job satisfaction. Of the six motivators, two were classified as recognition (33%) and two as achievement (33%). The central, idea in the recognition incidents involved being honored by students, staff. or fellow colleagues for outstanding contributions to the academic or local community (being named "man of the year'' by student government). In the case of achievement, the two incidents described by the directors involved their be in?! in n position to upgrade their organization from one

PAGE 113

98 Table 13 Classification of Factors Contributing to Overall Job Satisfaction for Directors of Security and Safety F a c t o r C ] a ssificati o i M otiva tor s Aoh ie veme n t Recognition Work Itself Re spon s i b i 1 i c y Total Motivators of Total (N=6) 33 33 17 17 100 Ax nbients None Re do r tea Hygiene s N o n e R e po v t e d of mediocrity to one of the most efficiently run campus lav; enforcement agencies in the State, Of the six factors used to classify the most overall dissatisfying job experience, 1 was an ambient (17%), 5 were hygienes (83%), and no motivators were reported. Factors which contributed to overall job dissatisfaction are oresented in Table 14 .

PAGE 114

99 Table 14 Classification of Factors Contributing to Overall Job Dissatisfaction for Directors of Security and Safety % of Total Factor Classification Number (N=6) Motivators None Reported Ambient s Growth Possibility 1 17 Total Ambients Hygi enes Supervis •-Oii-Teehnica 1 Interpersonal Re] atiom Company Policy and Administration Total Hygienes 1 17 1 17 2 33 2 33 5 83 Five hygienes and one ambient were responsible for. overall job dissatisfaction for the directors. Of the five hygienes related to job dissatisfaction, two were classified as company policy (33%) and two as interpersonal relations (33%). The two main ideas underlying company policy and administration concerned the number and variety of limitations and restrictions imposed upon university police

PAGE 115

100 departments and the inability of the state to respond to the needs of law enforcement agencies in an efficient and timely fashion. Incidents related to interpersonal relations concerned disappointment on the part of the directors toward the performance and/or attitude of an individual under their employ. The other factor determined to be a source of overall job dissatisfaction was growth possibility, an ambient. D irector o f Person nel Relation s Profile The most common title associated with the position of chief personnel officer was that of "Director of Personnel Relations." Three of the five persons interviewed held this title. The remaining two directors preferred to be called "Director of University Personnel Relations." The directors of personnel relations had held their jobs for an average of 6.12 years, the range being less than 1 year to 15 years. Three of the directors had come to their positions from other institutions of higher education, while two had been recruited directly from private enterprise. All five directors had extensive experience in the field of personnel prior to being appointed to their present positions. Four of the directors had earned masters degrees in employee relations and/or personnel management whereas the fifth had a Bachelor of Science degree in sociology. Salaries for the position ranged from a low of 820,000 to a high of $32,500, the average being $26,300. The average age of the directors

PAGE 116

101 was 47.4 years, the range being 36 years to 57 years. All of the directors of personnel relations researched in this study were men , The ten major job responsibilities which were selected by the researcher from the Florida State University System .Administrative and Professional Job Description #93361 (1975) -ere acceptable to the respondents. One director indicated that a significant amount of his time was devoted to contract negotiations and acting on behalf of the president of the institution in labor disputes. There were no other suggested additions or deletions by the other directors of personnel relations. Sat i sfying Exp er fences The directors of personnel relations described 50 satisfying experiences when discussing the ten major responsifailities wich the researcher. Of the 60 factors used in the classification of these incidents, 46 were motivators (77%), 4 were ambients (7%), and 10 were hygienes (17%). Jt was necessary to describe ten incidents by using more than one factor. There were considerably more motivators used by the directors of personnel relations in describing their satisfying experiences than either ambients cr hygienes (X 2 (2) = 51. 6, p <001. The number and corresponding percentages of motivators, ambients, and hygienes into which the satisfying incidents for directors of personnel relations were classified are presented in Table 15.

PAGE 117

Table 15 Classification of Factors in Satisfying Incidents for Directors of Personnel Relations Factor Classification Number % of Total (N=60) Mot ivators Achievement 25 42 Recognition 7 12 Work Itself 9 15 Res p o n s i b i 1 i t y 5 8 Total Motivators 46 77 Ambient s Risk Opportunity 2 3 Relationship With Superordinates 2 3 Total Ambients 4 7 Hygienes Supervision-Technical 3 5 I n t e rp e r so n a 1 R e 1 at ion s 6 10 Co mp a n y P o I x c v a n d Administration 1 2 Total Hygienes 10 17

PAGE 118

103 Four out of five motivators were present: achievement, recognition, work itself, and responsibility. Achievement was the most frequently occurring motivator, comprising 42 percent of the total; work itself was a distant second. Risk opportunity and relationship with superordinates were the only two ambients present, resulting in 7 percent of the rota]. The situation was similar for hygienes in that three out of six 'actors were found present. Interpersonal relations was the most prevalent hygiene represented in the satisfying incidents, 10 percent of the total factors. Motivators were found to outnumber ambients and hygienes combined by a margin of over 3 to 1 . The ten major job responsibilities associated with the director of personnel relations were further analyzed to determine the extentto which motivators, ambients, and hygienes were related to satisfying experiences. The data were analyzed using the "Probable Impact Exploration System" (P.I.E.S.). The probability of motivators, ambients, and hygienes (as individual groups) contributing to satisfying experiences for directors of personnel relations is presented in Table 16. According to the data presented in Table 16, those individuals functioning in the capacity of directors of personnel relations and whose job responsibilities are similar in description to the ten major tasks commonly associated with the position, the probability of a motivator contributing to ? person's job satisfaction was 100, whereas the

PAGE 119

104 Tab] e 16 The Probability of Motivators, Ambients and Hygienes (As Individual Groups) Contributing to Satisfying Experiences for Directors of Personnel Relations Factor Classificatio n Motivators Ambients Hygienes jNa"::sr ox Possible Occurrences Exchangeability Expected Outcome Oo s e r v ed Ou t come Probability of Outcome Being 50 16.7 19.4 46 (46) 100 (4) 3.6 (10) 13.6 (46) (4) 96.4 (10) 86.4 50

PAGE 120

105 Dissatisfying E xperien ces In discussing the dissatisfying critical incidents which occurred in their ten primary job tasks-, the directors of personnel relations identified 59 factors of which 22 were motivators (37%), 1 was an ambient (2%), and 36 were hygienes (61%). The researcher found it necessary to use more than one factor when describing nine of the incidents; however, as in the case of classifying satisfying experiences, no more than two factors were assigned to an incident. There were considerably more hygienes used to describe dis2 satisfying incidents than motivators or ambients (X (2) = 3.1.56, p
PAGE 121

.06 Table 17 Classification of Factors in Dissatisfying Incidents for Directors of Personnel Relations Factor Classification Number % of Total (N=59) Motivators A c b. i e veiBe n t Recognition Work Itself R e s p o a s i b i 1 i t y T o t a I M o t i v a t o r s 7 3 6 6 22 12 5 10 10 37 Arioients Risk Opportunity Total AmoienTs Hygienes S u p e r v 1 s i o n T e c h n i c a 1 Interpersonal Relations Company Policy and A d m i n i s t r a t i o n vVorking Conditions Total Hygienes 5 9 19 o 36 9 15 32 5 61

PAGE 122

107 In Tabic IS the probability of motivators, ambients, and hygienes (as individual groups) contributing to dissatisfying experiences for the directors of personnel relations is presented. The P.I.E.S. technique was used to analyze the data. This procedure was also employed in classifying the satisfying incidents lor the directors of personnel relaAccording to the data presented in Table 18, for those individuals functioning in the capacity of directors of personnel relations and whose job responsibilities are similar in nature to the ten major tasks commonly associated with the position, the probability of a hygiene contributing to an individual's dissatisfaction was 97.7. On the other hand, the probability of a motivator or an ambient contributing to a person's job dissatisfaction was 61.8 and 1.1 respectively. Even though the probability of a motivator being the source of an individual's dissatisfaction was relatively high (81.8), this data do not contradict Hoy's and Miskel's theory that hygienes, as a group, occur more frequently in incidents classified as dissatisfying (for the directors of personnel relations) than either motivators or ambients. As noted previously. Hoy and Miskel did hypothesize that a lack of adequate motivators could conceivably contribute to job dissatisfaction; however, at no time in discussion of the theory did they attempt to define the term "adequate motivators."

PAGE 123

108 Table 18 The Probability of Motivators, Arnbients, and Hygienes (As Individual Groups) Contributing to the Dissatisfying Experiences for Directors of Personnel Relations Factor Classification Motivators Ambients Hygienes Number of Possible Occurrences 'Exoh angeabil i ty E x p e c ted u t c o ra e Observed Outcome Prob ab i 1 i t v o f Outcome Being < (22) 61.8 (1) 1.1 (3(3) 97.7 Probability of Outcome Being > (22) 38.?(i) 98.9 (36) 2.3 50

PAGE 124

109 £? %ii a '^y^ n fi7 Pissa t is lying E x p_e r 1 en cos The directors of personnel relations described a total of 100 critical incidents, 50 cf which were satisfying and 50 of which were dissatisfying. Of the 119 total factors assigned to these incidents by the researcher, five were ambients. A summary of the directors of personnel relations critical incidents (satisfying and dissatisfying) by factor classification is presented in Table 19. The percentages of each row total are included in parentheses. Table 19 Distribution of all Critical Incidents (Satisfying and Dissatisfying) by Factor Classification for Directors of Personnel Relations

PAGE 125

110 in both satisfying and dissatisfying incidents. Ambients, as a group, represented only 4 percent of the total factors which raises some question, in the opinion of the researcher, concerning the validity of this classification in the Reformulated (Herzberg) Theory. Ov erall Job S atisf ac tion/ D issa tisf ac tion Each of the directors of personnel relations was asked tc respond to two questions concerning their overall job satisfaction and dissatisfaction (see Appendix C). The first question concerned the most overall single satisfying incident in his or her present position; the second, the single most dissatisfying incident. The responses to eo.ch of the questions were analyzed and classified into motivators, ambients and hygienes. Of the seven factors used to classify the most overall satisfying job experience, 6 were motivators (8S%), ] was a hygiene (14%), and no ambients were reported. Table 20 presents a summary of factors found to contribute to overall job satisfaction for directors of personnel relations. In those experiences concerning the directors' overall job sat 1st action , motivators were found most prevalent. All of Hoy's and Miskel's motivators were present with the exception of advancement. Achievement and work itself were each mentioned twice. The central idea in the incidents related to achievement involved seeing the labors of one's work come to fruition (accomplishment of long-range

PAGE 126

Ill Table 20 Classification of Factors Contributing to Overall Job Satisfaction for Directors of Personnel Relations Factor Classif ica b i on Motiva tors Achievement Recognition Work Itself Responsi bi 1 i •. y Total Motivators Number of Total (N=7) 29 14 29 14 86 Ambient s None Report Hygienes Personal LifeTotal Hygienes 14 14 goals), In the incidents classified as work itself, two directors mentioned the challenge and stimulation derived from the job as being the most important factors. There were no ambients mentioned in the overall job satisfying incidents.

PAGE 127

.12 Of the six factors used to classify the most overall dissatisfying job experiences, 2 were motivators (33%) and 4 were hygienes (6?%). Factors which contributed to overall job dissatisfaction are presented in Table 21. Table 21 Classification of Factors Contributing to Overall Job Dissatisfaction for Directors of Personnel Relations actor Classification Number % of Total (N=6) Motivators "Work Itself To t a 1 M o 1 1 v a t o r c 33 33 Anbients None Reported Company Policy and Administration T o t a j Hy g i ones 67 67 Four hygienes and two motivators contributed to overall job dissatisfaction. Of the "our hygienes identified, each involved company policy and administration. The two main i d e a s u n d e r 1 y i n g 1 h i s c .1 a s s i fie ?. t i o n c o n c e r n e d rest r i c t i on s . outdated policies and procedures, resistance to change on the part of slate government, and the inability on the part

PAGE 128

113 of the directors to effect any meaningful change in these areas. Work itself was the only motivator mentioned as being a source of overall job dissatisfaction. Director of Physical Plant Profile All five of the directors of physical plant, without exception, wer3 referred to by the same title, "Director of Physical Plant." The directors had held their positions for an average of 12.3 years, the range being 3.5 years to 28 years.. Three persons in the sample were hired from outside the higher education setting, :wo from private enterprise and one from government. The most common educational background for the group was the master's degree, which was ez^ned by three of the five directors. Of the remaining two , one held a Bachelor of Arts degree in the area of industrial psychology, the other a master's in business administration. Trie average salary for the position was $27,320, ranging from $22,500 to $32,400. With one exception, all directors of physical plant were 50 years or older, 53.2 years being the average. All five directors included in the study were The seven major job responsibilities selected from the Florida State University System Administration and Professional Job Description ^9325 (1975) and identified by the researcher as the most important tasks associated with the position proved to be fairly accurate. Three directors

PAGE 129

114 mentioned one each of the following additional responsibilities: involvement in institutional grievance proceedings, personnel management (motivation of employees), and planning and coordinating of ail contracts less than $100,000, Satisf yj ,ng_ _Expj3 i^^ncj? s In discussing the seven major job responsibilities (including the additional tasks) the five directors of physical plant related 35 satisfying experiences (critical incidents) In eight instances the researcher found it necessary to assign an additional factor. Among the 43 factors used to describe the satisfying incidents, 29 were motivators (67%), 2 were ambients (5%), and 12 we— hygienes (29%). Considerably more motivators were used by the directors of physical plant in describing satisfying experiences than either ambients or hygienes (X (2) 26,01, p <^001). In Table 22 the types of motivators, ambients, and hygienes into which the satisfying critical incidents were categorized are present e< Each of Koy's and Miskel's five motivators v/ere present in the 43 satisfying incidents reported by the directors of physical plant. Motivators, as a group, were found to represent 67 percent of the total. The factor which occurred most frequently was achievement (49%). Recognition and responsibility were the second leading sources of satisfaction, each being men cloned three times. There were few ambient oi hygiene factors associated with the satisfying

PAGE 130

115 Table 21 Classification of Factors in Satisfying Incidents for Directors of Physical Plant Factor Classification Number % of Total (N=43) tivators Advancement Ac h i e Yemen t Recognition Work Itself R e s p c n s ib i 1 i t y Total Mot ivators 1 21 3 1 3 29 2 49 7 2 7 67 Amoien ts Relationship With S up e r o r d i n a t e s Total Arnbients H ygienes S up e r v i s i o n T e c h n 1 c a 1 Interpersonal Relations Company Policy and. Administration Total H y g i e n e s 2 8 2 12 19 5 29

PAGE 131

l_ f* I 116 xperxences (critical incidents). Relationship with superordinates was the only ambient identified in this classification, resulting in 5 percent of the total. Of the 12 hygienes associated with the satisfying incidents, interpersonal relations was the most frequently mentioned and comprised 10 percent of the total. Motivators outnumbered anbients and hygienes combined by a margin of over 2 to 1 . The seven major responsibilities for directors of physical plant were further analyzed to determine the extent tc which motivators, ambient s, and hygienes were related to satisfying experiences (critical incidents). As with the job responsibilities for the other four administrative positions, the researcher analyzed the data using the "Probable Impact Exploration System' (P.I.E.S.). Table 23 presents data in which the probability of motivators, ambients, and hygienes (as individual groups) contributed to satisfying experiences for directors of physical plant. The data in Table 23 show that for those persons functioning in the capacity of a director of physical plant and whose job responsibilities are similar in description to the seven major tasks commonly associated with the position the probability of a motivator contributing to an individual's job satisfaction was 99.5. On the other hand, tie chances of an ambient or a hygiene factor occurring in a satisfying incident was 2.3 and 38.2 respectively. These data strongly support, Hoy's and Miskel's reformulated (Herzberg) Theory that, as a group, motivators occur more

PAGE 132

117 Table 23 The Probability of Motivators, Ambients, and Hygienes (As Individual Groups) Contributing to Satisfying Experiences lor Directors of Physical Plant Factor Classification Motivators Ambients Hygienes Number ol Possible Occurrences 35 * Exchangeab i 1 i t y 11.7 Expected Out come 13.6 Observed Outcome 29 Probability of Outcome Being < (29) 99.5 (2) Pr ob ab i 1 i t y o i Otit come Being ^ (29) 0.5 (2) 35

PAGE 133

118 incidents for the researcher to assign more than one factor. According to the data, hygienes occurred with much greater frequency in the dissatisfying incidents described by the directors of physical plant than either motivators or ambients (X 2 (2) 24,05 p ^001). The classification of dissatisfying experiences for directors of physical plant, according to motivators, ambients, and hygienes, is presented in T c b 1 e 24. Five of Hoy's and Miskel ' s six hygiene factors were present (61%), the exception being personal life. Company policy and administration (35%) was the most dominant hygiene. Supervision -technical (11%) and interpersonal relations (11%) were the second most frequently mentioned hygienes. Four of five motivators were present in 37 percent of the dissatisfying incidents. Achievement (17%) ranked first, with recognition (11%) second. Relationship with superordinates was the only ambient identified.

PAGE 134

11.9 Table 21 Classification of Factors in Dissatisfying Incidents for Directors of Physical Plant Factor Classification Number % of Total (N=46) i:oji: ivators A c h i e ve me n t Recognition Work Itself Re s p o n s i b i lit y Total Motivator 2 2 17 17 11 4 4 3 7 Ambient s Relationship With Super or d i n a t es Total Ambient s Hygi enes Supervision-Technica 1 Interpersonal Rel at ions Company Policy and A dm i. n i s 1 r a ' I o n Working Conditions Job Security Total Hygienes 5 5 16 11 11 35 2 2 61

PAGE 135

120 The probability of motivators, ambients, and hygienes (as individual groups) contributing to the dissatisfying incidents of directors of physical plant is presented in Table 25. The data were analyzed according to the P.I.E.S. technique, which was also used in classifying the satisfying incidents for the directors of physical plant. Table 25 The Probability of Motivators, Ambients, and Hygienes (As Individual Groups; Contributing to the Dissatisfying Experiences for Directors of Physical Plant

PAGE 136

121 An analysis of the data, presented in Table 25 lends evidence that for individuals functioning in the capacity of a director of physical plant and whose job responsibilities are similar in description to the seven major tasks commonly associated with the position, the probability of a hygiene contributing to an individual's dissatisfaction was 99-4, whereas the probability of a motivator and an ambient occurring in a dissatisfying incident was 72.6 and 1.4 respectively. The data in Table 25 are not contradictory to Hoy's and Miskel's Reformulated (Herzberg) Theory in that hygienes, as a group, were found to occur 'more frequently in incidents classified as dissatisfying for the directors of. physical plant than either motivators or ambients. As noted previously, hoy and Miskel did theorize that a lack of adequate motivators could conceivably contribute to job dissatisfaction . Satisfying/Pis sati s fying Expe ri ences In an analysis of the 70 critical incidents reported by the directors of physical plant, three out of 89 factors were classified as ambients. A breakdown by classification of ail critical incidents (satisfying and dissatisfying) for the position of director of physical plant is presented in Table 2£ . The percentages of each row totai are included i a p a r e n t h e s e s . In reviewing the critical incidents for the directors of physical plant, an imbalance was found in the number of

PAGE 137

12: Table 26 Distribution of all Critical Incidents (Satisfying and Dissatisfying) by Factor Classification for Directors of Physical Plant Facto r Class i fica tip n Motivators Ambients Hygienes Total Dissa 1 1 sxy i ng Total Incidents 29 (67%)

PAGE 138

123 As was the case for the other administrative positions studied, each question was analyzed to determine which of the three groups was most responsible for the overall satisfaction and dissatisfaction of the directors: motivators, arnbients, or hygienes. Of the eight factors used to classify the roost overall satisfying job experience, 5 were motivators (62,5%), 3 were ambionts (37.5%), and no hygienes were reported. Table 21 presents data concerning factor classification and relationship to the overa.ll job satisfaction for directors of physical plant. The data presented in Table 27 indJca.te that motivators (62.5%) were more frequently associated with the overall job satisfaction for directors of physical plant than arnbients (37.5%) or hygienes (0%)Two of the five motivators were classified as responsibility, two as work itself, and one as recognition. The main idea in the responsibility incidents involved the satisfaction derived from being given the responsibility for supervising a large and complex organization. In those incidents in which work itself was determined to be the primary factor, the challenge and fulfillment derived from the position were considered the overriding variables. Three arnbients were also found to be sources of overall job satisfaction. Relationship with superordinates was mentioned twice and growth possibility once .

PAGE 139

.21 Table 27 Classification of Factors Contributing to Overall Job Satisfaction for Directors of Physical Plant Factor Classi float J on Mot ivator s Recognition Work Itself h e 3 p o n s ib i 1 i t y Total Motivators Number of Total (N=8) 12.5 25 25 62.5 Ambients Gr owt h Pos s ib i 1 i t y Relationship With Superordinates Total Ambients 25 37.5 Hygi enes None Reported Of the five factors used, to classify the most overall dissatisfying -job experience, 1 was a motivator (20%) 2 were ambients (40%), and 2 were hygienes (40%). Factors which contributed to overall job dissatisfaction are presented in Table 28.

PAGE 140

125 Table 28 Classification of Factors Contributing to Overall Job Dissatisfaction for Directors of Physical Plant .; Classification motivat ors Achievement Total Motivators Number of Total (N=5) 20 20 Ambie nts R e 1 a t i o n sh i p W i t h Saperordinates T o t a i Ami) i e n t s 40 40 Hvs.i enes S up e r v i s ion -Techn i c a 1 working Conditions Torai Hygienes 20 20 4 Of the five critical incidents described by the directors of physical plant as being most responsible for their overall job dissatisfaction, 2 were classified as hygienes, 2 as ambients, and 1 as a motivator. The only factor to bo mentioned twice was the ambient, relationship with superordi nates. Working conditions and supervision-technical were the two hygienes identified and the motivator, achievement.

PAGE 141

The basic theme of those incidents in which relationship with superordinates was mentioned concerned the lack of support and, in some instances, resistance to change on the part of the directors' immediate supervisors. Universit y _ Con troller Profile Four out of the five university controllers selected for the study preferred the title "University Controller" while the fifth preferred "University Comptroller." At the time of the stud; the controllers had held their positions for an average of 5.8 years, the range being less than 1 year to 7 1/2 years. One controller was recruited directly from private enterprise; the rest had held administrative positions in. institutions of higher education prior to being appointed to their present positions. Three controllers had earned the equivalent of a Bachelor of Arts or Bachelor of Science degree and two reported having master's degrees in business administration and In personnel administration. The average salary for the position was $27,960, ranging from a low of $25,000 to a high of $30,600. The mean age of the controllers was 48 6, the range being 33 years to 57 years. All of the controllers interviewed for the studywere men . The eight job responsibilities identified in the Florida State University System Administrative and Professional -Job Description #9297 (1975) and so looted by the

PAGE 142

127 researcher as the most important tasks associated with the position proved to be fairly accurate. One controller mentioned having two additional responsibilities to those listed in the Interview Guide (see Appendix E); the first involved supervision of the purchasing operation; the second, Eanagement of the institution's computer area. Three controllers recommended that job responsibility Number 3 on the Interview Guide (see Appendix E) be rewritten in order to better reflect their actual responsibilities in that specific area. Another requested that task Number 3 be eliminated totally, while the last controller felt that, each of the tasks, including Number 3, v/as accurate and indicative of his major job responsibilities . S a t i s f y ing E xjn er_i e nc e s In discussing the eight major job responsibilities with the researcher, the five university controllers described a total of 40 satisfying experiences (critical incidents). The researcher found it necessary in classifying eight incidents to assign more than one factor. Of the 48 factors used ro identity these satisfying incidents, 33 were motivators (69%), 2 were ambients (4%), and 13 were hygienes (27c). The university controllers used significantly more motivators in describing satisfying experiences than ambients or hygienes (X 2 (2) = 30.87, p<.00i). The number and corresponding percentages of motivators, ambients, and hygienes into which the satisfying incidents for university controllers were classified is shown i ti Table 29.

PAGE 143

12S Table 29 Classification of Factors in Satisfying Incidents for University Controllers Factor Class! f i cat ion Motivators Achievement Recognition Work Itself It e s p o n s i b i 1 i t y Total Motivators Number 21 5 % of Total (N=48) 44 10 4 10 69 Arnbients Ri sk Oppor t un 1 1 y Re 1 a t i on s h :i p W i t h Superordi na tes T eta ] A mb i e n t s Hygienes Supervision-Technical Interpersonal Relation. 1 Company Po] icy and A dm 1 n i s t r a t i o n Total Hygienes 8 8 10 27 Four of Hoy's and Miskel's five motivators were present advancement being the exception. Achievement (44%) was the

PAGE 144

129 most frequently mentioned motivator, with recognition (10%) and responsibility (10%) the second leading sources of satisfaction. The four motivators, as a group, comprised 69 percent of the total. In the ambient classification, risk opportunity and relationship with superordinates (two out of a possible five) were present. Company policy and administration was the most frequently mentioned hygiene followed closely by supervision-technical and interpersonal relations. As a group, these three hygienes represented 27 percent of the total. As was the case with the other administrative positions, motivators were found to outnumber ambient s and hygienes combined by a margin of more than 2 to 1 . In an effort to discover the extent to which motivators, arabients, and hygienes were related to the eight major lob responsibilities associated with the position of university controller, the data were further analyzed with use of the "Probable Impact Exploration System" (P.I.E.S.). The probability of motivators, ambients, and hygienes (as individual groups) contributing to satisfying experiences for the university controller is presented in Table 30. The probability of a motivator contributing to a.n individual's job satisfaction was 99.5 for those functioning in the capacity of a university controller and whose job responsibilities are similar in description to the eight ma jor tashs commonly associated with the position. Conversely, the probability of a.n ambient or hygiene factor in-

PAGE 145

130 Table 30 The; Probability of Motivators, Ambients and Hygienes (As Individual Groups) Contributing to Satisfying Experiences for University Controllers Factor Classification Motivators Ambients Hygienes Number of Possiole Occurrences 40 40 40 KExchangeabi 1 ity 13.3 13.3 3 3.3 Expo c t e d u t c orr: e 15.5 ] 5 . 5 15.5 Observed Outcome 33 2 13 Probability of Outcome Being < (33) 99.5 (2) 2.3 (13) 34.5 P rob ab Hit y of Outcome Being > (33) 0,5 (2) 97.7 (13) 65.5 Standard Deviation 6.666, 50 L X Probability Interval 3 0.9 to 20,1 'Exchangeability Point one would consider giving equal odd: that the value would be less or greater than ( ) contributing to a person's job sat Lsf action was 2.3 and 34.5 respectively, Motivators, with the probability of outcome being less than 99.5, strongly support Hoy's and Miskel ' s theory that, as a group, motivators occur more frequently than either ambients or hygienes in experiences (critical incidents) classified as satisfying.

PAGE 146

131 Dissati sf ying Experien ces In discussing the eight major task areas, the university controllers reported 40 dissatisfying experiences. A total of 46 factors were assigned to these incidents, of •vbich 21 were motivators (46%), 2 were ambients (4%), and 23 were classified as hygienes (50%). As was the case for the other four administrative positions, it was necessary for the researcher to assign more than one factor to certain critical incidents. Althougn there were a greater number of hygienes than ambients used in describing the dissatisfying incidents, this was not the situation when compared tc motivators (X (2) 1.7.52 p_,
PAGE 147

132 Table 31 Classification of Factors in Dissatisfying Incidents for Un i v e r s i t y Co n t ro Hers Factor Classification Number Motivators Achievement Recognition Work Itself Responsibility Total Motivators % of Total (N=46) 1] 11 13 11 46 Relationship With Suporordinates To ! " a 1 Amb i en t s Ilvgienes S j. p e c v i s i o n T e elm i c a 1 I n t e r p e r s o n a 1 R e i a t i o a i Company Policy and A dm i n i s t r a t i o a forking Conditions Tot a 1 Hygi. ones 2 6 14 I 2 3 4 13 30 2 50 reported for each of the administrative positions analyzed In Table 3? the probability of motivators, ami) Lents, and

PAGE 148

133 hygienes (as individual groups) contributing to dissatisfying experiences for university controllers is illustrated. The P.I.E.S. technique was used to analyze the data. This procedure was also used to classify the data in the satisfying incidents of university controllers. Table 32 The Probability of Motivators, Ambients, and Hygienes (As Indiv dual Groups) Contributing to the Dissatisfying Experiences for Univer s i t y Con t ro 1 1 er s 7 actor Classificati on Motivators Ambients Hygienes Number of Possible Occurrences 40 -Exciiangeab ill ty 13.3 Expected Outcome 15.5 Observed Outcome -21 Probability of Outcome Being < (21) 78.8 (2) 2.3 (23) 86.4 Probability of Outcome Being > (21) 21.2 (2) 97.7 (23) 13. S 40

PAGE 149

134 The data in Table 32 indicate that for those individuals functioning the the capacity of university controllers and whose job responsibilities resemble the eight major tasks associated with the position, the probability of a hygiene contributing to an individual's dissatisfaction was 86.4 , contrasted to 78,8 for motivators and 2.3 for ambients. Although the probability of a motivator being the source of a person's job dissatisfaction is 78.8 , these data ere not contradictory to Hoy's and ;tfiskel's theory in that hygienes, as a group, were found to occur more frequently in incidents classified a:, dissatisfying for the university controllers than either ambients or motivators. It should be noted that Hoy and Miskel did theorize that a lack of adequate motivators could conceivably contribute to job dissatisfaction; however, in discussing their theory they failed to define the term "adequate motivators." Sat isfying /Di ssatisfying Exper ien ces The university controllers described a total of 80 critical incidents, 40 satisfying and 40 dissatisfying. Out of 94 factors assigned to these incidents, four were classified as ambients. An analysis of critical incidents (satisfying and dissatisfying) by factor classification is shown in Table 33. The percentages of each row total are included in parentheses.

PAGE 150

135 Table 33 Distribution of all Critical Incidents (Satisfying and Dissatisfying) by Factor Classification for University Controllers F a_c t o r Classification Incident Type Motivators Ambients Hygienes Total Satisfying

PAGE 151

136 Over a 1 1 J ob Satisfaction/Dissatisfaction The university controllers were asked to respond to two questions specifically related to their overall job satisfaction (see Appendix E). Each question was analyzed to determine the extent to which motivators, ambients. and hygienes (as individual groups) were most responsible for an individual's overall job satisfaction and dissatisfaction. Of the six factors used to classify the most overall satisfying job experience, 5 were motivators (83%), 1 was a hygiene (17%), and no ambients were reported. Factors which contributed to overall job satisfaction are classified in Table 34. The data presented in Table 34 clearly indicate that motivators were the most frequently mentioned factors in the incidents related by the university controllers to overall job satisfaction. The five motivators, in order of frequency, were recognition and work itself (each mentioned twice) and achievement. The central idea in the factor, work itself, involved the challenge associated with the position and the opportunity for the individual to exercise his creative ability in solving problems. As for recognition, the primary Idea related to these incidents concerned the formal recognition bestowed upon the individual by the supervisor for his contribution to the organization. The on] .' hygiene mentioned as a source of satisfaction was company policy and administration.

PAGE 152

137 Table 34 Classification of Factors Contributing to Overall Job Satisfaction for Universi Ly Con trol lers Factor Classification Number % of Total (N=6) Mot ivators A c h i e veme n t Recognition Work Itself T o 1 a 1 M o t i v a t o r 17 33 33 83 Amb i en t s None Reported Company Policy and A dm inistratio n Total Hygienes 17 17 Of the five factors used to classify the most overall dissatisfying job experience, 2 were motivators (40%), 1 was an ambient (20%), and 2 were hygienes (40%). Table 35 presents those factors which contributed to overall job dissatisfaction . Two motivators (achievement and responsibility), one ambient (relationship with superordi nates) . and one hygiene

PAGE 153

-3S Table 35 Classification of Factors Contributing to Overall Job Dissatisfaction for University Controllers ictor Classification Number % of Total (N»5) ">i o 1 1 v a tors Aclii evsrnen t Responsibi \i ty Total Motivate: 20 20 40 Ambients Relationship With Superordinates Total Ambients 20 20 Hygienes Company Policy and Administration Total Hygienes 40 40 (coirpany policy and administration) were the four factors responsible for overall job dissatisfaction for university controllers. There did not appear to be any association between the four factors in relation to the dissatisfying experiences reported .

PAGE 154

139 The F i v e Pos i t i o n s ( A s On e Grou p) The final section ox Chapter III presents a. composite o f all pertinent data related to the five administrative positions analyzed in the study (director of purchasing, director of security and safety, director of personnel relations,, director of physical plant, and university controller), A total of 25 administrative affairs staff were interviewed, five in each of the aforementioned positions. Of the 249 factors used to classify all the satisfying experiences (critical incidents), 170 were motivators (88%), 18 were ambients (7%), and 61 were hygienes (24%). Table 36 presents the classification of satisfying experiences (critical incidents) according to motivators., ambients, and hygienes for the five administrative positions as one group. The data in Table 36 show that considerably more motivators were identified in the satisfying incidents described by the group than either ambients or hygienes (X (2) = 146,75, p
PAGE 155

140 Table 36 Classification of Factors in Satisfying Incidents for the Five Administrative Types (As One Group) Factor Classification Motivators Acivancernen t Achievement Recognition Work Itself R e s n o risibility To t a 1 M o 1: i va t o r s Number 1 96 25 20 28 170 % of Total (N=249) 39 10 8 11 68 Arnbi ents Salary Status Growth Possibility R i sk Oppoi t uni t y Relationship With Super or din a.t es Total Ambients 2 4 11 18 hygienes Supervision-Technical I n t e r p e r s o n a I R e 1 a t i o i Company Policy and A dm i n i s t r a t i o n Working Condit ions Persona"! Life Jot; Security Total Hygienes 16 33 11 ] 61 6 13 24

PAGE 156

14 1 The contributions of motivators, ambients, and hygienes identified in the satisfying incidents for the five administrative positions are summarized in Table 37. The percentages of each row total are given in parentheses. As previously mentioned, achievement (39%) was the primary factor identified in the satisfying incidents for the five administrative positioas. The next most frequently occurring factors were interpersonal relations (hygiene), responsibility and recognition (motivators). These four factors represented 73 percent of the total satisfying experiences .

PAGE 157

142 P o *-> CO O £ to — ' G CO O p ,Q G +J CO O -r!

PAGE 158

143 rr*C

PAGE 159

144 I

PAGE 160

145 In the 245 dissatisfying critical incidents reported for the total group (five administrative positions), 101 were motivators (41%) , 7 were classified as ambients (2%), and 137 were hygienes (57%). Table 38 presents the classification of all dissatisfying incidents reported for the total group in relation to motivators, ambients and hygienes . Hygienes occurred more frequently in the dissatisfying incidents reported by the administrative group than either motivators or ambients (X 2 (2) = 110,34, p_<.001). The most dominant hygiene, company policy and administration, was mentioned in 70 critical incidents. Interpersonal relations was the next leading hygiene, mentioned in 16 percent of the total dissatisfying incidents. The leading motivator classified in the dissatisfying incidents was achievement (13%) followed closely by work itself (12%) and recognition (Sv'i. Out of the seven ambients identified, five concerned relationship with superor da nates. With the exception of four factors, all o f Hoy's and Miskel's sixteen factors (motivator-, ambients. and hygienes) were present. The four factors not represented were advancement (motivator), salary and status (arabients; . and personal life (hygiene).

PAGE 161

146 Table 38 Classification of Factors in Dissatisfying Incidents for the Five Administrative Types (As One Group) Factor Classification Number % of Total (N=245) Motivators Advancement Ac hievement Recognition Work Itself Responsibil i ty Tota.l Motivators 31 23 29 18 101 13 9 12 7 41 iitiDients Salary Status G rcwt h Poss ib i lit y Risk Opportunity Relationship With Superordinates Tot al Amb i en t s Kvsienes Supervision -Technical Interpersonal Relations Ccnpany Policy and A d.a-. i nistration Working Conditions Personal Life Job Security Total Hygienes 17 40 70 9 1 137 7 16 29 5 57

PAGE 162

147 Data concerning the contributions of motivators, ambients. and hygienes in dissatisfying incidents for the five administrative positions are summarized in Table 39. The percentages of each row total are included in parentheses. Company policy and administration (hygiene) was the most prevalent factor reported in the dissatisfying incidents for the total grouu (five administrative positions), representing 29 percent of the total. The second most frequently mentioned source of dissatisfaction was interpersonal relations (hygiene) totaling 16 percent of the dissatisfying incidents; achievement and work itself (motivators) followed, together comprising 2b percent of the total.

PAGE 163

liS 2

PAGE 164

149 E-< r-^

PAGE 165

150 e o ffi O 0} c q O P< g H« II CO o CM LO 13? 00 H H

PAGE 166

151 Of the 494 factors assigned to the 410 critical incidents reported by the group (205 satisfying and 205 dissatisfying). 25 were classified as ambients. A breakdown by classification of all critical incidents (satisfying and dissatisfying) by motivators, ambients, and hygienes is preserved in Table 40. The percentages of each row total are included in parentheses. Table 40 Distribution of all Critical Incidents (Satisfying and Dissatisfying) by Factor Classification for the Five Administrative Positions Factor Class ific ation Incident Tvpe Motivators Ambients Hygienes Total Satisfying 170 (68%) Dissa nsf ying 101 (41%) Total Incidents " 271 (55%) 18 (7%) 7 (3%) 25 (5%) 61 (25%) 137 (56%) 198 (40%) 249 (100%) 245 (100%) 494 (100%) The data in Table 40 illustrate not only the disproportionate ' number of ambients occurring between satisfying •and dissatisfying incidents but also the disparity between factor classifications (motivators, ambients. and hygienes). The most frequently occurring ambient in those incidents classified as satisfying by the group was relationship with

PAGE 167

152 superordinates (4%) followed by risk opportunity (1%). In the ease of dissatisfying incidents, the group identified relationship with superordinates as being the most frequently mentioned source cf dissatisfaction (2%). The data do not support Hoy's and Miskel's theory in that, as a group ambient s did not occur with equal frequency in both satisfying and dissatisfying incidents. The fact that ambients comprised only 5 percent of the total factors raises some question, in the opinion of the researcher, regarding the soundness of this classification in the theory. The final segment of this chapter presents a summary by administrative type (directors of purchasing, directors of security and safety, directors of personnel relations, directors of physical plant, and university controllers) of those factors which were identified as being the most influential in contributing to an individual's overall job satisfaction and dissatisfaction. Of the 34 factors used to classify the most overall satisfying job experience, 26 were motivators (77%), 4 were ambients (12%), and 4 were hygienes (12%). Factors which contributed to overall job sat Lsi action are classified in Table 41. The data presented in Table 4] illustrate that motivators, as a group, were present in those experiences (critical incidents) considered to be the most relevant to the total administrative group's overall job satisfaction in 26 of 34 incidents. Work itsel C was the most frequently mentioned factor (27%), followed by recognition (17.5%), and

PAGE 168

1?: Table 41 Classification of Factors Contributing to Overall Job Satisfaction for the Five Administrative Positions F a c t o r C i a s s i f i c a t i o n Moti v '5j:ors Achievement Recognition \vovI: Itself Respons ibility Total Motivators Number 5 G 9 6 26 of Total (N=34) 15 17.5 27 17.5 A;nbients Growth Possibility Relationship tfi th S upe rord n n at es Total Air.-oients 6 12 Company Policy and Admini stration Security Persona] Life Total Hygienes 3 3 6 32 responsibility (17.5%), all oi which were motivators. Two out of live ambionts were present, growth possibility and

PAGE 169

154 relationship with superordinates. Three hygienes were mentioned as being sources of overall job satisfaction: persona] life (2), security (1), and company policy and administration (1). Of the 26 factors used to classify the most overall dissatisfying job experience, 6 were motivators (24%), 4 were ambients (15%), and ±6 ware hygienes (62%). Factors which contributed to overall job dissatisfaction are presented in Table 42., Hygienes were identified in 16 out of 26 critical incidents described by the group as being the source of overall job dissatisfaction. Company policy and administration was the dominant factor mentioned representing 35 percent of the overall dissatisfying experiences. The ambient, relationship with superordinates (12%), was the second most frequently mentioned source of overall dissatisfaction followed by the hygiene, supcrvision-technica.1 (8%). The motivators, achievement (8%) and work itself (8%) were each me n t ioned t w ice.

PAGE 170

151 Table 42 Classification of Factors Contributing to Overall Job Dissatisfaction for the Five Administrative Positions Factor Classification Motivators Au;~ar; cement Achievement Work Itself R e s p o n s i b i 1 i t y Total Mcf'^ators % of Total (N=26) 4 3 8 4 24 A mb cents Growth Possibility Relationship T Vith Sxiperordinat es Total Amhients 12 15 H ygi enes Super v i s ion-Technical Interpersonal Relation: Company Policy and A dm inistrati o n Wo r k ing Con d i t i o n s T o t a 1 H y g i e n e s 2 4 9 1 16 8 15 35 4 62

PAGE 171

156 The number of ambients occurring in overall job satisfying experiences (Table 41) and in overall job dissatisfying experiences (Table 42) was found to be equal (4 in each). Although the data support Hoy's and Miskel's theory regarding equal frequency of occurrence of ambients in overall satislying and dissatisfying experiences, the fact that so few a-r.bients were present casts some doubt, in the opinion of the researcher, regarding the validity of this classification in Hoy's and Miskel's theory Overall, the data concerning the frequency of occurrence of motivators and hygienes in overall satisfying and in overall dissatisfying job experiences support Hoy's and Miskel's Reformulated (Herzberg) 'Theory; however, this did not prove to he the situation for the classification, ambien !; .

PAGE 172

CHAPTER IV DATA ANALYSIS AND DISCUSSION Chapter TV discusses each of the 21 hypotheses (Chapter I, page15-26) and analyzes the data presented in Chapter III and their relationship to previous studies conducted in higher education in which Herzberg ' s theory ox job satisfaction was tested. Each hypothesis is discussed and analyzed individually with appropriate table references 1. For the major job tasks associated with the position of director of purchasing, motivators, as a group, will be associated more frequently with job satisfaction thau hygienes or ambients. Major tasks identified in the State University System of Florida Administrative and Professional Job Description ^9325 (1975) for the position include: a, develop, rev Low, coordinate and. evaluate all purchasing policies, procedures, and work methods b, interpret and transmit policies and procedures of governmental agencies 157

PAGE 173

158 c. complete reports and studies as required by university, state, and federal officials d assist in the equipping of new building construction e. select, supervise, coordinate, and evaluate staff f. prepare and control the budget g. conduct long-range planning and forecasting studios h. consult with directors, managers,, department heads, and other administrative personnel on a regular basis i. develop specifications for all contractual agreements . Hypothesis I was strongly supported., the data presented in Taoles 1 and 2. Of the .33 factors used to classify the satisfying experiences (critical incidents) 35 were motivators (66%), 6 were ambients (11%), and 12. were hygienes (23%). Motivators, as a group, occurred more frequently in experiences classified as satisfying by directors of purchasing than ambients or hygienes (X 2 (2) 23.53, p_, <^001). Motivators outnumbered ambients and hygienes combined by a margin of nearly 2 to I. The two most frequently occurring mo-ivators were achievement (28%) and responsibility (19%). It it noteworthy that advancement was not mentioned as being a source of job satisfaction. Three out of five ambients were present, resulting in li percent of the total.

PAGE 174

159 Relationship with superordinates was the most prevalent ambient, representing 6 percent of the total factors. The third most frequently indicated factor was interpersonal relation?:: (hygiene) . Additional support for Hypothesis 1 was established when the data were analyzed using the "Probable Impact Exploration System." The probaoility of a motivator contributing to job satisfaction was 99.2 for an individual functioning in the capacity of a director of purchasing and whose .job responsibilities are similar in description to the nine major tasks commonly associated with the position. Conversely, the probability of an ambient or hygiene confronting to a person's job satisfaction was 6.7 and 24.2 respectively. These data strongly support Hoy's and Miskel's theory concerning the frequency in which motivators occur in satisfying experiences. Since there have been no research investigations conducted to date which have utilized this theory, there are no data to use for comparison purposes. The Florida State University System Administrative and Professional Job Description #9325 (1975)accurately reflected the major job responsibilities of the directors of purchasing with two exceptions. One director mentioned having to coordinate the university insurance program, and another, directing the campus mail service and supervising a c e n t r a i r e c e i v i n g a n d s t o 3 ' a g e f a. c i L i t y .

PAGE 175

2. .For the aforementioned major job tasks associated with the position of director of purchasing, hygienes., as a. group, will be associated more frequently with job dissatisfaction than motivators or ambients. . Hypothesis 2 was supported, the data presented in Tables 3 and 4. Of the 52 factors used to classify the dissatisfying experiences (critical incidents) 23 were classified as motivators (44%). 1 as an ambient (2%), and 28 as hygienes (54%). Hygienes, as a group, occurred more frequently in experiences classified as dissatisfying by 1 directors of purchasing than ambients or motivators (X (2) = 23.86 p C001). Company policy and administration (29%) and interpersonal relations (15%) were the two moat frequently occurring hygienes.. The only two hygienes not mentioned as being sources of job dissatisfaction were personal liie and job security. One ambient, growth possibility, was identified as a source of dissatisfaction. The third most frequently occurring factor was work itself, representing IP percent of the total factors. Additional support for Hypothesis 2 was established when the data were analyzed using the Probable Impact Exploration System. The probability of ?. hygiene contributing to job dissatisfaction was 93.3 for an individual functioning in the capacity of a director of purchasing and whose job responsibilities are similar in description to the nine major tasks commonly associated with the position.

PAGE 176

161 Conversely, the probability of an ambient or motivator contributing to a person's job dissatisfaction was 1.8 and 78,8 respectively. Although the probability of a motivator being the source of an individual's job dissatisf action is quite high (78,8), che data are not contradictory to Hoy's and Miskel's theory in that they did hypothesize a lack of adequate motivators could conceivably contribute to job dissatisfaction. (n their discussion of the theory, however, they failed to. define the term "adequate motivators.'" As previously stated, no studies have been conducted to date utilizing this theory which prevents any comparison with the present: data. 3. For the major job tasks associated with the position of director of purchasing, ambients, as a group, will be associated with equal frequency with job satisfaction and job dissatisfaction. Major tasks identified in the State University System of Florida Administrative and Professional Job Description ??9325 (1975) for the position include: a. develop, review, coordinate, and evaluate ail purchasing policies, procedures, and work methods t>. Interpret and transmit policies and procedures of governmental agencies c. complete reports and studies as required by university, state, and federal agencies

PAGE 177

162 d. assists in the equipping of now building construction e. select, supervise, coordinate, and evaluate staff f. prepare and control budget g. conduct long-range planning and forecasting studies h. consult with directors, managers, department heads and other administrative personnel on a regular basis i, develop spec i t'ica tions for all contractual agreements . Hypothesis 3 was not supported, the data presented in Table 5. Of the 105 factors used to classify all incidents (satisfying and dissatisfying). 58 were motivators (55%), 7 were ambients (7%)., and 40 were hygienes (38%). Of the save;! ambients identified, growth possibility (2), risk opportunity (1), and relationship with superordinates (3) were mentioned as contributing to job satisfaction and growth possibility (1) as being a source of job dissatisfaction. Ambients, as a group, did not occur with equal frequency in both job satisfying and dissatisfying experiences for the directors of purchasing as Hoy and Miskel hare theorized. The fact that ambients, as a group, represented 7 percent of the total factors as compared with 55 percent for motivators and 38 percent for hygienes tends to cas t some doubt, in the opinion of the researcher

PAGE 178

163 concerning the validity of this classification in the theory. It is noteworthy that salary and status were not mentioned in either satisfying or dissatisfying experiences. There was no data which could be used for comparative purposes since ibis was the first investigation of its kind to utilize Hoy's and Miskel's theory. 4. For the major job tasks associated with the position of director of security and safety, motivators, as a group, will be associated more frequently with job satisfaction than hygienes or ambients. Major tasks identified in the State University System of Florida Administrative and Professional Job Description #1893 (1975) for this position include a. plan, coordiaate, and evaluate all law enforcement and security policies and procedures b. select, train, supervise, and. evaluate staff c. direct and/or participate in the investigation of crimes, other offenses, and automobile accidents d. plan, organize, and participate in student, university, and community programs e „ formulate and control budget f. organize and supervise security and traffic control programs related to special events g, coordinate security program with city, state, and federal agencies.

PAGE 179

184 Hypothesis 4 was strongly supported, the data presented in Tables 8 and 9. Of the 45 factors used to classify the satisfying experiences (critical incidents), 27 wera motivators (60%), 4 were ambients (9%), and 14 were hygienes (31%). Motivators, as a group, occurred more frequently in experiences classified as satisfying by directors of security and safety bhan ambients or hygienes C"' : " (2) = 17.71, p ^001). Motivators outnumbered ambients and hygienes combined by a margin of nearly 2 to 1. The most frequently occurring motivator was achievement, representing 31 percent o i' the total. Advancement was the only motivator not to be mentioned as a source of satisfaction. Two out of five ambients were presented, the most frequently occurring was relationship with superordinates . It is noteworthy that the second most frequently occurring factor identified by the directors cf security and safety was the hygiene, interpersonal relations (18%). Additional support for Hypothesis 4 was established when the data were analyzed using the Probable Impact Exploration System, The probability of a motivator contributing to job satisfaction was 98.9 for an individual functioning hi the capacity of a director of security and safety and whose job responsibilities are similar in description to the seven major tasks associated with the position. Conversely rhe probability of an ambient or hygiene contributing to a person's job satisfaction was 5.5 and 54 respectively. These data strongly support Hoy's and

PAGE 180

16 l . Miskel's theory concerning the frequency in which motivators occur in satisfying experiences. The Florida State University System Administrative and Professional Job Description #1893 (1975) proved to be accurate. There were no additions or deletions suggested by the directors concerning the seven major job responsibilities associated with their positions. 5. For the aforementioned major job tasks associated with the position of director of security and safety,, hygienes, as a group, will be associated more frequently with job dissatisfaction than motivators or ambients. Hypothesis 5 was supported, the data presented in Tables 10 and II Of the 42 factors used to classify the diss at isf ying experiences (critical incidents) IS were motivators (4.8%), 2 were ambients (5%), and 22 were hygienes (52%). Hygienes, as a group, occurred more frequently in experiences classified as dissatisfying by directors of se2 cnrity and safety than ambients or motivators (X (2) = 16.0, u <£001 . Interpersonal relations (29%) and company policy and administration (14%) were the two most frequently occurring hygienes. Four out of six hygienes were present, the exceptions being personai life and job security. One ambient, relationship with superordinat.es, was determined to be a source of dissatisfaction. The second most frequently occurring factor was recognition (a motivator) comprising 21 percent of the total.

PAGE 181

166 Additional support; for Hypotheses 5 was established when i he data wore analyzed using the Probable Impact Exploration System. The probability of a hygiene contributing to job dissatisfaction was 91.9 for an individual functioning in the capacity of a director of security and safety and whose job responsibilities arc similar in description to the seven major tasks commonly associated with the position. Conversely, the probability of an ambient or motivator contributing to a person's job dissatisfaction was 2,3 and 78.8 respectively. Although the probability of a motivator being the source of an individual's job dissatisfaction was relatively nigh (78, 8), the data are not contradictory to Hoy's and Miskel's theory in that they did theorize ~ lack of adequate motivators could conceivably contribute to job dissatisfaction; however, the term adequate motivators was not defined in their discussion of the theory. 6. For the major job tasks associated with the position of director of security and safety, ambients, as a group, will be associated with equal frequency with job satisfaction and job dissatisfaction. Major tasks identified in the State University System of Florida Administrative and Professional Job Description #1893 (1975) for the position include: a, plan, coordinate, and evaluate all law enforcement and security policies and procedures

PAGE 182

167 b. select, train, supervise, and evaluate staff c direct and/or participate in the investigation of crimes, other offenses, and automobile accidents d. plan, organize, and participate in student, university, and community programs e. formulate and control budget forganize and supervise security and traffic control program;, related to special events g. coordinate security program with city, state, and f e d e r a I & g e n c i e s ., Hypothesis 6 was not supported, the data presented in Table 12. Of the 87 factors used to classify all incidents (satisfying and dissatisfying) 45 were motivators (52%), 6 were ambients (7%), and 36 were hygienes (41%). Of the six ambients identified, salary (1) and relationship with superordinates (3) were mentioned as contributing to job satisfaction and relationship with superordinates (2) as being a source of .job dissatisfaction. Ambients.. as a group, did not occur with equal frequency in both job satisfying and dissatisfying experiences for the directors of security and surety according to Hoy's and M.iskei's theory. The fact that ambients, as a group, comprised 7 percent of the total factors as compared with 52 percent for motivators an d 41 percent for hygienes tends to raise some question, in the opinion of the researcher, concerning the soundness of this classification in the theory. Salary and relationship with superordinates were the two ambients identified.

PAGE 183

168 7. For the major job tasks associated with the position of director of personnel relations, motivators, as a group, will be associated more frequently with job satisfaction than hygienes or ambients. Major tasks identified in the State University System of Florida Administrative and Professional Job Description #93361 (1975) for this position include : a. plan, recommend, implement, and interpret all policies concerning personnel administration a.nd labor relations b. direct the recruitment, employment orientation and training of new employees c. formulate and control budget d. direct the maintenance of employee personnel records e. develop and maintain employee service programs f. conduct long-range planning "and forecasting studies g. coordinate program with other university, state, and federal agencies h. counsel and advise career service, administrative and professional, and faculty administrators in matters relating to fringe benefits and personnel administration i. select, train, coordinate,, and evaluate staff

PAGE 184

169 j. administer Workmen's Compensation, Wage and Hour Agreement , and Unemployment Compensation. Hypothesis 7 was strongly supported, the data presented in Tables .15 and 16 . Of the 60 factors used to classify the satisfying experiences (critical incidents) 46 were motivators (77%). 4 .vere amb Lents (6%), and 10 were hygienes |.17%), Motivators, as a group, occurred more frequently in experiences classified as satisfying by directors of personnel relations than ambients or hygienes (X (2) = 51.6, P
PAGE 185

170 respectively. These data strongly support Roy's and Miskel's theory concerning the frequency in which motivators occur xn satisfying experiences. There have been no studies utilizing this theory with which the present data can be compared. The Florida State University System Administrative and Professional Job Description #93361 (1975) proved acceptable to the respondents. One. director indicated, that a significant amount of his time was devoted to contract negotiations and acting on behalf of the president of the institution in negotiations, 8. For the aforementioned major .job tasks associated with the position of director of personnel relations, hygienes, as a group., will be associated more frequently with job dissatisfaction than motivators or ambients . Hypothesis 8 wa.s supported, the data presented in Tables 17 and IS. Of the 59 factors used to classify the dissatisfying experiences (critical incidents). 22 were motivators (37%), 1 was an ambient (2%). and 36 were hygienes (617-.). Hygienes, as a group, occurred more frequently in experiences classified as dissatisfying by directors of per2 sonne L relations than ambients or motivators (X (2) -31,56, P_ <£00i). Company policy and administration (327 ) and interpersonal relations (15%) were the two most frequently occurring hygienes. The only two hygienes not. mentioned as sources of. job dissatisfaction were personal life and job

PAGE 186

171 security. Risk opportunity was the only factor in the ambient classification identified as a source of dissatisfaction. The third most frequently occurring factor was achievement (12%) followed very closely by work itself (10%) and responsibility (10%), all of which were motivators. Additional support lor Hypothesis 8 was established wher the data were analyzed using the Probable Impact Exploration System. The probability of a hygiene contributing to job dissatisfaction was 97.7 for an individual functioning in the capacity of a director of personnel relations and whose job responsible i ties are similar in description to the 10 major tasks commonly associated with the position. Conversely, the probability of an ambient or motivator contributing to a person's job satisfaction was 1.1 and 61.8 respectively. Although the probability of a motivator being the source of an individual's job satisfaction is relatively high (61.8), the data are not contradictory to Hoy's and Miske'i's theory in that they did theorize a lack of adequate motivators could conceivably contribute to job dissatisfaction: however, the term adequate motivators was not addressed in theirdiscussion of the theory. There have been no studies to date utilizing this theory with which the present data can be compared . 9 For the major job tasks associated with the position of personnel relations, ambients, as a group, will be associated with equal frequency with job satisfaction and job dissatisfaction. Major tasks

PAGE 187

172 identified in the State University System of Florida Administrative and Professional Job Description # 93361 (1975) for this position include: a. plan, lecomnend, implement, and interpret all policies concerning personnel administration and labor relations b. direct the recruitment, employment orientation and training of new employees c. formulate and control budget d. direct the maintenance of employee personnel records e. develop and maintain employee service programs f„ conduct long-range planning a,nd forecasting studies g, coordinate program with other university, state, and federal agencies h. counsel, and advise career service, admin is trative and professional, and faculty administrators in matters relating to fringe benefits and personnel administration i. select, train, coordinate, and evaluate staff j. administer Workmen's Compensation. Wage and Hour Agreement, and. Unemployment Compensat j on . Hypothesis 9 was not supported, the data presented in Table 19. Of the 1.19 factors used to classify all. incidents v s a t i s f y 1 ng a n d d i s s a t i s f y .1 n g ) , 68 w ere motivators (57%), 5 were ambients (''J c /o), and 4G wore hygienes (38%). Of the

PAGE 188

173 five arabients identified, risk opportunity (2) and relationship with superordinates (2) were mentioned as contributing to job satisfaction and risk opportunity (1) as being a source of job dissatisfaction. Ambients, as a group, did not occur with equal frequency in both satisfying and dissatisfying job experiences for the directors of personnel '• •• I at ions as Hoy and Miskel had theorized. The fact that ambients, as a group, represented 4 percent of the total f ac tors as compared with 57 percent for motivators and 38 percent for hygienes tends to cast some doubt, in the opinion of the researcher, on the validity of this classification in the theory. There were no studies aval able for comparative purposes since the present investigation is the first study of its kind to use Key's and Miskel ' s theory 10. For the major job tasks associated with the position of director of physical plant, motivators, as a group, will be associated more frequently with job satisfaction than hygienes or ambient s. Major job tasks identified in the State University System of Florida Administrative and Professional Job Description #9353 (1975) for the position include: a. select, train, coordinate, and evaluate staff b. plan, organize, and direct the operation and maintenance of the physical plant c. consult ane advise campus, local and state officials

PAGE 189

174 d. interpret, communicate, and recommend all policies within state and federal laws e. prepare and control budget f. initiate cost studies and conduct long-range planning g. assist architects, engineers, and contractors with building cons^uction and/or renovation. Hypothesis 10 was strongly supported, the data presented in Tables 22 and 23. Of the 43 factors used to classify the satisfying experiences (critical incidents) 29 were motivators (67%), 2 were ambients (5%,>. arid 12 were hygienes (29%). Motivators, as a group, occurred more frequently in experiences classified as satisfying by directors of physi2 cat plant than ambients or hygienes (X (2) = 26.01, p S .001), Motivators outnumbered ambients and hygienes combined by a margin ol over 2 to 1. The most frequently occurring motivator was achievement, representing 49 percent of the total All five of Hoy's and Mtskel's motivators wore present, including advancement. Relationship with su~ perordinates was the only ambient present comprising 5 percent of the total. The second leading source of satisfaction was the hygiene, interpersonal relations (19%). Additional support for Hypothesis 10 was established when the data were analyzed by the Probable Impact Exploration System. The probabi'l ity of a motivator contributing to job satisfaction was 99 5 for an individual functioning in the capacity of a director of physical plant and whose

PAGE 190

175 job responsibilities are similar in description to the seven major tasks associated with the position. Conversely, the probability of an ambient or hygiene contributing to a person's job satisfaction was 2.3 and 38.2 respectively. These data strongly support. Hoy's and Miskel's theory concerning the frequency in which motivators occur in satisfying experiences. The Florida State University System Administrative and Professional Job Description #9325 (1975) proved to be fairly accurate in reflecting the major job responsibilities cj the directors of physical plant. Three directors mentioned one each of the following additional responsibilities: involvement in institutional grievance proceedings, personnel management (motivation of employees), and planning and coordinating of all contracts less than $100,000. 11. Fox the aforementioned major job tasks associated with the position of director of physical plant, hygienes, as a group, will be associated more frequently with job dissatisfaction than motivators or arnbi ents , Hypothesis 11 was supported, the data presented in Tables 24 and 25, Of the 16 factors used to classify the dissatisfying experiences (critical incidents) 17 were motivators (37%), 1 was an ambient (2%), and 28 were hygienes (61%). Hygienes, as ,i group, occurred more frequently in experiences classified rs dissatisfying by directors of physical plant than ambients or motivators

PAGE 191

178 &* (2) = 24.05, E <001). With the exception of persona] life, all of Hoy's and Miskel's hygienes were present. Company policy and administration was the most frequently occurring factor, representing 35 percent of the total, followed by supervision-technical (11%), and interpersonal relations (11%). The second leading factor mentioned as a source of dissatisfaction was achievement (17%), a motivator. Relationship with superordinates was the only ambient ment. "toned. Additional support for Hypothesis 11 was established when The data were analyzed using the Probable Impact Exploration System. The probability of a hygiene contributing to job dissatisfaction was 99.4 for an individual functioning in the capacity of a director of physical plant and whose job responsibilities are similar in description to the seven major tasks associated with the position. Conversely the probability of an ambient or motivator contributing to a person's job dissatisfaction was 1.4 and 72.6 respectively. Although the probability of a motivator being the source of an individual's job dissatisfaction is relatively high (72.6), the data are not contradictory to Hoy's arid Miskel's theory in thai they did theorize that a lack of adequate motivators could conceivably contribute to job" dissatisfaction. However, they failed to define the term adequate motivators in their discussion of the theory. 12. For the major job tasks associated with the position of director of physical plant, amfoients, as a

PAGE 192

177 group, wall be associated with equal frequency with job satisfaction and job dissatisfaction. Major tasks identified in the State University System of Florida Administrative and Professional Job Description #9353 (1975) for the position include: a select, train, coordinate, and evaluate staff b plan, organize, and direct the operation and maintenance of the physical plant c. consult and advise campus, local, and state officials d. interpret, communicate, and recommend all policies within state and federal laws e prepare and control budget f, initiate cost studies and conduct long-range planning g. assist architects, engineers, and contractors with building construction and/or renovations. Hypothesis 12 was not supported, the data presented in Table 26, Of the 89 factors used to classify all incidents (satisfying and dissatisfying) 46 were motivators (52%), 3 were ambients (3%), and 40 were hygienes (45%). Of the three ambients identified (relationship with superordinates (2) was mentioned ss contributing to job satisfaction and relationship with superordinates (1) was mentioned as being a source of job dissatisfaction. Ambients, as a group, did not occur with equal frequency in both satisfying and dissatisfying job experiences ior the directors of physical

PAGE 193

178 plant as Hoy and Miskel had theorized. The fact that ambients, as a croup, represented 3 percent of the total factors as compared to 52 percent for motivators and 45 percent for hygienes tends to cast some doubt, in the opinion of the researcher, concerning the validity of this classification in the Reformulated (Herzberg) Theory. The only ambient i d e n t a f Led in a 1 1 in c :i dent s wa s relationship w i t h s up e r ordi nates 13. For the major job tasks associated with the position of university controller, motivators, as a group, will be associated more frequently with job satisfaction than hygienes or ambients. Major tasks identified in the State University System of Florida Administrative and Professional Job Description #9297 (1975) for this position include: a. plan, organize, and direct the fiscal and accounting function of a university b. prepare periodic and special fiscal reports c. budget analysis and control d. develop and administer policies and procedures within state and federal guidelines e. interpret ai-d communicate fiscal policies as required bythe Federal Government f. select, train, coordinate, and evaluate staff g . coord i n a t e p r o g r are w i t h un i v e r s i t y , state, an d federal officials

PAGE 194

179 h. supervise the receipt and disbursement of all general university funds, and the billing and collection of all general university receivables Hypothesis 13 was strongly supported., the data presented in Tables 29 and 30, Of the 48 factors used to classify the satisfying experiences (critical incidents), 33 -ere motivators (69%) , 2 were ambients (4%), and 13 were hygienes (27%), Motivators, as a group, occurred more frequently in experiences classified as satisfying by university controllers than ambients or hygienes (X 2 (2) 30.87. p
PAGE 195

ISO responsibilities are similar in description to the eight major tasks associated with the position. Conversely, the probability of an ambient or hygiene contributing to a person's job satisfaction was 2.3 and 34.5 respectively. These data strongly support Hoy's and Miskel's theory concerning the frequency in which motivators occur in satisfying experiences. As previously stated, there have been no similar research studies utilizing this theory with which the present data can be compared. The Florida State University System Administrative and Professional Job Description #9297 (1975) did not prove as accurate as expected by the researcher. A number of additional responsibilities were reported at the institutional level. One controller mentioned having two additional responsibilities: the first involving supervision of the purchasing operation, the second serving as director of the institution's computer area. Three controllers recommended that job responsibility Number 3 be rewritten in order to better reflect their actual responsibilities in the area of budget preparation, analysts, and control. 14, For the aforementioned job tasks associated with the position of university controller, hygienes, as a group, will be associated, more frequently . with job dissatisfaction than motivators or ambient s . Hypothesis 14 was supported, the data presented in Tables 31 and 32. Of the 16 factors used to classify the

PAGE 196

181 dissatisfying experiences (critical incidents), 21 were motivators (48%), 2 were ambient s (4%), and 2 3 were classified as hygienes (50%) Hygienes, as a. group, occurred more frequently in experiences classified as dissatisfying by unio versity controllers than ambients or motivators (X (2) 17.52, p
PAGE 197

132 to job dissatisfaction. However, they failed to define the term adequate motivators in their discussion of the theory. Of the five administrative positions studied, the data supporting Hypothesis 14 (concerning the frequency of hygienes occurring in job dissatisfaction incidents) are the weakest. There have been no similar studies utilizing this theory V/ith which the present data can be compared. 15. For the major tasks associated with the position of university controller, ambients. as a group, will be associated with equ.al frequency v/ith job satisfaction and job dissatisfaction. Major tasks identified in the State University System of Florida Administrative and Professional Job Description #929? (1975) for this position include: a. plan, organize, and direct the fiscal and accounting function of a university b. prepare periodic and special fiscal reports c. budget analysis and control d. develop and administer policies and procedures within state and federal guidelines e. interpret and communicate fiscal policies as required by the Federal Government • f. select, train, coordinate, and evaluate staff g, coordinate program with university, state, and federal officials h. supervise the receipt and disbursement of all general universicy funds, and the billing and collection of all genera 1 university receivable

PAGE 198

183 Hypothesis 15 was supported, the data presented in Table 33. Of the 94 factors used to classify all incidents (satisfying and dissatisfying), 54 were motivators (57%), 4 were ambients (4%), and 36 were hygienes (38%). Of the 4 ambients identified, risk opportunity and relationship with superordi.nai.es each were mentioned as contributing to job satisfaction and to job dissatisfaction in two incidents. Ambients. as a group, aid occur with equal frequency in both satisfying and dissatisfying job experiences for university controllers as Hoy and Miskel had theorised. Ambients, as a group, represented 4 percent of the total factors as cornpared with 57 percent for motivators and. 38 percent for hygienes. As iu the rise of the otner -administrative positions researched, there were few ambient factors found to contribute to satisfying or dissatisfying experiences. The data cannot be compared with other similar studies because this is the first invest"' gat Jon to use Hoy's and Miskel's theory . 18. For the five administrative positions researched (director of purchasing, director of security and safety, director of personnel relations, director of physical plant, and university controller) motivators, as a group, will be associated more frequently with job satisfaction than will hyg i e n e s o r atnb i e n t s . Hypothesis .16 was strongly supuorted, the data presented in Tables 36 and 37. Of the 249 factors used to classify

PAGE 199

184 the satisfying experiences (critical incidents), 170 were motivators (63%), 13 were ambients (7%), and 61 were hygienes (24%). Motivators, as a group, occurred more frequently la experiences classified as satisfying by the 2 administrative group than ambients or hygienes (X (2) = }1S. 75, p <\ 001), The most frequently occurring motivator was achievement (39%) followed by responsibility (11%), and recognition (10%). Similar data were found in the case of directors of security and safety, directors of physical plant, and for university controllers. For directors of purchasing and directors of personnel relations, achievement was the morvt frequently mentioned motivator. The second leading source of satisfaction for directors of purchasing was responsibility, whereas in the case of directors of personnel it was work itself. Four out of five ambients wore present, the excepl ion being status. Relationship wife superordinates was the most frequently occurring ambient, which was the situation for each of the administrative positions. It is noteworthy that the second leading source of satisfaction reported by the group was interpersonal relations (13%). With one exception, (university controller) the second most frequently mentioned hygiene for all five positions was supervision-technical. In the case of university controllers, company policy and administration was the second leading hygiene. The motivators personal life and job security wore not identified as being sources of dissatisfaction for any os the five administrative positions researched.

PAGE 200

185 17. For the five administrative positions researched (director of purchasing, director of security and safety, director of personnel relations, director of physical plant, and university controller) hygienes, as a group, will be associated more frequently with job dissatisfaction than will rnotiv a t c r s o r amb i e n t s . Hypothesis 17 was supported, the data presented in Tables 38 and. 39. Of the 245 factors used in classifying the dissatisfying experiences (critical incidents) 101 were motivators (41%), 7 were ambient s (2%). and 137 -were hygienes (57$). Hygienes, as a group, occurred more frequently in experiences classified as dissatisfying by the administrative group than motivators or ambients. The most frequently occurring hygiene was company policy and administration (29%) followed by interpersonal relations (16%) ana supervision-technical (7%). Similar data were found for each of the five administrative positions with the exception of directors of security and safety, in which e:-iSe interpersonal relations was the most frequently mentioned source of dissatisfaction followed by companypolicy ana administration. Relationship with superordlnates was the most frequently occurring ambient. Achievement was the third most frequently mentioned source of dissatisfaction, mentioned in 13 percent of the esses. Work itself and recognition were the next most frequently mentioned motivators, together comprising 21 percent of the total.

PAGE 201

luti Advancement was the only motivator not mentioned as a source of dissatisfaction . 18. For the five administrative positions researched (director of purchasing, director of security and safety, director of personnel relations, director of physical plant, and. university controller) ambients as a group, will be associated with equal frequency with job satisfaction and dissatisfaction. Hypothesis 18 was not supported, the data presented in Table 40. Of the 494 factors ased to classify all incidents (satisfying and dissatisfying), 271 were motivators (55%). 25 were ambients (5%), and 198 were hygienes (40%). Of the 25 ambients identified. 18 were mentioned as contributing to job satisfaction and 7 to job dissatisfaction. Relationship with superordinat.es was the dominant ambient being mentioned in 16 different instances. Ambients. as a group, did not occur with equal frequency in satisfying and dissatisfying job experiences for the five administrative positions. The fact that ambients, as a group, represented 5 percent of the total factors as compared to 55 percent for motivators and 40 percent for hygienes raises some question. in the opinion of the researcher, concerning the soundness of this classification in the Reformulated (Herberg) Theory. Status was the only ambient which failed to be mentioned by idie administrative group.

PAGE 202

187 19. For the five administrative positions researched (director of purchasing, director of security and safety, director of personnel relations, director of physical plane, and university controller) motivators, as a group., will be associated more frequently with overall job satisfaction than ambients or hygienes. Hypothesis J 9 was supported, the data presented in Table 41. Of the 34 overall satisfying jot incidents reported by the group (five administrative positions) 26 were motivators (771; : 1 were ambients (12%), and 4 were hygieaes (12%)'. Motivators, as a group, occurred more frequently in experiences classified as satisfying overall by the administrative group than ambients or hygienes. Motivators outnumbered ambients and hygienes combined by a margin oi over 3 to 1. The three most frequently mentioned factors were work itself (27%), responsibility (17.5%), and recognition (17.5%). all motivators. With the exception of d: rectors of security and safety, work itself was the most frequently mentioned source of overall job satisfaction. Advancement was the only motivator not identified by the administrative group. Two ambients (growth possibility and relationship with superordina tes) were identified as contributing to overall job satisfaction as well as the hygienes company policy and administration, security, and personal life.

PAGE 203

18S 2G. For the five administrative positions researched (director of purchasing, director of security and safety, director of personnel relations, director of physical plant, and. university controller) hygienes, as a group, .vlli be associated more frequently with over all job dissatisfaction than will motivators or amb tents . Hypothesis 20 was supported, the data presented in Table 42. Of the 26 overall dissatisfying job incidents reported by the group (five administrative positions) S were motivators (24%), 4 were ambient s (15%), a,nd 16 were hygienes (62%). Hygienes, as a group, occurred more frequently in expevriences classified a.^ dissatisfying overall by the group than ambients or motivators. Company policy and administration (hygiene) was the roost frequently mentioned factor comprising 35 percent of the total. The second leading factor was relationship wilh superordinates (ambient) representing 12 percent of the total. 21. For the five administrative positions researched (director of purchasing, director of security and safety, director of personnel relations, director o f p 1 i y s i c al pi an t , a n d a n i v e v s 3 1 y c on broiler) am bients, as a group, will be associated with equal frequency with overall job satisfaction and overall job dissatisfaction . Hypothesis 21 was supported, the data presented in Tables 41 and 42. Of the 60 experiences (critical incidents)

PAGE 204

189 reported by the group (most satisfying overall and most dissatisfying overall) 32 were motivators (55%), 8 were arabieiits (13%), and 20 were hygienes (33%). Of the 8 ambients identified, 4 were mentioned as contributing to overall job satisfaction and 4 contributing to overall job dissatisfaction Relationship with superordinat.es and growth possibility were the only two ambients identified, the most prevalent of the two being relationship with superordinates and comprising S percent of the total incidents. Although ambients did occur with equal frequency in both overall job satisfying and overall job dissatisfying incidents, the fact that, as a group, ambients representee only 13 percent of the total factors raises s^me question, in the opinion of the researcher, concerning the validity of this classification in Hoy's and Miskel's theory. Dis cuss ion of Data to Re lated Res e arch In this section the data presented in Chapter III will be discussed in its relationship (where possible) to similar investigations in higher education in which Herzberg's TwoFactor Theory was utilized. Before entering into a discussion of the data, the researcher would like to emphasize three vital points concerning the present study. First, this study is the first of its kind to test Roy's and Miskel's Reformulated (Herzberg) Theory. Secondly, the investigation is the first to focus entirely on administrators ( administrative affairs) of a purely non-academic nature in

PAGE 205

190 higher education. Finally, it is the first attempt to employ the Probable Impact Exploration System in determining the probability of a given factor contributing to an individual o job satisfaction and job dissatisfaction. For the aforementioned reasons care should be taken to ensure that the da;:a reported are not misinterpreted. For the purpose of discussion and comparison, the researcher would like to call the reader's attention to the fact that the Herzberg et al studies (1959, .1966) classified six factors as motivators ''advancement,, achievement., recognition, work itself, responsibility, ana the possibility of growth) whereas Hoy and Miskel included only five factors in their classification of motivators (advancement, achievement, recognition. work itself, and responsibility) and classified the possibility of growth in a new category called ambient. There was also a difference in the factors classified as hygienes between the two theories. Unlike Herzberg, who included eight factors (salary, working . conditions, supervisiontechnical, interpersonal relations, company policy and administration, status, personal life, and security) as hygienes, Hoy and Miskel included only six factors. The I actors of salary and status were excluded from this classification and grouped instead under the newly established c I a ssi f i c a t i o n o i am b i en t . r fhe data in Chapter III pertaining to the frequency of motivator's and hygienes in satisfying and dissatisfying experiences (critical incidents) correspond very closely

PAGE 206

1.91 to a study conducted in 1968 by Rer^berg. In an investigation of 1,685 business employees, Herzberg (1968) found that 81 percent of the factors which contributed to job satisfaction wore classified as motivators. Conversely, he found that 60 percent' of all factors contributing to job dissatisfaction fell within the definition of hygienes. In the current research investigation involving 25 administrators in administrative affairs (director of purchasing, dire-tor of security and safety, director of personnel relations, director of physical plant, and university controller) 63 percent of all factors identified in satisfying experiences wore classified as motivators as compared to 24 percent for hygienes and 7 percent for ambients. On the other hand, in those situations classified as dissatisfying by the five administrative types, hygiene factors occurred most frequently and represented 57 percent of the total incidents as compared to 41 percent for motivators and 3 percent for ambients Similar data were reported in a study of 89 business officers (Strickland, 1973) in which motivators were found in significantly more satisfying incidents. In the same study hygienes were found present in significantly more dissatisfying incidents, Jackson (1975) found additional support for the influence of motivators and hygienes in satisfying and dissatisfying incidents. Through research of middle managers and vice presidents in colleges and universities Jackson (1375: discovered thai a higher degree of

PAGE 207

Iu5? job satisfaction was obtained iron; motivators as compared to hygiene factors Strong support for Herzberg's Motivator-Hygiene Theory can be found in two recent investigations by Thomas (1977) and Croseth (1978). In a study of 36 community college administrators (academic, business, and student personnel) Thomas (1977) found that out of 295 factors identified in satisfying incidents, 89 percent were motivators as compared to 11 percent for hygienes. In the case of dissatisfying incidents, hygienes were represented in 82 percent or the total factors as compared to 18 percent for motivators. In Grosetn's (1978) study of cniei student personnel administrators (director of financial aid, director of student unions, director of housing, and director of counseling) motivators were responsible for 68 percent of the satisfying incidents and hygienes were identified in 81 percent of the dissatisfying incidents. In the present study achievement was the most frequently occurring motivator factor in the satisfying incidents reported representing 38 percent of the total. Responsibility and recognition were the next most prevalent factors identified comprising 11 percent and 10 percent of the total respectively, En their original study (1959) of accountants and engineers Herzberg and his associates found achievement as the dominant factor identified in satisfying incidents.

PAGE 208

193 Walt (1966) and Thomas (1977) also reported that in addition to achievement, the motivators, work itself, responsibility, and recognition occurred more frequently in satisfying experiences (critical incidents) than in dissatisfying experiences. With the exception of the factor, responsibility (motivator), Groseth (1978) found the same to be true in his st; dy of chief personnel administrators. It is noteworthy tn r a ; in the present study, work itself (motivator) occurred more frequently in dissatisfying incidents than in satisfying incidents. In addition, there was no significant difference noted in the frequency of occurrence for the factors responsibility or recognition in satisfying or dissatisfying incidents. Of the 249 factors used to classify the satisfying incidents in the present study, the motivator, advancement, was mentioned only once. This also proved to be the situation in the Thomas (1977) and Groseth (1978) investigations. Thomas (1977) theorized thai; this result could be attributed to the level of the positions researched. Ohansian (1974), in a study of 402 student personnel workers, found evidence that individuals occupying high level positions (directors or deans) appear to have obtained a high level of satisfaction and as a result feel that advancement, status, recognition., in audition to a variety of job opportunities, are available to them. In the current investigation, as well as in the studies conducted by Tnomas (1977) and Groseth (1978), the respondents were occupving top-level positions in a university or community

PAGE 209

194 college hierarchy. When asked about their professional goals, several administrators in the current study (see Appendices A, B, C, D, and E) remarked that they "had arrived" and had no aspirations for a higher level position. The level of the respondent's position may account for the fact that salary, status, and growth possibility were mentioned in so few satisfying or dissatisfying incidents in :he present investigation. These three factors combined represented only 1 percent of the total in satisfying inci dents , Herzberg and his associates had difficulty in classifying saiarv as a hygiene due to the fact that it occurred with equal frequency in reports labeled satisfying as well as in .hose classified as dissatisfying. There are times when saiarv may function as a motivator. Wolf (1970), particularly when a person can see a direct relationship between his or her salary and job performance. In an investigation involving university bursars, directors of physical plant., directors of purchasing, and directors of research, El ins (1971) found salary as one of the primary factors related to job satisfaction and security. Thomas (1977), on the other hand, reported in .her study of community college administrators that salary was mentioned infrequently. In addition, Thomas (1977) found that the hygiene, status, failed to be identified. Similar data were reported by Groseth (1978) in his investigation of chief student personnel administrators. Salary, personal life, status, job

PAGE 210

19 J security (hygienes) and advancement (motivator) occurred in only 1 out of 249 satisfying incidents. The most frequently mentioned hygiene in the present study, interpersonal relations, occurred in 13 percent of the total incidents. Supervision-technical and company policy and administration were the next most prevalent hygienes. It is noteworthy that no significant difference was found in the current study in the frequency of occurrence for the hygienes supervisiontechnical and interpersonal relations in satisfying and dissatisfying incidents. Groseth (1978) found similar data ir his investigation, particularly in reference to interpersonal relations. The frequency in which the factor interpersonal relations occurred in satisfying incidents lends support to the findings of Avakian (1971) who. in a study of faculty members, found that interpersonal relations occurred more frequently in satisfying than in dissatisfying incidents, Avakian (1971) suggested that different professions may have different sets of .job content and job context factors and, as a result, certain factors could produce satisfaction in one instance and dissatisfaction in another. Similar data concerning the occurrence of interpersonal relations in satisfying incidents were provided by Hauu (1975) in
PAGE 211

196 41 percent and 3 percent respectively. Company policy and administration and interpersonal relations were the two most frequently mentioned hygienes. 'This was also the case in the Thomas (1977) study, In their original study of accountants and engineers Herzberg et al . (1959) also found company policy and administration and interpersonal relations as primary hygienes occurring in dissatisfying incidents Walt (1963) also found company policy and administration to be a source oi dissatisfaction in addition to working conditions, persona':, life, and status. In the present study, working condi i;ions represented only 5 percent oi the total factors and ranked fourth, which also was the situation reported by Thomas H977). Unlike the current investigation. Thomas (1977) noted a significant difference in the frequency of occurrence of supervision-technical (hygiene) in satisfying and dissatisfying incidents. Groseth (1978) found that in addition to company policy and administration, working conditions was the next most prevalent hygiene identified. The researcher was unable to compare the newly established ambient factors of risk opportunity and relationship with superordinates with ether data due' tc the fact that these factors appeared for the first time in Hoy's and Miskel's Reformulated (Herzberg) Theory.

PAGE 212

CHAPTER V SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS The final chapter of this investigation consists of four, sections. Section one includes a review of the current study followed by a summary of significant findings in section two. Section three presents the conclusions arrived at by the researcher from the investigation with a brief discussion of each Section four concerns the implications of the current study for future research. Sum mar y The purpose of the current investigation was twofold: (1) to test the applicability of Hoy : s 2nd Miskel's Reformulated (Herzberg) Theory to selected administrative affairs staff in the Florida State University System and (2) to test the applicability of the theory in examining job responsibilities as defined in the State University System of Florida Administrative and Professional Job Description for each of the following five positions: director of purchasing, director of security and safety, director of personnel relations, director of physical plant, and university controller. 19',

PAGE 213

198 A total of 25 administrators, live in each of the aforementioned positions, were personally interviewed by the researcher using one of five Interview Guides (see Appendices A, B, C, D, and E) developed specifically for each position. Each instrument (interview guide) was composed of three sections: the first consisted of demographic questions; the second listed major responsibilities associated with each position; the third included questions concerning overa ll job satisfaction and overall job dissatisfaction. Administrators selected for the study were chosen on the basis of their institution's administrative affairs organizational structure. Only those directors or controllers who reported directly to a vice president for administrative affairs were included, With the exception of the University of West Florida in Pensacola, all institutions in the Florida State University .System were visited and interviews were conducted with up to three administrators on each campus . Utilizing the critical incident technique, the researcher asked each respondent to recall two experiences (critical incidents), one satisfying and the other dissatisfying, related to each of the. major job responsibilities associated With their present positions. The critical incidents were then categorised into one of Hoy's' and Miskel's five motivators (achievement, recognition, work itself, responsibility, and advancement), or six hygienes (supervisiontechnical, interpersonal relations, company policy and

PAGE 214

199 administration, working conditions, personal life, and job .security), or five arabients (salary, status, growth possibility, risk opportunity, and relationship with superordinates). Using his 21 hypotheses as a guide, the researcher proceeded to analyze the data (when possible) using Chisquare and a computer software program called the'Troba.ble Impact Exploration System" based on the Bayesian Statistical Decision Process. The .05 level of significance was used in employing C^j -square. Ma j or Y indings Data considered to be of significance in the present 1 nve s t igat ion f ol J ow • L, Motivators, as a group., were found to be associated more frequently with job satisfaction than either hygienes or ambients for each of the five administrative positions researched. 2. Hygienes, as a group, were identified more frequently with job dissatisfaction than either motivators or ambients for each of the five administrative positions investigated. 3„. With the exception of university controllers, ambients, as a group, were not associated with equal frequency in jot) satisfaction and job dissatisfaction for each of the five administrative positions, 4. Achievement was the most frequently mentioned motivator For each of the administrative positions,

PAGE 215

200 representing 56 percent of all motivators and 39 percent of the satisfying incidents. 5. Interpersonal relations, although a hygiene, was the second most frequently mentioned factor in satisfying incidents reported by the administrative group. 6. Out of 170 motivators classified in satisfying incidents for the administrative group, advancement was identified only once, 7. The motivator : work' itself, was associated more frequently wish dissatisfying incidents for the group (12%) than with satisfying incidents (S%) r The reverse proved true, however, when the overall satisfying and overall dissatisfying incidents for the group were analyzed. 8. .Recognition (motivator) occurred in nearly as many incidents described as dissatisfying by the group (9%) as it did in incidents classified as satisfying (10%). 9. Company policy and administration and interpersonal relations were the two most frequently occurring hygienes, represent ing 18 percent and 17 percent respectively, With the exception of directors of security and safety, company policy and administration was the most frequently mentioned hygiene. JO. The hygiene, personal life, failed to be mentioned as a source of dissatisfaction out of J 37 hygienes

PAGE 216

201 identified by the group. The situation was identical for the factor, job security, with one exception, director of physical plant. 11. The hygiene, supervision-technical, was associated in nearly as many incidents classified as satisfying (6%) by the group as it did i;^. incidents classified as dissatisfying (7%), 12, Oui of 494 total factors classified in the study (249 satisfying and 245 dissatisfying), only 25 were identified as amblents, less than 5 percent oT ih? total f ac tors , 13. Relationship with superordinates was the most frequently occurring ambient. However, it and three others identified in the study (salary, growth possibility, and r;sk opportunity) failed to occur with equal frequency in satisfying and dissatisfying incidents. The ambient, status, failed to be mentioned at all; salary w?u mentioned only once. 14, There were noticeable differences in the type of motivators which occurred in satisfying incidents reported for each administrative position. Although achievement was the dominant motivator identified for each position, work itself was mentioned in considerably more incidents reported by the directors of personnel than by the other four administrative positions. A similar situation wa.s found for directors of. purchasing in which case the

PAGE 217

201 motivator, responsibility, occurred most frequently in comparison with the other positions in the group. 15. There were noticeable differences in the type of hygienes which occurred in dissatisfying incidents for each administrative position. Interpersonal relations was found as the most frequently occurring hygiene fox directors of security and safety while corapaay policy and administration occurred more frequently for the other four administrative posi lions . ,q jy-i th the following exceptions, the major job responsibilities identified for the five administrative positions (director of purchasing, director of security and safety, director of personnel relations, director of physical plant, and university controller) proved to be reasonably accurate. The five directors of purchasing requested that job responsibility Number 4 and Number 9 (see Appendix A) be revised to better reflect their actual responsibilities. Also, three university controllers suggested that job responsibility Number 3 (see Appendix E) be rewritten to more clearly reflect their present responsibilities in this area. In all cases the recommended revisions were incorporated into the interview guide.

PAGE 218

203 Con clusions 1. Hoy's and Miskel's Reformulated (Herzberg) Theory was not found to bo applicable to the five administrative affairs staff positions (director of purchasing, director of security and safety, dire-. tor of personnel relations, director of physical plant,, and university controller) researched in the study. Support was found for the motivator and hygiene components of the theory, but not for the ambient portion. Ambient s were found to occur with equa'. 1 frequency an satisfying and dissatisfying incidents in only one administrative position, university controller. The researcher strongly suspects that this was due to chance (considering the limited number of ambients identified) and should not be regarded as significant. 2. The Reformulated (Herzberg) Theory was inappropriate for determining the level of job satisfaction and dissatisfaction associated with the major job responsibilities for the five administrative affairs positions. As previously mentioned, the motivator and. hygiene elements of Hoy's and Miskel's theory were confirmed in the study, but this was not the case for the ambient classification. Very few ambients were identified in the satisfying and dissatisfying incidents described by the group. In those situations '//here they did occur, it was not

PAGE 219

with equal frequency as theorized by Hoy and Miskel. In those incidents classified as satisfying by the group, achievement (motivator) occurred most frequently. One explanation for this finding can be attributed to the Level of each position in the university organizational hierarchy. By the nature oi his 01 her position : each administrator is better able to see the and results of the work effort, and, consequently, is able to derive a sense of achievement or lack of yci'ifvpni^nt from successes and failures. Interpersonal relations, although a hygiene, was found to be the second most frequently mentioned factor in satisfying incidents. Again, the nature of the positions selected for the study may be the reason for this unexpected result. A review of the major job responsibilities associated with the five positions shows clear evidence of the extent to which these administrators depend upon others in their employ to carry out the goals of their departments and of the Institutions. vV 1 1 h on e e x c ep t i o n , d 1 r e c tor of physical p 1 an t , the motivator, advancement, failed to be identified as a source of satisfaction or dissatisfaction in the current investigation. The rationale, for this finding becomes obvious if one considers the following

PAGE 220

205 demographic data: the average age of respondents (47.8): the average salary of respondents ($25,470) the average educational level obtained (BA/BS); and the fact that little opportunity exists for advancement within the organization due to the high level of the positions. When these facts are viewed together it is clear why the opportunity for advancement was not listed as a primary need by the administrative group. In addition, this could also explain why the following factors: salary and status (ambieiits) . job security and personal I Lie (hygienes), were meni toned so infrequently in satisfying or dissatisfy Lng incidents. As previously indicated, out of a total of 137 hygienes identified in dissatisfying mts_. personal life failed to be mentioned at all, and job security was mentioned only once. Conrpany policy and administration was by far the most frequently occurring hygiene in the dissatisfying incidents reported. Much of the dissatisfaction expressed in this area concerned the unresponsiveness on the part of the State (Board of Regents and/or Legislature) 10 the problems presently faced by the institutions within the State System. In-' effective systems (CO. U.K.) unlimited restrictions, and inability to effect needed change contribute to the dissatisfaction of these administrators.

PAGE 221

206 7. The motivator, work itself, was identified more frequently in dissatisfying incidents than in satisfying incidents. One explanation for this occurrence is that the administrators enjoy the challenge that their positions offer hut, due to the increasing demands on their time, are becoming inc r e a s i n g 1 y d i ssat.isfied. I n s u f f i c i e n t t ime to complete reports at d inadequate time to perform their jobs in a manner suited to their individual styles of management were common concerns voiced h>j the group. Several administrators mentioned their dissatisfaction with the amount of time they were having to devote to personnel problems (grievances, absenteeism, employee motivation). The researcher expects that with the advent of unionism in the State University System, this area wil] continue to be a source of dissatisfaction to those having supervisory responsibilities, 8. The type of motivators which occurred in satisfying incidents differed noticeably among the five positions studied. The two most prominent differences were: (1) The directors of personnel selected the motivator, work itself, on considerably more occasions than the other four administrative types. One possible reason Tor this finding may be due to the fact that directors of personnel derive more satisfaction from the work itself because of the

PAGE 222

207 services they perform for the entire university community (faculty, administration, and career service employees) in comparison to the other four positions. Often the rewards of the position are positive and immediate, which may not be the case for the other four positions. Another area for consideration concerns the role of the personnel director in resolving employee grievances. In comparison with the other positions, the director of personnel is more likely to be viewed as a fa' ••.'.'.. b.. J" or , one who ensures tbab ail dealings with employees are conducted fairly. The role of the other four administrators, however, may be viewed as more threatening to job security by the employee. (2) The motivator, responsibility, occurred in considerably more satisfying incidents for directors of purchasing than tor the other four administrative positions, Cne explanation for this occurrence is that the purchasing directors (in this study 1 reported satisfying involvement in bringing about a number of significant changes in purchasing p r o .: e d u r e s and po 1 i c i e s w i t h i n the State Un i v e r s i t y System, More often than all the other four administrative types interviewed, this group of directors mentioned satisfying involvement in their statewide o i • g a n i z a t i o n ( p u r c I \ a s i \ i g d i r e c t o r s ) a 1 1 d h a v i n g t h e opportunity available to provide input concerning

PAGE 223

208 policy matters for the system. The purchasing directors were enthusiastic about attending their quarterly directors meetings and being able to share ideas and concerns, Unfortunately, this feeling o:f comradeship was not evident for all positions researched In the study. The five administrative types differed noticeahly in the types of hygienes that occurred in dissatisfying incidents. The two most noteworthy differences follow: (1) The hygiene., interpersonal, re3 at ions, was associated more frequently with the dissatisfying incidents reported by the directors of security and safety tna.ii with the other four administrative types. Several possible explanations for this finding can be hypothesized. Due to the nature of the position it is extremely important that the employees within the security area conduct themselves in an exemplary manner at all times both on and off the .job. An error in judgment on the part of a security officer could have serious ramifications for borh the university and the officer, particularly the officer's pers o n a !safety. H e n c e , the dire c 1; o r s of sec u r i t y and safety cons cant ly strive to keep their organizations f roe of any interna!, problems which may reilect negatively upon the university and discredit their own departments. The high degree of

PAGE 224

'QV visibility surrounding the university police departments (uniforms) imkes it imperative for everyone to conduct himself in a manner commensurate with his position. This may be one reason why the motivator, recognition, was associated so frequently ir. the dissatisfying incidents reported by the directors of security and safety. (2) The directors of security and safety differed considerably from the other four administrative positions in the frequency with which the hygiene, company policy and administration, was associated with the dissatisfying incidents reported by the group. Here again several possible explanations can be hypothesized. The majority of the directors of security and safety considered themselves and their departments to be relatively independent in comparison to the other positions and not as affected by changes in policies and procedures enacted by the Board of Regents or the Legislat tre. For the most cart, the directors felt that they had the funds necessary to purchase needed equipment and the manpower to satisfactorily perform their work responsibilities. The security departments included in the present study are in a position to offer very lucrative salaries in comparison to other beginning adsni.nist.i'ative positions on campus ($12,500 starting salary lor a now recruit).

PAGE 225

210 In conclusion, Hoy's and Miskel's theory was not supported in this investigation; however, the data concerning the frequency of occurrence for motivators and hygienes in satisfying and dissatisfying incidents were found to support Herzberg's Two-Factor Theory. Suggestions for Further Research The current investigation raised a number of questions concerning the applicability of Hoy's and Miskel's Reformulated (Kerzberg) Theory. The following is a list of areas which the researcher feels need to be examined and further developed before the theory is again tested: 1. The terms "adequate motivators" and "abundance of hygienes" need to be expanded upon. These terms were referred to several times by Hoy and Miskel in the discussion of their theory, but at no time were these terms defined. 2. The definition of risk opportunity, one of five factors included in Hoy's and Miskel's newest classification of ambient, is confusing and warrants further clarification. Out of 498 factors assigned to the critical incidents reported by the five administrative groups, risk opportunity was identified in only five incidents. 3. There is a need to redefine a number of the 16 factors utilized in the theory. Hoy and Miskel, while expanding the number of factors from 14 to

PAGE 226

211 16, contributed to the overlap in factor definition . 4, In attempting to improve the usefulness of Herzberg's Two-Factor Theory, Hoy and Miskel seem to have gone beyond reasonable limits to broaden the theory's applicability. In the opinion of the rose;..' r c h o r , Hoy's and M L s'K e 1 ' s theory s h o u 1 d n o t b e abandoned; efforts should be undertaken by other researchers in the field to resolve concerns uncovered in the present study so the theory can be utilized more appropriately and a better understanding reached of the factors art! circumstances which contribute to job satisfaction and job dissatisfaction of the worker. The following is a listing of logical areas in which and Miskel' s "revised" theory should be tested: 1 . The theory should be tested again using a similar sample of administrators (directors of purchasing, directors of security and safety, directors of personnel relations, directors of physical plant, and university controllers) in order to obtain data foi comparative purposes. 2. The theory should bo applied to ether administrative positions in higher education in which Herzberg's Two-Factor Theory haj been previously tested to determine whether there is a signifiea.nl difference between 'he two approaches (theories).

PAGE 227

212 3. The revised theory could be used in determining what differences, if any, exist in factors causing job satisfaction and job dissatisfaction for faculty and administrators. 4. An investigation could be made of other key position "levels (presidents, vice presidents and directors'; throughout the State University System to examine job satisfaction and job dissatisfaction . 5. Although a number of previous studies have been conducted concerning women and black administrators in higher education, none have been undertaken, to the researcher ' s knowledge, (and should be) applying either Hoy's and Miskel's Reformulated (Herzberg) Theory or Herzberg ' s Two-Factor Theory, 6. One final application in which Hoy's and Miskel's theory may prove useful is .an investigation of what impact past work experience may ha,ve on the current job situation in reference to worker satisfaction and dissatisfaction.

PAGE 228

APPENDIX A INTERVIEW GUIDE DIRECTOR OF PURCHASING I . Personal Data A , N ame p f i n s t i t u t i o n : B . C u r r e n t j c b t i 1 1 e Length of time? in current position' Most recent past oos.it ion: £ ,. Length of time in past positior Highest degree earned: G. Mai or field of specialization II , P ro f e s si on a 1 g o & 1 : 1. Present salary: Ago Identification of Major Job Responsibil iti es According to the literature, the following task areas (9) have been identified as being major job responsibilities of the director of purchasing in the Florida State [Jni vers.i tv System. Please review each of the re spousibi lilies listed to ensure: that; they are, in fact 213

PAGE 229

214 responsibilities associated with your current position Feel free to add or delete any responsibility which you feel is needed in order to accurately reflect your current job function. 1. Develop, review, coordinate, and evaluate all purchasing policies, procedures, and work methods 2. Interpret and transmit policies and procedures of governmental agencies 3. Complete reports and studies as required by university -, state, and federal officials 4. Assist in the equipping of new building construction 5. Select, supervise, coordinate, and evaluate staff 6. Budget preparation and control 7. Conduct long-range planning and forecasting studies 8 Consult with directors, managers, department heads, and other administrative personnel on a regular basis 9, Develop specifications for all contractual agreements Satlsf a c tion-Di ssa tisf a ct io u I'm going to ask you to describe two separate incidents (a specific experience you have had in your present work situation) which relate to each of the above-mentioned job responsibilities. First, you will be asked to describe an incident in which you felt extremely satisfied with a particular task area; e.g., selecting, supervising, coordinating, and evaluating stuff. Next, I will ask you to describe an incident in whicr you fell, extremely dissatisfied with the same task area. Please describe each incident in as much act ail as possible. If you are unable to recall such an incident or if you have a question concerning a s p e c i 1 i c i ; ) c id e n c , p 1 e a s e as k . The inform a t i o n being coll ected wjU 1 _be kept in strict confiden ce" and at no_ time will you or your institution be identified ' *"" "" "

PAGE 230

215 Incidents Develop review, coordinate, and evaluate all pur ' chasing' policies, procedures, and work methods 9 satisfying incident : b . d i s s at i s f y i n g i n c i den t Interpret and transmit policies and procedures of governmental agencies a. satisfying incident: b. dissatisfying inciden 1

PAGE 231

216 Complete reports and studies as required by univer sity, state, and federal officials a. satisfying incident: b d i s s a t i s f y i n g incident: 4. Assisl in the equipping of new building construction a . sat i s f v i n g i n e 1 d e n t : , .

PAGE 232

217 fo . dissat is Tying inc i dent : 5, Select, supervise, coordinate, and evaluate staff s a 1 1 s f y i n g 1 n c :i de n t : b. dissatisfying incident 5. Budget preparation and control a . s a t i o f y i. n g i n c i d e n t :

PAGE 233

218 b, dissatisfying incident 7. Conduct long-range planning and forecasting studies a. satisfying incident: b, dissatisfying .incident

PAGE 234

219 8, Consult v/i tli directors, managers, department heads and other administrative personnel on a regular basis s a t i s f y i n g i n c i d e n t : rii ssat is.fying In en dent Develop specifications for all contractors i agreeatisfying incident u. dissatisfying incident

PAGE 235

220 -0 , Please describe the most satisfying experience over all_ that has occurred in your present position 11. Please describe the most dissatisfying experience overall that has occurred in your present position

PAGE 236

221 APPENDIX B INTERVIEW GUIDE DIRECTOR OF SECURITY AND SAFETY 1. Personal Data A, Name of institution: B. Current job title: C, Length of !;i:n;> in current position n w Most recent past position: F. Length of time in past position F, Highest degree earned: G. Major field of speeializatio; H. Professional goal: I. Present salary: J . Aue : I I . Identificatio n o f Major Jo b Responsibi l i ties According to the literature, the following task areas (7) have been identified as being major job responsibilities of the director of security and safety in the Florida State University System. Please review each of the responsibilities listed to ensure that

PAGE 237

222 they are. in fact, responsibilities associated with your current position. Feel free to add or delete any responsibility which you feel is needed in order to accurately reflect your current job function. 1, Plan, coordinate, and evaluate all law enforcement and security policies and procedures 2, Select, train, supervise, and evaluate staff 3, Direct and participate in the investigation of crimes, other offenses, and automobile accidents -i , Plan, organise, a,nd participate in student, university, and community relations programs d, Budget formulation and control 6. Organize and supervise the security and traffic control programs related to special events 7. Coordinate security programs with other university, city, state, and federal agencies III. Sat. isfaet ion-Dissatisf act ion I'm going to ask you to describe two separate incidents (a specific experience you have had in your present work situation) which relate to each of the above-mentioned job responsibilities. First, you will be asked to describe an incident in which you felt extremely satisfied with a particular task area, e.g., selecting, training, supervising, and evaluating staff. Next, I will ask you to describe an incident in which you felt extremely dissatisfied with the same task area. Please describe each incident in as much detail as possible. If you are unable to recall such an incident or if you have questions concerning a specific incident, please ask. T he i n.fo.r-. mati on be ing collect ed wi ll be kept in strict Confidence and at no jtime jwill you or your institution %L~ l 2J~ u l Hi! ®5? Inci dents I, Plan, coordinate, and evaluate all law enforcement and security policies and. procedures. y iag :! r.cioen

PAGE 238

223 b . d j s satisfying in c i d e at: S e I e u u , t r a in, supervise, and e v a 1 u ate staff a, satisfying incident: •j . d i s s a t i s f y i n g i n c i d o n t

PAGE 239

224 3. Direct and participate in the investigation of crimes, other offenses, and automobile accidents a. satisfying Incident: b, dissatisfying incident Plan, organize, and participate in student, university^, and community relations programs a. satisfying incident: b . d i s s a. I i s f y i n g x ) > c i d e n

PAGE 240

225 5, Budget formulation and control p. satisfying incident: b, dissatisfying incident 6 Organize and supervise the security and traffic control programs related to special events a, satisfying incident:

PAGE 241

226 b, dissatisfying incident Coordinate security program with other university, c i t y , s t a t : , a n d f e d e r a 1 a geacies a . s a t i s f v i n g i n c i d en t : S. Please describe the most satisfying experience overJill that has occurred in your present position "

PAGE 242

2,27 Please describe the most dissatisfying experience ove: all that has occurred in your present position

PAGE 243

228 APPENDIX INTERVIEW GUIDE DIRECTOR OP PERSONNEL RELATIONS 1 . Personal Data A . N am e of i n s i i t u t io : t : B, Current job title: C, Length of tine in current position D Most recent past post' Length of time in past position P. Highest desree earned G. Major field of special iaatioi H. Professional goal I. Present salary: ___ J ; » ge : II Identification of Major ~ob Respo nsibilities A c c o r d i n g to the liter a t u re, t h e f o 1 1 ow i n g t as k areas (10) have been identified as being rrajor job responsibilities of Che director ox personnel relations in the Florida State University System. Please review each ox the responsibilities listed to

PAGE 244

229 ensure that they are, in fact, responsibilities associated with your current position. Feel free to add or delete any responsibility which you feel is needed in order to accurately reflect your current job functions. 1 Plan, recommend, implement, and interpret all policies concerning personnel administration and labor relations 2. Direct, the recruitment, employment orientation, and training of new employees 3. Budget formulation and control 4. Direct the maintenance of employee personnel records 5. Develop and maintain employee service programs G, Conducl long-range planning and forecasting studies 7. Coordinate the personnel program with other university, state, and federal agencies 8. Counsel and advise career service, administrative and professional, and faculty heads in matters relating to fringe benefits and personnel administration 9. Select, train, coordinate, and evaluate staff 10. Administer Workmen's Compensation, Wage and Hour Agreement, and Unemployment Compensation II, Satisfaction-Dissatis faction I'm going to ask you to describe two separate incidents (a specific experience you have had in your present work situation) which relate to each of the above-mentioned lob responsibilities . Firs+. you will be asked to describe an incident in which you fell extremely satisfied with a particular task area, e , g . , s e 1 e c t i n g , t r a i u i n g coo r d mating, a n d e v a 1 u a ting the staff. Next, T will ask you to describe an incident, in which you felt extremely dissatisfied with the same task area. Please describe each incident in as much detail as possible. If you are unable to recall such an incident or if you have questions concerning a specific incident; please ask.

PAGE 245

230 T h e i n f ormation b e ing coll ected wi ll be kept in strict conTidence and at no time w ill y ou or your institutio n c e iden tified . lac i dents 1. Plan, recommend, implement, and interpret all policies concerning personnel administration and labor re.l at ions a. satisfying incident" .__ dissatisfying incident Direct, the recruitment, employment orientation., and training of new employees a, satisfying incident:

PAGE 246

231 b. dissatisfying incident 3. Budget formulation and control a . s a t i s f y i n g : t n c i d e n t ; b. dissatisfying incident: 4. Direct the maintenance of employee personnel record.' u . s a t i s f v i n e i n c i d e n t :

PAGE 247

232 b, dissatisfying incident 5, Develop ana maintain employee service program a. satisfying incident: b . diss a t i s f v i n £>• i. n c ide n t :

PAGE 248

233 6. Conduct long-range planning and forecasting studies a. satisfying incident: b . diss a t i s f y i n g i n c i de n t : Coordinate the personnel program with other university, state, and federal agencies a. satisfying incident: d i s s a t i s f y i n g i n c i d e n t :

PAGE 249

234 Counsel and advise career and professional, and faculty lating to fringe benefits and t rat ion a. satisfying incident: :vice . admin istrative heads in matters repersonnel adminisb. dissatisfying incident 9. Select, train, coordinate, and evaluate staff a. satisfying incident"

PAGE 250

235 b, dissatisfying incident 10. Administer Workmen's Compensation, Wage and Hour Agreement, and Unemployment Compensation satisfying incident b, dissatisfying incident Please describe the most satisfying experience overail that has occurred in your present position

PAGE 251

236 Please describe the most dissatisfying experience o veral l that has occurred in your present position

PAGE 252

237 APPENDIX D INTERVIEW GUIDE DIRECTOR OF PHYSICAL PLANT * • Personal Dat a A . N ame of institution: B. Current job title: C. Length of time in current position Most i>: ant rmsl position: E, Length of time in past position 11 L g h esc a e g ree e a r n e d : G. Major field of special izatioi R „ P :ro f e s ? i o n a 1 g o a 1 : Present salary . A?eIdentii icat ion of Ma^or Job Responsibil it i es According to the literature, the following tasks (7) have beer, identified as being; major job responsi Dili ties of the director of physical plant, in the Florida State University System. Please review each of the responsibilities listed to ensure that thev

PAGE 253

238 are, in fact, responsib.il i ties associated with your current position. Feel free to add or delete any responsibility which you feel is needed in order to accurately reflect your current job function. 1. Select, train, coordinate, and evaluate staff 2. Plan, organize,, and direct the operation and maintenance of the physical plant 3. Consult and advise campus, local, and state of fie i al s 4. Interpret, communicate, and recommend all policies with state and federal laws 5. Budget preparation and control 6. Initiate cost studies and conduct long-range plann.i ng 7. Assist architects, engineers, and contractors w i t i : n o w build i n g c o n s t r u c t i on an d / or renovation Sat is fa c fc.ion-Oissatlsf ac cion I'm going to ask you to describe two separate incidents (a specific experience you have had in your present wcr^' situation) which relate to each of the above -mentioned job responsibilities. First, you will be asked to describe an incident in which you felt extremely satisfied with a particular task area, e.g., budget preparation and control. Next, I will ask you to describe an incident in which you felt extremely dissatisfied wich the same task area. Please describe each incident in as much detail as possible. If you a.^e unable to recall such an incident or if you have questions concerning a specific incident, please ask. The informatio n bein g collected, wi ll be kept in strict con fid ence and at B °__L-L :a 2_ w . r 2 1 you or your i nst.i t ut ion be iden ti fle d . In c i d_eirt_s 1. ''elect train, coordinate, and evaluate staff a. satisfying incident:

PAGE 254

239 b. dissatisfying incident 2 Plan, organize, and direct the operation and main tenance of the physical plan. 3. satisfying incident; b , d 1 s s a 1 i s f 5 i n g i t i c i d 6 n t

PAGE 255

240 Consult and advise campus, local, and state offj ciais sat isf ying incident : b, clissa.tiBfy.ing incident Interpret, communicate, and reccrnme v i t h .1 n stateand f e de r a 1 I aw s nd ail policie: 'ying incident .ssatief yi ng incident

PAGE 256

241 5 . Bud g o t p r c p a v a t i o n an d c o 1 1 1 r o 1 a , s ax i s 1 y i n g i o c i d e n t : b. dissatisfying incident: Initiate cost studies and conduct long-range planning a . s a t i s f y ins incident:

PAGE 257

24: dissatisfying incident Assist architects, engineers, and contractors with new building construction and/or renovation a., satisfying incident: dissatisfying i ncident Please describe the most satisfying experience over all that has occurred in your present position

PAGE 258

243 Please describe the most dissatisfying experience overall that has occurred in your present position

PAGE 259

244 APPENDIX E INTERVIEW GUIDE UNIVERSITY CONTROLLER I . P erso na l Dat a A. Name of institution: B . Current i ob t it ] e : 0, Length of time in current position D, Most recent past position E. Length of time in past position F. Highest deccroe earned: Major field of specialization H . Professional goal : I . Present Salary : I de ntification of Majo r _Job Res pons i b i 1 1 1 ie s According to the literature, the following tasks (8) liave been identified as being major job responsibilities of the university controller in the Florida State University System. Please review each of the responsibilities listed to ensure that thev

PAGE 260

245 are in fact, responsibilities associated with your current position/ Feel free to add or delete any responsibility which you feel is needed in order to accurately reflect your current job function. 1. Plan, organize, and direct the fiscal and accounting function of a university 2. Prepare periodic and special fiscal reports 3. Budget analysis and control 4. Develop and administer policies and procedures within state and federal guidelines 5. Interpret and communicate fiscal policies as required by the Federal Government 6 Select, train, coordinate, and evaluate staff 7. Coordinate program with university, state, and f edera 1 of f i rials 8 Supervise the receipt and disbursement of all general university funds, and the billing and collection of all general university receivables 1 7. I Sa ti sf act io nDissatisf action, I'm p-oing to ask you ho describe two separate incidents (a specific experience you have had in your present work situation) which relate to each of the above-mentioned .lot responsibilities. First, you will be asked to describe an incident in which you felt extremely satisfied with a particular task ares eg', select, train, coordinate, and evaluate staff Next' I will' ask you to describe an incident in. which you felt extremely dissatisfied with the same task area Please describe each incident in as much detail as possible. If you are unable to recall such an incident or if you have questions concerning a specific ineiuent , please ask. The informal: ion being col l ected will be kept in strict ^^Ti^Z^^^^ji^n^tixc^ vrill you or y our inctitut ion be i d e n t i f 1 e d , Incid* Plan, organize, and direct the fiscal and accounting function of a university.

PAGE 261

246 a. satisfying incident: b, dissatisfying incidenl 2. Prepare pei\iodic and special fiscal report a. satisfying incident: b dissatisfying incident:

PAGE 262

247 Budget analysis and control a, satisfying incident: b. dissatisfying inciden" Develop and administer policies and procedures within state and iederal guidelines a . at i s 1 v i ne mc laen !

PAGE 263

248 ta. dissatisfying incident Interpret and communicate fiscal policies as required by the Federal Government a. satisfying incident; b, dissatisfying Incident 6. Select, train, coordinate, and evaluate staff a. satisfying incident: _

PAGE 264

249 b, dissatisfying incident Coordinate program with university, state, and federal officials a. satisfying incident; b. dissatisfying incident

PAGE 265

250 Supervise the receipt and disbursement of all general university funds, and the billing and collection of all general university receivables a. satisfying incident: b. dissatisfying inciden Please describe the most satisfying experience over all that has occurred in your present position 10. Please describe the most dissatisfying experience overall that has occurred in your present position

PAGE 266

!51

PAGE 267

BIBLIOGRAPHY Adams, J. S. Inequity in social exchange. In L. Eerkowitz (Ed . ) , Aa^^c^_iii__experime nt.al soci al psychology (Vol. 2). New York: "Academic Press, 1965. Aebi , C. J. The applicability of Herzberg's motivatorhygiene theory to college administrators as listed by two different methodologies (Doctoral dissertation. Ohio University, 1972). Dissertation Ab stra cts International, 1973, 33, 4223A. ~ Aiderfer, C. P. An empiraca'i test oi a new theory of human a e e ds . r g an izat ional _Beh avior and Human Performance , .1969 4, 142-175, Anderson, B. t. , & idisson, S, G. Studies of the reliability £.:i3 validity of toe critical incident techv. i rj u o . J our n a 1_ o i __Ao p lied Ps yc'nol ogy . 1964, 4_8 . 398-40S, Avakian, A, F. An analysis of factors relating to job satisfaction and dissatisfaction of faculty members in institutions of higher education (Doctoral dissertation, State University of New fork at Albany, 1 9 7 ] ) , Dissert at ion Abs t racts Inter natio n a 1 , 1971, 32, 1765A." ~— Barij.a:';d, C. L, The functions of the exe cutiv e, Cambridge, /'ass.: Harvard University Press, 1 938. Banner, G. H. Personal Cowimni cation , August 20, 1978. Blai. '.: J Jr. An occupational study of. job satisfaclion. Journal of Experimental Educa tion . 1964, 312_, in, V. M. The Herzherg controversy. Personnel Psycho"! ogy , 1971, 24, 155-189, ig, S. R, Leadership behavior of chief student personnel administrators and its relationship to morale v>rxl job satisfaction (Doctoral dissertation, the L'-nivei sity of Tennessee. 1973). Disserta tion Abstracts International, 1974, 34, 1-772A . "" " ..•-:J. . A. If. Review of tne motivation to v/ork by F. Herzberg, B. Mansner, & B .. Snyderraan, Personnel dsveho'Jog-v 1960, 13. 10.1 -"i 03. 252

PAGE 268

253 Brayfield, A. H. , & Crockett, W. H. Employee attitudes and' employee performance. Psychological Bulletin, 1955, 52, 396-424. Broedling, L. A. Relationship of internal-external control to work motivation and performance in an expectancy model. Journal of Applied Psychology , 1975, 60, 65-70. Button. R. A, Personal Communication, August 20. 1978. Campbell. D. P., Borgen, F. H. , Eastes, S. H., Johansson, C B. & Peterson, R A. A set of basic interest scales for the strong vocational interest blank lor men. JnTrr_na'_£-L_Aup lied Psychology Monograp h, 1968, 52, 1-54. " Carroll, B Job satisfaction. Ithaca, New York: New York ^ School of Industrial and Labor Relations, Cornell University., 1969. Chpathara, A. C. Student personnel as a career: A study of American College Personnel Association members in terms of selected demographic data, background, and percept: ions of the field (Doctoral dissertation, Columbia University, 1964). Disserta tion Abstracts JateJ^Uonal, 1965 > 26' 4721A. Cummings, I. L., & El Salmi, A. M. Empirical research on the basis and correlation of managerial motivation: A review of the literature. Psychologic al Bulletin , 1963, 70, 127-144. Dawis, R. V.. Lofquis':, L. H. , & Weiss. D. J. A theory 'of work adjustment. Minneapolis, Minn.: Industrial ^riaxToiT3"C~e^re _ r~ _ "Universi ty oi Minnesota, 1968. vi:: .r;. j. j. Factors affecting attitudes and morale in relation to job security and job satisfaction for administrators, below the rank of dean, not possessing academic rank in twenty private and independent Inst ituc ions oC higher education. (Doctoral disspfi at i on Fordhptn University , 1971) . Dissertation Abstrajv^Jintornajt^anal, 1972, 32, 17 79 A. Evans, M. C. The effects of supervisory behavior on the 'frrth-c-'oal relationship, Or_gan_i?j,tional Behavior and Hnman°Perfor manc e, 1970, D.. "277-293. Ewen, R. B. Some detevminants of job satisfaction: A study of the generality of Herzberg's Theory. Jour nal of Apolied Psychology, 1964, 48, 161-163.

PAGE 269

254 Flanagan, J. C. The critical incident technique. Psychological Bulletin, 1954, 51, 327-358. Florida Board of Regents. Position description statement for class code #93361 (director of personnel relations). S tate Unive rsity Syst em of Flo rida Admin istrative and Profe s_s ienal Job Descript ion . Tallahassee, Florida, 1975, Florida Board of Regents. Position description statement, for class code #9353 (director of physical plant). ^ t J^.g_^i^^i^y_gy. st e m o? Florida Administr ative ' a nd P rof ess ion a 1_ Job Description, T a 1 1 a h a s see Florida, 1975. Florida Board of Regents, Position description statement for class code #9325 (director of purchasing). State University Syst em o_ f_ F 1 o rida Adminis trat ive a n d Pro" f®.ssional _ Job__D_escr ipt ion . Ta 11a hassee , Fl orida 1975. ' ~~ Florida Board of Regents. Position description statement for class code #1393 (director of security and safety) . State University System of Florida Administrati on and Professional u6b Descri ption . Tallahassee, Florida, 1975. ~ " Florida Board of Regents. Position description statement for class code #9297 (university controller). State Univer sity System of Florida Admin ist rativ e and~Pro~ f e s s i onal Job D e s c r i pti on . T a 1 1 aha s s e e , F 1 or Ida 19757 ~ Ford, ft. N., 2s Borgatta, E. F. Satisfaction with the work i. t s e 1 1 . Jo urnal of Applied Psychology , 1970, 54 , To; mot, G. P., Distefano. 'A. K. . & Pryer, M. \s . Job satisfactionissues and problems.. Personnel Psychol o<*v J 966, 19, 165-1 S3. " '~ Fex : D. J,. iJ2e_£es-2£ir^U__prccess_in educajtion. New York: Holt, Reinehart , and Winston, " Inc . , 1969. * Fri odiander, F. , & Walton, E. Positive and negative motivations toward won;. Administrative Science Quarterly, 1964, 9. 197-207. ~~ ~" Goorgeopoulou^, B. S., Mahoney, G. M . , ft Jones. N. W. A path-goal approach to productivity, Journal of Ap~ pli_od_ P_syc-;K)1 -gv , ^957, 41, 315-353,

PAGE 270

255 Glennon, R. R. , Owens.. W. A., Smith, W. J., & Albright, J.. E. New dimensions in measuring morale. Harv ard Basin ess Review. I960. 38, 106-107. Graen, G. B. Addendum to an empirical test of the Herzberg Two -Factor Theory, Journal of A ppl ied Psycholog y , 1966, 50, 551-555. Graen, G. B. , Dawis, R. V,, & Weiss, D. J. Need type and job satisfaction among industrial scientists. Journ al of A pplied Psychology, 1969, 52, 286-289. Greene, C. C. Personal Communication, August 20,. 1978, Gv igalituias, B S., & Herzberg, F. Relevancy in the test of. the motivator-hygiene theory. Journal of Applied Psychology, 1971, 55, 73-79. Groseth, R. S. An inves tigat ion of the moti va tor-h ygiene theory of .job" satisfaction among selec ted st udent affa irs administra tors. Gainesville : University of Florida Press, 1978. Barv/ooci , V. E., & Brown, H, I. Labor turnover in hospital dietary departments . Jou rnal of the American Dietetic Association, 1969, 53, 348-352. Haim. H. A study of work satisfaction and dissatisfaction among selected women leaders in Higher education (Doctoral dissertation, University of Tennessee, 1 9 7 5 ) . Disser ta. tip a Abs tra cts Internatio nal . 1976, B'erzoerg, F. W, Work and the natu re o f man. Cleveland, Ohio: World 1966. Her ^oergj F, n , One more time: How do you motivate eniolovees? Harvard Business Review, 1968. 4j5 : (3). 82-91. Herzberg, F. W., Mausner, 3., St Snyderrnan, B. The motivation to work. New York: Wiley. 1959. Hinr-^.r.hs, J. h. . St Misobkind. L. A Empirical and theoretical limitations of xhe two -factor hypothesis of icb satisfaction . Journal o f Applied Psychology, 196".. 51, 191-200, '" _ Koppock, E. Job satisfaction. New York. Harper, 1935.

PAGE 271

256 House R J., & Widgor, L. A. Hersberg's dual-factor 'theory of job satisfaction and motivation: A review of the evidence and criticism. Per^onnel_PsvChology, 1^67, 20, 369-389. Pr-r V K & Miskel, C. G. E ducational admi nistration: * ' Theory? ^j^.angL-B-actice. New York: KanHom HouseT Inc., 1978. vo,. k oo« D R A study of university administrators' per*"* ' captions related to the factors of Herzberg s motivptor-hygiene theory (Doctoral dissertation, Northern Illinois University, 1974). piss^rta^lojLJ^tracts International, 1975, 35, 7560A, -, T , , h n b & Nunnery, M. Y. Educational admini s: "" : '"" trition^'^.introdu^tion. New York: Macmillan, 197 67" K |. 1F N Clarification and evaluation of the two-factor *' theory of lob satisfaction. Psychologica l _Balletin . 1970/67, 18-31. T<-,av, N & Wallach, M. Rij*_takin&: A_gtudy ijicogni-*"* ~ 'tion a,n^r^r^^ality7"' New York: Holt, Rmehart, % Winston, Inc., 1964. i-., .. r "Vv ^n investigation of the job satisfaction of "" recent graduates of the University of Illinois now e „.,n-/in teaching and administration (Doctoral dissertation^ University of Illinois 1953). Dissertation Abstratot^r-tern.aji£nal, i9t>3, 13, 1U4JA. T,,, v n,,F E , & Porter. L. W. The effect of performance 'job satisfaction. ^du^rial_Relat ions. I 96 '. ori 7 . 20 E H What is job satisfaction? Organizational Behavior and Human Performance. 1969, 4, 309-33t>. .-. fc. H. Motivation an^_per ^onali ty . New York: 'Harper, 1957. " .or, D. The human. . sUh3 . of^enterj^r ise . New York : '}.IcGrav/-Hii"l , "i960. < s Who are vou^ rrotivatcd workers? h^nyard "Dullness Rev.ew, 1964, 42, 73-3S.

PAGE 272

257 Mitchell, T. R. Expectancy models of job satisfaction, occupational preference, ana effort: A theoretical, methodological, and empirical approach. Psychological Bullet Jn, 1974, 81, 1053-1077. Motowidlo, S. J., Dowell, B. E., Hopp, M. A., Borman, W. C, Johnson, P. E., & Dunnette, M. D. Motiva t ion, satis faction , and mor ale in army careers : A revi ew of the ory and measur emen t. Minneapolis: Personnel Decisions, Inc., 19767 Moxley, L. S. Job satis f act ion of f aculty teac hinfr higher educ atio n : An examiniaticn of Herzberg' s dual-facto r theory and Porter's need satis faction r esearch . Ann Arbor: Center for the Study of Higher Education, University of Michigan, J 977. Murray, II. A. E xplorati o ns in personality . New York: Oxford University Press, 1938. Niekens, J. M. PIES: Probable impact exploration system. Gainesville: University of Florida Laboratories, 1977. Ohanesian, D. C. The nature of job satisfaction among college personnel workers (Doctoral dissertation, University of Northern Colorado, 1974). Dissertation A bstracts International , 1975, 35, 5 793 A. ~ Quinn, R. P, Job satisfaction: Is there a trend? Manpower Resear c h Hon o g r aph , 1. 9 7 4 , 30 . Roefh] isberger , F. J., & Dickson, W. J. Management an d the worker . Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 1939. Roscoe, J. T. Fundam enta l research statistics for the behavi oral sciences, New York: Holt. Rinehart, & Winston, Inc., 1975, Salch, S. D. A study of attitude change in the prer e t i r erne n t p e r i o d . J ourn al of Ap pi led Psychology , 1964, 48, 310-312. Scbwai'tz, M. M., Jenusaitis, E. & Stark, H. Motivational factors among supervisors in the utility industry. Personnel P^ycjiology, 1963, 16, 45-63. Scott. G, D, R. Origins, job satisfactions, and job motivations of selected deans of students (Doctoral dissertation, Indiana university, 1965). Dissertation Abstracts International, 1965, 27. 1608A-1609A.

PAGE 273

258 Wedlock W. E. An empir ical description of available theory and research on .job satisfaction . Paper presented at Midwestern Psychological Association, Kansas City. May 1966, SHeppard, D. I. Relationship of job satisfaction to situational and personal characteristics o^: terminating employees, Personn el Journal , 1976, 46, 567. Shuler A. I. Personal Communication, August 20, 1978. S iegel , S , N onpar ame t r i c s tatistics for the behaviora l sciences. New York: McGraw-Hill, 1956. Fmith, P. C, Kendall, L., & Hulin, C. The measureme nt of 'satisfaction in w ork a nd ^retir ement . Chicago: RandfetarTy ~1969~. S+rickland D. E. A study of the job satisfaction of chief business officers in selected institutions of higher education (Doctoral dissertation, Florida State University 1973) . Oi sserJ^t_ion_Ab stracts _I international, 1973, 34, 3093A. Ti.omas S C. An application of Herzberg's two-factor theorv of job" satisfaction to selected community college administrative roles (Doctoral dissertation,. University of Florida, 1977). Dissjeo^i^irm^AbyjL±>^t. s -_l.?il5£i 1 ^M2B9i I977 38' 3326A. T U t-t le 7 ' & Hazel. J. T, Review and implicatio ns of job ' sa+ I sf action and work moti vation theories for air loYc^'fesearcir EScTilauH" ATf Force Base, Texas : Air F6Tc"9~Human"'H^source Laboratory, 1974, 1-76. am ''; J Predictors, correlates, and consequences of 'job satisfaction in a university library (Doctoral dissertation, North Texas State University. 1976). Dissertation Abstracts .International , 1972, 33, 5397A, Vroora, V. u\ Work and motivation. New York: John Wiley k Sous, Inc., 1964. \va"U il E. The motivation Cor women to work in high-level professional positions (Doctoral dissertation . American Uni : r i si • y , 1 '462 ) . Dissertat ion Ab stracts Int er n a t i o n a 1 , 1 9 6 3 , 23 , i.oj. » A . Wancus J. P. A causal -correlational analysis of the job satisfaction aod per forma sen relationship. Journal of Anpl-icd Psychology, 1976, 59 , 139-144.

PAGE 274

259 Wanous, J. P., & Lawler, E. E. Measurement and meaning of job satisfaction. Jour nal of Applied Psycholog y, 1972, 56, 95-105. ~ Wernimont, P. P., & Dunnette, M. D. Intrinsic and extrinsic factors in job satisfaction. J ournal of Applied Psychology, 1966, 50, 41-50. Whitsett, D. A., & Winslow, E. K. An analysis of studies critical of the motivator-hygiene theory. Personnel Psychology , 1567, 20, 391-415. Wolf, M. G. Need gratification theory: A theoretical reformulation of job satisfaction/dissatisfaction and j ob mot i vat ion . Journa l' of Applied Psychol ogy , 1970 54, 87-94. ~ '" " Zyt.owski, D. G. Vocationa l beh avior: R eadings in the ory and research, New York: Holt... Rinehart, & Winston, Inc., 19687"

PAGE 275

BIOGRAPHICAL SKETCH Albert. Phillip Kozal BORN; October 1, 1942 Grand Rapids, Michigan P£F.EjSTS: Albert P. and Phyllis M. Kozal Vi'ITE: Pamela A, (Maison) Kozal of St. Clair Shores, Michigan Married June 5, 1970 CHILDREN: Christopher Jason Kozal Born: September 12, 1976 TON: Rockford Senior High School Roekford, Michigan 1960 B.S.j Northern Michigan University Marquet t e , Mi ch iga.n Major: Botany, Conservation., Zoology 1967 M.A., Northern Michigan University Marquette, Miehi gan Major : Guidance and Counseling 1969 Ph.D., University of Florida Gal nes v'ille , Florida Major: Educational Administration in Higher Education 1979 Residence Hail Director Northern Michigan University Marquette, Michigan; 1967-1971 Director of Residence Life University of Florida G a i xx e s v i Lie, F 1 o r i d a ; 197 1 1 9 7 7 Assistant Director of Housing V n i v e r s i t y of F 1 o i i da G a i n e s v i 1 1 e , F 1 o r i a a ; 1 9 7 7 P r e s e n t 260

PAGE 276

l certify that I have read this study and that in my opinion it conforms to acceptable sta.ndards of scholarly presentation and is fully adequate, in scope and quality, as a dissertation for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy. C. Arthur Sandeen, Chairman Professor of Educational Administration 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. /O -, ./ h/J/Y/ /J James L. Wattenbarger St // Professor of Educational Administration 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. Thomas G. Goodale Professor of Counselor Education

PAGE 277

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, ;/l tul/jl^. ft' J K^^/'-.i& Ralph B. Kimbfough Professor of Educational Administration This dissertation was submitted to the Graduate Faculty of the Department of Educational Administration in the College of Education and to the Graduate Council, and was accepted as partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree oj Doctor of Philosophy March 1.979 Dean, Graduate School

PAGE 278

HlZS:, ° F ^ORIDA 3 1262 08553 0789