5...; [5| ‘0‘] v ,1. “III” #Mor II’lthIl REILLIIFII ‘ I It."1L9 “V II I" I III . . I - III"? LII; ‘iu' ' q I H" ILI'IIJI ‘2 W? w W} 221 “MEI. ‘s‘ ilfi M.. "a" . : True; Ac:- . Ca 0’. "12:. .. 0‘. .fir ‘1. kg:- I'I: {”2 3733.57: Iggy. “1:3" I .g‘ 'lflfi’g’é.‘ 1"" I~4~ ~.. :4. . 0" —<‘ .1: 7.4.1.. :.-_ ::;'X. *3 '. .2?‘ '37" I 31: .— ‘d... a": {Maura .. 7 Ma . _1:?é :. $33.“ ‘% " fis’fii "g” I = fit- Fifi - 75.41 {If I--‘-}§ gig? ‘ ':b? -._ 71$? 3;— “ml" ~23 - ’3‘» MW. . "I I:?%~;:‘ J . at: (L. . \‘I '0‘ . _ ' . LL... ‘ . s . . 4...}. - u.- ~ 4‘ r‘m . 'I'g’.‘ . avg? it}; . r - to ‘2“ t ., {.7 W. T “4‘ 0-. . . . D . . .2 ~ ‘ &l:‘.3 m‘v'J. m_ ~ w—n ~' I ;~.‘ —.l I. 3" . . 29“.? L949 .- u A“ ~:’ .‘. y 0’ too: :r :3 '- o -9 I; ’ ._. H _. 1 ‘3 35.? I .71) u. ' o- .3}, ; .1. > VT; {it 7-5.: _ v—o- . .5 u u: 0 .“""~ . - my “27:5 o «(a v I Q‘— . u‘ - . ~\ E: . {if _ - 0-6:? f, ’ '(>Jf' ‘ fi’?‘ .15 -‘. «2.. E...“ - o- 37:; .‘A 33' “4 2':— L: N: 'L‘... 7,}, .h. I! n :- ‘1': r— . -.;. - 9' 3..." 7... O' ‘ n A .h‘: '.RL~%€,‘1‘X"W,;:’ ’ 1 —1 0“ . f, “J 67;"? 16".: A“ , 5:;; "v -“.;" ° 9) 1:: f Dims} Pé‘N‘fiiS: 3:91: : 1“ -, - - . , ‘ “MIN" Hiifii'if-‘sfiiiffl’m‘ 'I-H- .2: ,.. - . -- ~ ' ‘0'; ‘ .g 'I'I ‘ “:1 I’.I’ a ,r - 5 WWI VIII-SW sin: :I»'- . I » I III-II MW 4;.“ n .: ATV-3" '3'. .’ . 7. ' b" . . .~ "23’ < I a“ . . o *3 “'1‘: * 1318 L fir.13§g§%{£ggifif,'}§“: (in. 3mg}! {51;} 0.3.“: lflj'ifféékfig i . ~ " u» . Izzgi§“-I m I .I sin b I}: .551 gm .-.- -- ‘U fif- '4. ‘u I h 'f'i h“ ? .1§""v‘c‘h3."’;:t.ik3 r‘tyiq’“ 1.23;: 33:3?!“ [fit-“.5; ' gifiv' 3,: ‘ MIL, 51%.,“ pk?” JIZQI- ’ . /: ”Jen-3:. ~ 1% :5“ ; 5.1a; . - .-Iggsz.j;,.;; ‘ ‘ r» :H is) W " i“; {if-133'. I 23$. :3; M3345; "II ”*‘33125fi5i :j-f‘ gawk. l - ""1. “If: :3'12 49:: “I." ‘53"? u-Ei‘ayggg'i‘ ‘fifiitfigf ’8 I" 2" 2 £2.35; ‘Y‘r'éfi‘w V h‘l‘t“ :J ‘l ”‘3? r' I ', fir 438:,1" $136433. lagging: I??? , ,-. I . ”313.1; .I!II.Ir1*'a-3‘I. * . Imp:If§29:,55§¥‘5s:;~-K§,,=I%§;¢f'.r..mk1 g. . ,I' ‘r' : z " 1.2-? '3'2511 , 4 '3' " ”‘ -' it 'NM‘KI“ g; "If: :33“ a! ‘ .13.. :3: " if“ 'i :..-.‘5.aa.-;53g"‘5. {~13 51' I.~,.,|,:[¢ yr"1:71:”AI;:tz‘itq.‘;1flf1l‘l:"gsq‘zziéz ‘ A “:5 Egg: " "’ v V ~I Iigtg“ 3‘- I: 4193:? ’ “II 9:12“ Irri‘izt 53‘ MI": ‘3 rum” “ ’PNJ‘I :3?” h, ;_....“> “W; '- o . u . M‘- l :‘u .. 0" —v n vu‘ . n... . - - -. ~‘.,, . , - .. . A N - l . ._ a"! u V , . - -‘4 - _ . V. ,~ 7.... , . , _ . .; ,l. J... - .u a I o? . 1:: o < 4 $‘9-‘.".'—'}“ .1 afiuficrzg-vv 'or I.“ s. . I ‘ ~ . v - ‘ I .a~.l.-'N v 5:." ' - ‘. 3‘. (J; ' o , . I I.' ._< & a O... Io- “ v’r7’u'».. ..I u A "3' fi- .- . ;. hf...“ "war; “[1:11'Ipltz‘ F" I all ‘ kz‘h‘I ". _u,1 is?! 1“”: a l. '1‘ : L “2.3“ ;‘* W; 3134‘: Ixffihg‘g“? If ‘r' “1!! ”"11: I? if H 451'}? 3'“ ‘ *flg‘i " I31 I S: g“ ‘ ;‘(’. £1. ellftsgr”. HI; ’fln.‘ W “.4 VJ I» ”It! ”I'AI -- . :« Lb €31; fig}? -:§ :§’.""":I‘ AI? " IMF ' r. ,, 9 t ‘- -:. A1 . Arc. . 3.271. 'I : 7:1 .4. . ... ,._ ~ . ~4-¢y~ ,, .v‘. n.1, “w -fl ~u,~ ”- - ~.. .4 ¢ . 434.. Jr: - . J: :o' ' ~ ‘5 2?;13 '7” ‘4 “ ' 0-D? b .H’ I5"?- 5. #31 r 4‘33! ., «3-2.: ' . 7"“ "3;: “7.: a .. .,. I- #5,: ' D‘:<. b I! h: ’f‘ g n- .t‘ .' ‘5 < ‘ -' I. I l 0»u . .3 1p; 42'. N. a: --. M”). . '- ~ ‘.. v... l' 3.2. 53' C - v" ‘ . -.:1 .. a «a m .1 r333 ’ ' \— t» .v.... . :4. I I‘ ': I232}: kg“ slitni‘fi} 3.‘ I llllllll Til lllllllll llllll lIBRARY 311293 00632 5272 Michigan State University This is to certify that the dissertation entitled GENDER DIFFERENCES IN JOB SATISFACTION OF MEN AND WOMEN ADMINISTRATORS IN HIGHER EDUCATION presented by BOBB IE WHYTE THOMAS has been accepted towards fulfillment of the requirements for PhD degree in Educational Administration / / 1&7? Cut/ox (1/)(76‘ 21-4 4/) M' Jor professor Date May 12, 1987 MST/'15 an Affirmative Action/Equal Opportunity institution 0 12771 L i MSU LIBRARIES —— \— RETURNING MATERIALS: Place in book drop to remove this checkout from your record. FINES will be charged if book is returned after the date stamped below. 7&3':~'1‘~” i 119 iiiv 0 9 2938 1 Hi; 1: s 306., 12.23 ' 1 APR 1635'" ' MAE, $1) 20011:: T. 3 GENDER DIFFERENCES IN JOB SATISFACTION OF MEN AND WOMEN ADMINISTRATORS IN HIGHER EDUCATION BY Bobbie Whyte Thomas A DISSERTATION Submitted to Michigan State University in partial fhlfillment of the requirements for the degree of DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY College and University Administration 1987 Copyright by BOBBIE WHYTE THOMAS 1987 GENDER DIFFERENCES IN JOB SATISFACTION OF MEN AND WOMEN ADMINISTRATORS IN HIGHER EDUCATION BY Bobbie Whyte Thomas AN ABSTRACT OF A DISSERTATION Submitted to Michigan State University in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY College and University Administration 1987 ABSTRACT GENDER DIFFERENCES IN JOB SATISFACTION OF MEN AND WOMEN ADMINISTRATORS IN HIGHER EDUCATION BY Bobbie Whyte Thomas This research was conducted to test for significant differences in job satisfaction achieved by men and women administrators in higher education. The population studied was men and women executive administrators in.105 public institutions with enrollments of 15,000 students or more. Men and women administrators in the areas of General Administration, Academic Affairs, and Student Services, functioning in both line and staff positions, were the subjects of this study. This study was designed for the following purposes: (1) to examine the overall achievement of job satisfaction of men and women administrators; (2) to study the satisfaction.of men and women administrators with job content, tasks and responsibilities; and to study the satisfaction with environment and job context; (3) to investigate perceived barriers or aids to the achievement of job satisfaction of men and women administrators. A questionnaire was mailed to 1,000 administrators: 563 men administrators, and 437 women administrators. Members of the sample were mailed a survey instrument, a stamped return envelope, and a blank mailing label if they Bobbie Whyte Thomas wished to receive a copy of the results of the study. Responses were received from 566 administrators (57%), with 547 responses used in the study. The analysis of the data included analysis of covariance techniques. Frequency and percentage tabulations were completed on demographic information. The main findings were: (I) There was a significant difference between men and *women administrators in overall job satisfaction, satisfaction with job content, and satisfaction with job context. ‘Women administrators were significantly less satisfied than men administrators in these areas. The largest percentage of individuals experiencing a deficiency in job satisfaction was found in the women administrators employed in the area of General Administration, at the Assistant Vice President and Director levels. There was not a significant difference in job satisfaction between men and women administrators at the President or Vice President levels. (II) ‘Women.administrators placed significantly more importance on job content than did men administrators. Women and men.identified the same six job factors as most important. They were: (1) use of personal skills and abilities; (2) feeling of competency; (3) opportunity for achievement; (4) (III) (IV) Bobbie Whyte Thomas opportunity for challenge; (5) opportunity for job satisfaction; and (6) opportunity for independent thought and action. ‘Women administrators did not place more importance on job environment or context than did men administrators. There was no significant difference between men and women administrators in their perceived barriers and aids to their achieving job satisfaction. The most important barriers listed by both men and women were: lack of opportunity for advancement, lack of role models, lack of geographic mobility, and lack of encouragement from others. The most important aids to achieving job satisfaction listed by both men and women were: self-confidence, appropriate degree, motivated coworkers, and encouragement from others. vi To Robb vii TABLE OF CONTENTS Chapter Page I. THE PROBLEM . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 Introduction . . . . . 1 The Problem in Brief Historical Perspective . . . 2 Purpose of the Study . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7 Importance of the Study . . . . . . . . . . . . 8 Definitions of Terms . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11 Assumptions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15 Limitations . . . . . . . . . . 16 Overview of the Remaining Chapters . . . . . . . 17 II. REVIEW OF RELATED LITERATURE . . . . . . . . . . . 19 Introduction . . . . . . . . . . 19 Definition of Job Satisfaction . . . . . . . 19 Theories of Measurement of Job Satisfaction . . . 20 Fulfillment Theory . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21 Equity Theory . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 22 Discrepancy Theory . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 22 Two- Factor Theory . . . . . . . . . . . . 24 Factors of Job Satisfaction . . . . . . . . . . . 27 Types of Factors . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 27 Numbers of Factors . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 27 Factors Found in a Job . . . . . . . . . . 28 Factors Found in an Individual . . . . . . . . 32 Summary . . . . . . . 34 Significant Research in Job Satisfaction . . . . 34 Differences Due to Occupational Level . . . . 35 Gender Differences . . . . . . . 39 Job Satisfaction in Higher Education . . . . . 50 Summary . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 57 viii I I I O METHODOLOGY 0 O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O 6 0 Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . 60 Research Population . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 61 Sampling Procedures . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 62 Development of the Research Instrument . . . . 63 Data Collection Procedures . . . . . . . . 67 Data Analysis . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 68 Summary . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 71 IV 0 ANALYSIS OF TIE DATA 0 O O O O O C O O O O O O O O 7 2 V. SUMMARY, CONCLUSIONS, AND IMPLICATIONS . . . . . .100 APPENDICES . O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O 1 o 9 BIBLIOGRAPHY O O O 0 O O O O O O O O O 0 O O O 0 O O O O 126 ix LIST OF TABLES Table 11. 12. 13. 14. 15. 16. 17. 18. QUESTIONNAIRE RESPONDENTS .. . .. . .. . .. ANALYSIS OF QUESTION 6: THE OPPORTUNITY FOR SATISFACTION IN MY POSITION? . . . . . . . . ANALYSIS OF JOB SATISFACTION BY JOB LEVEL, JOB TYPE, AND JOB FUNCTION . . . . . . . . . . . IMPORTANCE OF JOB FACTORS . . . . . . . . . FACTORS VERY IMPORTANT TO 40% OR MORE MEN AND WOMEN ADMINISTRATORS SURVEYED . . . . . . . . . PERCEIVED BARRIERS TO JOB SATISFACTION . . . PERCEIVED AIDS AND SUPPORTS TO JOB SATISFACTION . AGE LEVEL OF ADMINISTRATORS . . . . . . . . . RACE OF RESPONDENTS . . . . . . . . . . . . . MARITAL STATUS OF RESPONDENTS . . . . . . HIGHEST DEGREE HELD BY ADMINISTRATOR . . . LEVEL OF CURRENT POSITION . . . . . . . . . . TYPE OF CURRENT POSITION . . . . . . . . . . . FUNCTION OF CURRENT POSITION . . . . . NUMBER OF YEARS IN PRESENT POSITION . . . . . . GENDER OF IMMEDIATE SUPERIOR . . . . . . . HOURS OF WORK PER WEEK . . . . . . . . MEMBERSHIP IN PROFESSIONAL ORGANIZATIONS . . . Page 73 78 79 82 84 86 87 88 89 89 90 91 91 92 92 93 94 95 19. 20. 21. 22. 23. NUMBER OF SEMINARS ATTENDED IN PAST YEAR . INTERNSHIP PRIOR TO DEGREE . . . . . . . . HOW IMPORTANT WAS AN INTERNSHIP PRIOR TO DEGREE INTERNSHIP SINCE DEGREE . . . . . . . . . . HOW IMPORTANT WAS AN INTERNSHIP SINCE DEGREE xi 95 96 96 97 97 CHAPTER I THE PROBLEM Introduction The study of attitudes provides important insights into human cognitive processes and contributes to the understanding and prediction of human behavior. Nearly three decades ago, psychologists and social scientists began to stress the need for a better understanding of human behavior and attitudes functioning in the work environment (Herzberg, Mausner, and Snyderman,1959). The study of job satisfaction of men and women became an important area of research.(Herzberg, Mausner, and Snyderman,1959L. However, the ways in which professional ‘women have contributed to organizations and have operated within them, and whether these contributions and their rewards differ from those of professional men, have not been investigated fully. More specifically, in the area of higher education administration, there has been little research regarding men and women who have achieved deciSion—making positions in the 2 last decade. Data concerning their values, needs, constraints, and supports in relation to their achievement of job satisfaction is scarce. The focus of this study is to address the subject of gender differences in the achievement of job satisfaction of men and*women administrators in higher education in the United States. The Problem in Brief Historical Perspective In today's society, a person's work role exerts a powerful influence on his or her life (Porter,1961). During a normal lifetime, an inestimable number of hours are consumed by work; and if that work brings no pleasure, or little satisfaction, it is indeed a debilitating experience. In recent years, in an effort to improve conditions, organizations of all types and sizes, public and private, have been confronted with challenges to assess their employment practices and to assure progress toward equal treatment for women and men.in hiring, promotion, and access to employment benefits of all kinds (Kanter,1975). Organizations are becoming more aware of the importance of the psychological contract between an employer and employee. IFurthermore, it is now a generally accepted premise that an employee who achieves his or her personal goals in work tends to be more satisfied with a job and contributes more to an organization (Costello and Lee,1974). 3 Employers are making efforts to identify a person's needs on the job, and to ensure that work situations provide opportunities for individuals to meet their personal needs (Weaver,1980). Professional employees as a group were the fastest growing work force in the past decade (Costello and Lee,1974). During the 1970s, an increasing number of women moved into management positions, thereby changing the pattern of the decision-making process in many organizations. Civil rights legislation and the various organizations of the feminist movement were contributing factors to the influx of women into management positions (Brown,1982L. The increasing number of women managers raises interesting questions concerning the psychological differences, if any, between the genders in their work environment. I ‘Women are perhaps the greatest untapped resource of talent in America today (Shakeshaft11986). ‘By mid-1986, over 53 million women were in the labor force--about 44 percent of the country”s entire labor force, and 52 percent of all women 16 years of age and over HAS. Department of Labor,1986). Women account for 70 percent of today's white- collar work force, but they represent only 10 percent of its managers. Two percent of the most senior positions are held by women. 4 Women who are seeking managerial positions in organizations have encountered difficulties in being promoted and in gaining the acceptance of other employees (Stead,1978; Henning and Jardin,1977). Many factors, such as education, male attitudes (Kanter,1976; Bartol,1978), organizational rules and procedures (Day and Stogdill,1972; Osborn and Vicars,1976; Petty and Lee,1975), and gender differences (Janeway,1981; Schein,1978; Roussell,1974) contribute to the difficulty which women encounter as managers. Men and women in higher education administration-- academic managers of economic resources, personnel, programs, and marketing campaigns--face the same fundamental challenges as men and women in corporate management positions (Anderson,1984). Furthermore, women in higher education administration face the same dilemmas, raise the same questions, and confront the same issues as men in education administration (Women i_n Higher Education Administration,1977). However, because fewer women are in administrative positions, they often perceive themselves to be isolated and to lack access to the supportive framework so critical to professional growth (Cochran,1978). A 1976 study of women in higher education administration indicated that only 16 percent of the key administrative positions in 1,037 institutions were held by 5 *women, ‘While women were.not limited to specific types of institutions--although only 1 percent were employed in the 21 men's colleges studied--women were concentrated in a few types of jobs. The study further indicated that womenfis salaries were approximately four-fifths of those of their male counterparts (Women.in Higher Education Administration,1977). The relationships between men and women are changing on all fronts-~marriage, work, and friendships. But little is known about women who are employed, and what factors are contributing to their current levels of achievement and satisfaction. It is increasingly apparent that both men and 1women are seeking psychological as well as monetary rewards for their work (Kanter,1975L. Rapid technological and educational expansion have given greater opportunities tO‘women and thereby altered many of their values (Reeves,1975). However, some researchers feel that there are also certain unchangeable instinctual needs and wants that exist between men and women (Wilder,1977). New research revives the controversy over whether "nature" or "nurture" plays the greater part in behavior of men and women. Scientists now believe that the genders are unlike in fundamental ways (Keaveny et a1”1978). Men and women seem to experience the world differently, not merely 6 because of the ways in which they grow and mature in it, but because they feel it with a different sensitivity of touch; hear it with different aural responses; and investigate its problems with different cells in their brains. But Maccoby contends, as many researchers do, that gender typing and the different set of expectations that society thrusts on men and women, have far more to do with any differences that exist, than do genes or blood chemistry (Gelman et al.,1981). Many of the basic attitude and behavior differences between men and women in the work world are attributed to socialization, the process by which we are reared: how each gender is treated, encouraged to behave, discouraged from doing specific things, and essentially, how the self-concept of each gender is developed. Women have been socialized to desire different rewards, and to aspire to different goals than men.(ng§n_ n Higher Education Administration,19T7L There is an increasing amount of literature that documents the degree to which women are socialized to value different rewards, and to perform different kinds of activities than men” There is less attention paid to the achievement of what men and women value, and their perception of their job satisfaction in organizations today (Tinsley et al.,1984). 7 Purpose 9: the Study This study focuses on men and women administrators in higher education. The purpose of this research is to investigate the possibility of a relationship between gender and job satisfaction. A great deal of uncertainty exists about the factors influencing job satisfaction of men and women. The importance of each aspect of the job to the individual, influences his or her overall feeling of satisfaction and, thus, the forms of behavior which emerge (Smith, Kendall, and Hulin,1969). Job satisfaction is of no less importance to women than to men. Wolfe(1969), investigating the work habits of two thousand women, produced data which demonstrated the strong needs of women to derive a sense of satisfaction and accomplishment from their work. With regard to the relative importance of specific factors of work, it is quite possible that significant differences exist between men and women. However, few comparisons have been made between men and women samples (Miner,1974). Early studies of job satisfaction rarely included gender as a variable; and few studies specifically dealt with women.professionals (Hinkley,1975). Thus, the purposes of this study are: 1. to provide additional information on job satisfaction 8 of men and women administrators in higher education in the United States; to examine the overall achievement of job satisfaction of men and women administrators; to study the satisfaction of men and‘women administrators with job content and job context; to investigate the importance of job content and job context to men and‘women administrators; and to investigate perceived barriers, and supports, to the achievement.of job satisfaction of men and*women administrators. Importance g; the Study This study is important for the following reasons: The study of job satisfaction contributes to the general psychology of motivation, preferences, and attitudes (Smith,1969). Understanding the sources of satisfaction and dissatisfaction could have important implications for mental health” Inasmuch as a job provides for fulfillment of basic needs, job satisfaction is conceived of as having an important effect upon success and satisfaction in non-job areas of life (Thompson,1963). This research aids in filling a gap in the information available on differences in job satisfaction between 9 men and‘women administrators. Many studies of job satisfaction have been limited to men respondents. 'The importance of research of this type increases as women become a larger proportion of the labor force (Glenn, Taylor, and Weaver,1977). This research measures not only overall job satisfaction, but considers an important distinction often overlooked by theorists (e.g., Vroom,1960), which is how much a person values particular job factors. Every factor has two attributes: content and intensity. The content pertains to what the person wants to gain; the intensity pertains to how much the person wants to gain it. More research is needed in order to determine whether some factors in the job situation are more potent contributors to job satisfaction than are others (Graen,1966). A study of job satisfaction is important to both the individual and to the organization. Those employees who have favorable attitudes toward the organization are more likely to exhibit less absenteeism and less turnover (Likert,1961). However, in the interdependent world of work, few people can fulfill their expectations entirely by their own.effbrts. This draws emphasis to the importance of the task of those who supervise and share an employee's environment; and of 10 those who advise, guide, educate, and support potential employees (Herzberg, Mausner, and Snyderman,1959). It has been recognized that the effectiveness of selection, training, and supervisory programs should be gauged in part by their effect on employees' satisfaction with their work; and that specific personnel techniques and procedures should be validated against a job satisfaction criterion, If management knew more about the psychological aspects of jobs relative to men and women, promotional and other personnel errors might be reduced and organizational effectiveness thereby increased. 6. The results of this research may aid educators in planning curriculum for future administrators; and thus, better prepare them for professional management careers in higher education. It is important that administrators arrive at their positions with the appropriate skills and knowledge in order to succeed. Hypotheses Hypothesis 1: There is no significant difference between.men and women administrators in higher education in their overall job satisfaction. Hypothesis 2: There is no significant difference between men and women administrators in higher education in their satisfaction with job content. 11 Hypothesis 3: There is no significant difference between men and women administrators in higher education in their satisfaction with job context. Hypothesis 4: There is no significant difference between men and women administrators in higher education in the importance of the job content to them. Hypothesis 5: There is no significant difference between men and women administrators in higher education in the importance of the job context to them. Hypothesis 6: There is no significant difference between men and women administrators in higher education in the perceived barriers to job satisfaction. Hypothesis 7: There is no significant difference between men and women administrators in higher education in the perceived aids and supports to job satisfaction. Definitions 9; Terms The following are definitions of key terms used in this study. Men/Women Administrators: Men and women employed full- time, primarily in nonteaching positions involving translation of general policy into specific workable procedures, decision-making, supervision of staff, and general management functions. High-level: Administrators holding positions within the first three levels of supervision and/or authority under 12 the President or Board of Trustees. Titles indicative of the types of positions included in this study are: Level I - Level II - Level III - Executive Vice President or Vice Chancellor; Vice President or Vice Chancellor; Provost Assistant to the President or Chancellor; Assistant Vice President or Vice Chancellor; Associate Vice President or Vice Chancellor; Vice Provost; Assistant Provost; Associate Provost; Executive Director; and Executive Dean (in non-academic areas) Registrar; Comptroller; Business Affairs Manager; Dean (in non-academic areas); Treasurer; Director (in non-academic areas: for a list, see Letter to the Office of the President, Appendix C) Note: Dean of Students, Men and/or Women is included, but Dean of Graduate Students is not. Also not included in this study is Associate or Assistant Dean; Director of Library Services, Computer Services, Continuing Education, or University Extension Services; Assistant Director; Dean or Department Chairperson in an academic area; or a person ”acting” in a position during an interim. Area 9: Administration: Scope of responsibility. For purposes of this study three major units are defined: (1) General Administration which includes the activities of business affairs and finance, development, public affairs, and research; (2).Academic Affairs which includes academic planning and supervision of academic personnel; and (3) Student Services which includes supervision of students, admissions, financial aid, housing, counseling, and placement. 13 Administrative Function: Specific types of duties relevant to a position. Duties are divided into (1) line responsibilities which include supervision of subordinates, and decision and policy making; and (2) staff responsibilities which are generally in an advisory capacity to supervisors within the organization. Large, Four-Year Public Institutions 9f Higher Education: Educational institutions at the post—secondary level with a minimum enrollment of 15,000 students; supported by public funds; and accredited by agencies officially recognized by the U.S. Office of Education. Job Satisfaction: Refers to a person's affective reactions to his or her total work role. This study utilizes the concept that these feelings are associated with a perceived difference between what is expected as a fair and reasonable return (or, when the evaluation of fUture prospects is involved, what is aspired to) and what is experienced. Factor Satisfaction: For purposes of this study, factor or facet satisfaction refers to a person's affective reactions to two components of job satisfaction, iJL, job content and job context. Job Content: Duties, responsibilities, and operational functions assigned to a position of employment, .Job content also provides for opportunities to utilize management skills l4 necessary to accomplish the assigned work, For purposes of this study, factors of job content include: * * t * * degree of responsibility use of personal skills and abilities opportunity for challenge opportunity for growth and development degree of authority participation in decision making opportunity to communicate opportunity to solve problems planning and goal setting opportunity to delegate opportunity to motivate others budget responsibilities Job Context: The environment within which one works. This includes one's office surroundings and relationships with coworkers. For purposes of this study, factors of job context include: * t t * opportunity for independent thought and action opportunity for achievement feeling of prestige feeling of security promotional opportunities financial compensation self-esteem 15 * working conditions * good relations with colleagues * recognition * access to information * participation in professional organizations * leisure time * feeling of competency * appropriate on-the-job training Assumptions For purposes of this study, the following assumptions are made: 1. Job satisfaction results from the interactions between employees and their job environments, i,e., employees possess values, or needs, and jobs are more or less instrumental in providing fulfillments or reinforcements. Each factor or facet of job satisfaction is capable of producing satisfaction, if appropriately fulfilling the employee's needs; or dissatisfaction, if inappropriately meeting the employee's needs. Each factor or facet of job satisfaction includes ‘two dimensions: (1) magnitude, i,e., degree experienced by the employee; and (2) importance to the employee. 16 Employees can differentiate among their attitudes toward various components of the employment situation. A mailed questionnaire is an appropriate method for data collection about job satisfaction of men and women administrators in higher education. The determination of a respondentfls administrative level, area, and function is made by the President or Chancellor in each institution surveyed (in Phase I of the sampling procedure). It is assumed that positions held under comparable titles are equal in their job content and context. For this study, it is assumed that it is not necessary to control for other variables such as age and marital status. Limitations The limitations of this study are as follows: 1. Data is collected at one point in time and any unusual personal or professional demands affecting the job satisfaction of a respondent at the time of data collection will not be known. The factors or situations resulting in any trends in the findings of this research may change over time. 17 3. Any study of attitude dimensions is bound by the method and statistical analysis used. This research makes use of a modification of Porterws model of discrepancy theory (see Review of Literature). 4. The findings of this study may be generalized only to men and women administrators in large, four- year public institutions of higher education in the United States. Overview 2: the Remaining Chapters A study of the gender differences in the job satisfaction of top-ranking men and women administrators of large, four-year public institutions of higher education in the United States is presented in four chapters followed by an Appendix and Bibliography. The remaining chapters contain the following information: Chapter II is a review of the pertinent literature related to the study. Theories and models of job satisfaction are discussed. In addition, research on factors of job satisfaction of men and women managers and administrators in higher education is reviewed. Chapter III is a description of the design and methodology, population, development of the survey instrument, method of data collection, and method of data analysis. 18 Chapter IV presents analysis of the data. This includes the analytical techniques used, and a description of the findings. Chapter V provides a summary, conclusions, implications of the study, and recommendations for future research. CHAPTER II REVIEW OF RELATED LITERATURE Introduction A literature review of job satisfaction was conducted. Four major areas of interest were reviewed and documented: * definition of job satisfaction; * theories of job satisfaction; * factors of job satisfaction; and * significant research in job satisfaction. Definition of Job Satisfaction Job satisfaction is a difficult concept to define. Vroom(1964) defined it as the positive orientation of an individual towards the work role which he or she is presently occupying. This can be paraphrased as an individual liking more aspects of his work than he dislikes. Job satisfaction is personal and subjective. Smith, Kendall and Hulin(1969) believed that job satisfaction was a function of the perceived characteristics of the job in relation to an individual's frame of reference. Alternatives available in given situations, expectations, and experience played important roles in providing the 19 20 relevant frame of reference. .A discussion of the major theories of measurement of job satisfaction follows. Theories 2: Measurement 9: Job Satisfaction With the advent of the human relations movement, there have been innumerable attempts to measure job satisfaction. Most of the research on the study of satisfaction has been done by psychologists interested in work organizations. This research dates back to the 19308. Since that time the term "job satisfaction" has been used to refer to affective attitudes or orientations on the part of individuals toward jobs. IHoppock published a famous monograph on job satisfaction in 1935, and in 1939 the results of the well- known Western Electric studies were published. The Western Electric studies (Roethlisberger and Dickson,1939) emphasized the importance of studying the attitudes, feelings, and perceptions employees have about their jobs. Through interviews with over 20,000 workers, these studies graphically made the point that employees have strong affective reactions to what happens to them at work. The Western Electric studies also suggested that affective reactions cause certain kinds of behavior, such as strikes, absenteeism, and turnover. Although the studies failed to show any clear-cut relationship between satisfaction and job performance, the studies did succeed in stimulating a tremendous amount of research on job satisfaction. 21 Various theories have been postulated to explain the determinants of job satisfaction. Four approaches can be identified in the theoretical work on satisfaction. The Fulfillment, Equity, Discrepancy, and Two-Factor Theories are discussed below. Fulfillment Theory Schaffer(1953) argued that job satisfaction varied directly with the extent to which those needs of an individual, which could be satisfied, actually were satisfied. Vroom(1964) also saw job satisfaction in terms of the degree to which a job provided the person with positively valued outcomes. :Researchers who adopted the fulfillment approach measured people's satisfaction by simply asking how much of a given facet or outcome they were receiving. Thus, these researchers viewed satisfaction as depending on how much of a given outcome a person received. However, a great deal of research also showed that people's satisfaction was a function both of how much they received and of how much they felt they should and/or wanted to receive (Locke,1969). Individual difference factors suggested that the fulfillment theory approach to job satisfaction was not valid, since this approach failed to take into account differences in people's feelings about what outcomes they should receive. 22 Equity Theory Adams(1963) argued in his version of equity theory that job satisfaction was determined by the perceived ratio of what a person received from his job relative to what a person put into his job. According to equity theory, either under-reward or over—reward lead to dissatisfaction, although.the feelings were somewhat different. The theory emphasized that under-reward lead to feelings of unfair treatment, while over-reward lead to feelings of guilt. Supporters of the equity theory emphasized the importance of other people's input-outcome balance in determining how a person judged the equity of his or her own input-outcome balance. They argued that people evaluated the fairness of their own input-outcome balance by comparing it with their perception of the input-outcome balance of their "comparison-other” (the person they compared with). This emphasis did not enter into either fulfillment theory or discrepancy theory as they usually were stated. Discrepancy Theory Proponents of discrepancy theory maintained that satisfaction was determined by the difference between the actual outcomes a person received and some other outcome level. The other outcome level may have been that which the person felt should be received or the outcome the person expected to receive. What was received was compared with 23 another outcome level and when there was a difference--when received outcome was below the other outcome level-- dissatisfaction resulted (Porter, Lawler, and Hackman,1975; Locke,1969). Porter(1961a), in measuring satisfaction, asked people how much of a given outcome there should have been for their job, and how much of a given outcome there actually was; he considered the discrepancy between the two answers to be a measure of satisfaction. This particular discrepancy approach has been the most widely used in designing research instruments for measuring job satisfaction. Like the fulfillment theorists, many discrepancy theorists argued that total job satisfaction was influenced by the sum of the discrepancies that were present for each job factor. Thus, a person's overall job satisfaction was equal to the sum of a pay-satisfaction discrepancy plus a supervision—satisfaction discrepancy, and so on. It has been argued that in computing such a sum it was important to weight each of the discrepancies by the importance of that factor to the person, the argument being that important factors influenced job satisfaction more strongly than unimportant ones. Locke(1969) and Ewen(1967) argued, however, that such a weighting was redundant, since the discrepancy score was a measure of importance in itself because large discrepancies tended to appear only for 24 important items. ‘Upon testing this theory, it was fbund that multiplying factor satisfaction by factor importance was not necessary and would not increase the predictive ability of factor satisfaction measures (Ewen,1967; Mobley and Locke,1970). Two-Factor Theory Traditionally, job satisfaction was interpreted as a one-dimensional concept. This viewpoint assumed that any job-related element offering satisfaction to a worker, created dissatisfaction in its absence. As a result, the one-dimensional theory required only an overall job satisfaction measure. Modern two-factor theory originally was developed in a book by Herzberg, Mausner, Peterson, and Capwe11(1957), in which the authors stated that job factors could be classified according to whether the factors contributed primarily to satisfaction or to dissatisfaction, Two years later, Herzberg, Mausner, and Snyderman(1959) published the results of a research study, which they interpreted as supportive of the theory. 'Two aspects of the theory were unique and accounted for the attention it has received. First, advocates of the two-factor theory said that satisfaction and dissatisfaction did not exist on a single continuum running from satisfaction through neutral to dissatisfaction. Two independent continua existed, one ran 25 from satisfied to neutral, and another ran from dissatisfied to neutral. The roles of satisfier and dissatisfier were seen as independent--a job factor identified as a satisfier could not evoke dissatisfaction nor could a job factor identified as a dissatisfier have contributed to job satisfaction. Second, the theorists stressed that factors involved in producing job satisfaction were separate and distinct from the factors that led to job dissatisfaction. The results of a study by Herzberg et al. showed that factors such as achievement, recognition, work itself, and responsibility were mentioned in connection with satisfying experiences; while working conditions, interpersonal relations, supervision, and company policy usually were mentioned in connection with dissatisfying experiences. The theorists implied that the only way satisfaction could be increased was by effecting changes in those factors that contributed primarily to satisfaction. Herzberg called those satisfiers intrinsic work elements. Conversely, extrinsic elements, or dissatisfiers, gave rise to dissatisfaction, Similar findings were obtained by Hahn(1959), Schwarz(1959), and Halpern(1966). Since that 1959 report, a number of studies were carried out in attempts to test the Herzberg et a1. theory (Rosen,1963; Schwartz, Jenusaitis, and Stark,1963; 26 Friedlander,1963). The results of these and other studies designed to test two-factor theory did not provide clear support for the theory, nor did these studies allow for total rejection of the theory. Although research on the theory raised serious doubts about its validity. Even proponents of the theory admitted that the same factors could cause both satisfaction and dissatisfaction; and that a given factor could result in satisfaction in one group of people and dissatisfaction in another group of people. Burke(1966b), Graen(1966), Ewen(1964), and Wernimont(1966) have shown convincingly that the intrinsic- extrinsic dichotomy did not reflect adequately the sources of positive and negative job attitudes. Furthermore, the studies of Graen(1966), Friedlander(1964), and Wernimont(1966) indicated that intrinsic factors were more important contributors to both satisfaction and dissatisfaction than extrinsic factors. The presumed exclusiveness of elements faded to apparent oversimplification. Other researchers pointed out that results supporting the two—factor theory seemed to be obtainable only when certain limited methodologies were used. Although these findings raised questions about the theory, the core concept was not destroyed, which was that satisfaction and dissatisfaction were on different continua. 27 Factors 9; Job Satisfaction A great deal of uncertainty exists about the factors influencing job satisfaction. Some investigators treated job satisfaction as though it were a single variable. Answers to questions about different aspects of the job were combined, or a series of questions were asked about the job or work in general (Brayfield and Rothe,1951; Friedlander,1963; Halpern,1966; Wernimont,1966). Other studies indicated that job satisfaction was not a unidimensional variable but should be considered as being made up of a number of factors or areas of satisfaction (Likert,1961). Both procedures were defensible (Hulin and Smith.1965). Types 9f Factors The types of facets or factors that have been studied have varied widely among researchers. Some researchers have chosen to use very concrete, specific factors (for example, washrooms, cafeteria, fringe benefits, promotion, and so on), and have ended up with long lists of factors. While others have chosen to use intrinsic factors such as security, prestige, and autonomy satisfaction. Number 9: Factors A number of studies have tried to determine how many factors there were by looking at the relationships among the 28 different outcomes. ‘When researchers found that the satisfaction ratings given a number of outcomes were correlated, they assumed that these outcomes represented a common factor. Thus, factors or facets, were defined as groups of correlated outcomes. A number of common factors have been identified through a series of studies which have taken this approach. These will be discussed in sections to follow. There was little evidence that individuals have simple feelings of satisfaction or dissatisfaction towards their jobs. On the contrary, any researcher tackling this subject had to consider a large number of factors contained both in an individualls job, in the situation in which he or she worked, and in his or her personal environment outside work; and had to relate these to a person's attitudes towards his or her job (Mumford,1972). Gaining job satisfaction, therefore, was determined by the interplay of many factors in the individual and in the situation. It was an interaction of what a person brought to a job, ety, training, skill; and, what a job provided in meeting an employee's needs, e.g., achievement, security. Factors Found in 3 Job The role of the job-content factors and the job-context factors as sources of satisfaction and dissatisfaction has not been established clearly. Largely as a result of the 29 stimulus provided by the research of Herzberg, Mausner, and Snyderman(1959), there has been increasing concern with identifying those components of the work role which were most critical in determining overall satisfaction or dissatisfaction, The main hypothesis of their work stated that favorable feelings toward content factors, like challenge, the nature of the work, degree of responsibility, and opportunities to use personal skills, contributed primarily to overall job satisfaction. However, in one of the most thorough reviews ever made of the literature by Vroom(1964,65), factors which seemed to emerge most consistently were found in both job—content and job-context: supervision, work group, recognition, wages, promotional opportunities, and hours of work. These findings were supported largely by a number of other researchers, including Friedlander(1965); Porter and Lawler(1968); Saleh and Lalljee(1969); Likert(1961); Morse(1953); Halpern(1966); Cummings and El Salmi(1970); and Ewen(1964). The research evidence suggested that satisfaction was very much influenced by the actual rewards a person received. Furthermore, it became increasingly apparent that both.men and women sought psychological as well as monetary rewards from their work. While pay may have been its own reward, nonmonetary rewards such as praise, work-related 3O feedback, and opportunities for employees to experience a sense of achievement, autonomy, and self-actualization, seemed to make employees more satisfied with their pay. According to Lawler(1973), a major factor affecting employees' perceptions of the amount of pay that should have been received, was the number and amount of nonmonetary rewards associated with their jobs. iHe reasoned, for example, that the amount of security and status provided individuals affected their satisfaction with pay. ‘Workers who received relatively greater nonmonetary rewards were more likely to perceive equitable pay (that is, the amount received equaled the amount expected), and thus were likely to be satisfied more with monetary rewards than those who received fewer nonmonetary rewards. This suggested that nonmonetary rewards were potential substitutes for monetary ones and offered an alternative to wages and bonuses for pay satisfaction. This evidence aided in understanding that the job characteristic found to be almost universally most important to management personnel was the sense of achievement and accomplishment (Mumford,1972L. In addition, the importance of social and human relations aspects of the job as contributors to satisfaction were supported by the results obtained by Schwartz, Jenusaitis, and Stark(1963), Friedlander(1963, 64), and Wernimont(1966). Likert(1961) 31 commented that to have a friendly, supportive relationship day in and day out with one's colleagues was more important to most people than relatively minor financial rewards. Absence of information about how one was esteemed or respected by his or her associates, was a major source of tension and dissatisfaction (Schuler,1964L Vroom(1964) argued that professionals desired a high degree of autonomy from organizational control; although he clearly indicated that participation in decision-making also was one of the key variables in determining satisfaction. While studies which asked employees to rank the importance of various job factors tended to place pay somewhere toward the middle of the list (Herzberg et aln1957), it is evident that this factor did represent a very important component of job satisfaction and dissatisfaction for employees at all levels. Furthermore, monetary benefits, such as those offered to administrators in some institutions of higher education, enhanced the satisfaction an employee received from salaried compensation (Austin,1985). These benefits may have included tuition remission for spouses and children, merit pay in addition to cost-of-living adjustments, and a program of leaves of absence. The policies and procedures used by an organization in conducting its business, as well as the organizationfis 32 attitude toward employees, have been found to be important factors in job satisfaction. These aspects of employment and working conditions were all important environmental considerations of employees (Halpern,1966; Rosen and Weaver,1960). Factors Found in 23 Individual Men and women administrators need training or education to demonstrate competence, and to prepare themselves for promotion. Opportunity for satisfaction in one job or advancement to another, means nothing if they are not prepared to take advantage of it (Trotter,1975). These are factors contributing to job satisfaction which an employee brings to a position. Men and women in academic administration.must learn and develop basic survival and advancement skills. Skills vital for success have been identified as planning, coordinating, delegating, evaluating, problem-solving, goal-setting, and allocating time (Hennig,1977). Place and Robertson(1969) felt that in addition to the overall management functions, there were certain basic skills which were necessary to the manager, and which could be developed. They stated that three attributes which encompass many management skills which are necessary are the (1) ability to make decisions, (2) ability to communicate oral and written ideas, and (3) ability to deal with human 33 beings. Cohen and Cohen(1962) stated that the administrator derived a sense of well-being and security from knowing how to get others to do things that he or she decided are worthwhile goals for the department or institution. It was apparent that in order to develop skill in decision-making, communications, and human relations, one must have had a broad range of studies and practice in all these areas (Craward,1977L. Enrthermore, women, especially, must learn how to acquire power and develop confidence in its use (Kanter,1977; Stewart,1978). iFor men and‘women who were not able to participate in degree- granting programs, colleges and universities have been encouraged to develop and institute their own administrative training programs, including internships for their own faculty and lower echelon administrators (Egg g iniHigher Education.Administration,1977). There are five primary ways that men and‘women acquire training and development that leads to advancement: (1) on- the-job training and on-the-job experience; (2) training and development programs offered within an organization; (3) employer—supported outside study and advanced degree programs; (4) informal sponsorship by a higher—level mentor who ”opens doors and shows the ropes," and (5) attendance and participation in conferences related to an area of specialization or profession (Wells,1973y 34 Mentorship is as important as role models. Jennings counseled that one must have a credible source of information within the organization, and that in the early stages of an executive career, a subordinate needs to model himself or herself after someone (Jennings,1976). Unless they are carefully coached and counseled by mentor-type superiors, they will lose their footing. Encouragement and support have been identified as being significantly important to career satisfaction and success. Tibbetts, writing in Women in Higher Education Administration (1977), suggested that even if a woman achieved an administrative position, she will not receive the same support from her male colleagues as the men receive from one another. Summary Through a discussion of factors inherent in a job, those of content and context, it appears significant that the identification of specific factors of job satisfaction provides greater opportunities for insight and group comparison techniques, which otherwise may be obscured by a one-factor approach. Significant Research in Job Satisfaction In the last fifty years there have been literally hundreds of studies of the work-related attitudes of blue- 35 collar workers, but scarcely more than a dozen studies of managerial attitudes (Porter,1964). The early 1960's marked the beginning of the large-scale studies of managers' job attitudes. Studies by Rosen and Weaver(1960) and Porter(1961a) perhaps best signaled the start of this trend. Throughout the past few decades, the literature appeared to justify the conclusion that managers were indeed an identifiable group whose attitudes were worth study in their own right, independent of the attitudes of lower level workers (Porter and Lawler,1968; Vroom,1964; Harrison,1960; Herzberg, Mausner, and Snyderman,1959; Rosen,1961a,1961b; Triandis,1959a,1959b). Differences Due 39 Occupational Level Frequently it has been observed that job satisfaction was directly related to the socio-economic status of the occupation (Hoppock,1935; Centers,1948; Morse,1953L Consequently, it was not surprising to find that managers tended to be much more satisfied with their jobs than did the typical members of the labor force. In fact, the only group which exceeded managers in average amount of job satisfaction were members of the professions. They consistently have been observed to report a higher average level of satisfaction than have managers. Just as job satisfaction tended to increase with the socio-economic level of the occupation, so did it increase 36 with level in management. A number of investigators (Porter,1961a,62; Rosen,1961b) have found greater job satisfaction among higher levels than among lower levels of managers. There were many possible bases for this finding. Occupants of higher level managerial positions received more money and had greater status, autonomy, security, and authority than occupants of lower level management positions. A study by Porter(1962) shed some light on the basis for the relationship between managerial level and job satisfaction. Data on perceived deficiencies in fulfillment of each of five needs were obtained for managers at various levels, ranging from president to first-level supervisors. Holding age constant, there was a tendency for deficiencies in fulfillment of esteem, autonomy, and self-actualization needs to decrease as managerial level increased. In other words, higher level managers reported less discrepancy than lower level managers between the amount of esteem, autonomy, and self-actualization which they should have, and the amount which they did have. These results implied that the greater satisfaction of higher level managers was due primarily to the greater esteem in which they were held, the greater autonomy which they had, and their greater opportunity to use and develop their skills. Furthermore, managers in staff positions tended to be more dissatisfied 37 than line managers at the same level with their opportunities for self-actualization, although they were, on the average, more satisfied with their opportunity for independent thought and action (Vroom,1965). Studies by Rosen(1961a) and Centers(1948) found that greater satisfaction with work conditions was at higher management levels. These findings are in keeping with the current belief that the higher a person goes in the management hierarchy, the greater are the rewards of the environment. Turning to the importance of factors of job satisfaction, Centers and Bugental(1966) interviewed a cross-section sample of 692 workers as to the importance of intrinsic and extrinsic job characteristics in determining job satisfaction. Higher occupational levels assigned more value to the intrinsic, such as interesting work and self- expression, as determinants of job satisfaction. The lower levels tended to value pay, security, and co-workers--the extrinsic factors. Higher level managers reported stronger desires for personal growth and development, and for power and authority in their position than did lower-level managers. In Centers' original study, security proved to be the job component which varied the most in importance between occupational levels--moving from a position of very low importance in professional-managerial occupations to a 38 position of relatively high importance among semiskilled and unskilled workers. Porter's(1964) data on importance showed almost identical patterns for upper and lower level managers: esteem, security, and social needs were least important, and self-realization and autonomy needs were most important. Although findings indicated occupational differences in the job motivations which actually were operating, they did not show necessarily that there was a basic or unalterable difference in values between occupational levels. It might have been that the difference was merely circumstantial. In general, blue-collar workers had low salaries, low education, and low social status. Probably, to these workers, the need underlying the extrinsic factors became salient. Therefore, blue-collar workers were more concerned and preoccupied with fulfilling the prepotent needs (security, salary, good working conditions, eth than workers in higher level jobs. Once these needs were satisfied, the higher-order needs related to self-actualizing aspects of the job would emerge. Whereas for workers in higher job levels who had usually higher education and higher social status, these prepotent needs basically were fulfilled, and for them the higher-order needs became more poignant and more important. 39 Research on the occupational choice process by Vroom(1965) suggested that these characteristics were manifest before, as well as after, entry into the field of management. People who were seeking careers in business and management were differentiated from those seeking careers in other fields by the same motivational variables that distinguished managers and nonmanagers. Gender Differences While managers in different organizations and in different countries seemed to be rather similar in their motivations, and to be different from people who were not managers, they were far from being homogeneous as a group (Vroom,1965). Studies reporting the proposition that differences in work roles were the exclusive reasons for differences in satisfaction levels were not only misleading, but false. Various personal characteristics such as age, gender, and skill level had some effect on favorable and unfavorable attitudes in many individual cases. Probably one of the most critical moderating variables consisted of gender differences in job satisfaction (Hulin and Smith,1964). After reviewing 21 studies dealing with the issue of gender differences in job satisfaction, Herzberg, Mausner, Peterson, and Capwell(1957) decided that the studies comparing men and women in job satisfaction did not lead to 40 any simple conclusions about such differences. Indeed, of the studies they reviewed which directly compared the genders in terms of job satisfaction, six concluded that 1women were satisfied more, three reported that men were satisfied more, and five found no significant differences. Further survey research on the issue of gender differences in job satisfaction showed similar inconsistencies (Quinn, Staines, and McCullough,1974). In an extensive review of the literature, opposite conclusions were reported by various researchers. For example, Benge(1944) and Stockford and Kunze(1950) concluded that'women workers were satisfied more than men holding similar jobs. While Cole (1940), Sheppard and Herrick(1972), and Smith, Kendall, and Hulin(1969) reported that women were satisfied significantly less. Researchers at the University of Illinois utilized the Job Descriptive Index in.a study of men and women workers in four different firms. They concluded that gender, per se, was not the crucial variable which led to either high or low levels of satisfaction; and further, that the entire constellation of variables including compensation, job level, promotion opportunities, and others covaried with gender and caused the difference in job satisfaction. In the area of satisfaction with teaching, Chase(1951) reported women teachers to be satisfied more than men, while 41 Peck(1936) concluded that‘women were adjusted more poorly than men teachers. These results contradicted each other to a considerable extent. Research by Shapir0(1975) looked at job satisfaction levels in both men and women at professional and nonprofessional levels. Five areas of job satisfaction, i,e.,*with work, pay, promotional opportunities, supervision, and co-workers, were measured by means of the Job Descriptive Index. It was concluded that satisfaction with work and promotion was higher for men than for‘women, regardless of whether the individual was a professional or a nonprofessional, These findings were in basic agreement with a study performed by Weaver and reported in 1974. Sauser(1978) conducted a multivariate analysis of variance in gender differences in job satisfaction, ignoring covariate variables, and showed a significant gender difference in overall job satisfaction. The report on Sausem"s research did not indicate the direction of the gender difference. When adjustments were made for the covariates, a significant gender difference in overall job satisfaction remained. Research by Swan, Futrell, and Todd(1978) found that women were less satisfied, less self-confident, and viewed management control systems differently. 42 A review of the related literature did not provide any consensus that men and women differed significantly in their satisfaction with their jobs, in spite of the fact that women traditionally have been concentrated in the lower status and salaried positions. Monczka, Foster, Reif, and Newstrom's research results indicated that while age, education, salary, organization levels, and nonmonetary rewards correlated with pay, gender did not (1977). Studies which maintained that there was little or no difference in job satisfaction due to gender included Hulin and Smith(1964) who reported that if sources of correlated bias, such as pay, job level, promotional opportunities, and societal norms were held constant, gender differences in job satisfaction disappeared. Weaver(1977) and Golembiewskifls(1977) findings indicated that when other variables were controlled, there was no statistically significant gender difference in job satisfaction. Results of Deaux(1978) indicated that the patterns of men and women managers showed a surprisingly high degree of similarity, giving weight to the argument that men and women in equivalent positions were more similar than different. Keaveny et a141978) believed that many assumptions made regarding job satisfaction differences between men and women had little factual basis. While holding overall measures of job satisfaction constant, results of a mail 43 survey of the work force in a western state showed comparisons between men and*women.on overall satisfaction and/or dissatisfaction with their jobs. The findings indicated that men and women basically did not differ with regard to overall job satisfaction. The difference between men and women that existed in wage satisfaction was a result of’the‘well-documented lower average salary women earned nationwide. :Results of this survey supported the view that while some differences existed between men and‘women in job satisfaction and sources of dissatisfaction, the differences were so small they were not found practically important. According to these researchers, men and women seemed to be satisfied to the same degree with their work; and they tended to be dissatisfied with essentially the same things. Job satisfaction among American workers was examined for 1972 through 1978 using interview data from 4,709 respondents in annual national surveys (Weaver,1980). There were no substantial changes in overall levels of job satisfaction through 1978, and a number of correlates of job satisfaction remained unchanged. 'There were no gender differences in job satisfaction, Furthermore, there was a positive association between job satisfaction and education, age, income, and occupation. Data on gender differences through 1978 extended the pattern reported for the previous decade (Quinn et al.,1974) 44 of no consistent difference in job satisfaction between men and women. And, for each gender considered separately, job satisfaction was not estimated to be significantly different in any of the seven years. The relationship of the gender of the worker to job satisfaction was a topic which has received a great deal of attention. After reviewing these studies in the area of gender differences and satisfaction, it became apparent that no conclusive statement could be made as to whether men or women were satisfied more, The findings of the investigations on gender differences in job satisfaction,- however, were somewhat contradictory and permitted no neat cogent statement of the relationship between gender and job satisfaction. Again turning to the importance of factors of job satisfaction, in the Herzberg et a141957) study it was reported that men rated the importance of intrinsic outcomes higher than did women. However, Burke'S(1966a,b) research with college students indicated that intrinsic outcomes were ranked equally by men and women; and that intrinsic outcomes were ranked as being more important than extrinsic outcomes by both genders. Centers and Bugental(1966) used a large cross-sectional sample of the work force and generally supported Burke's findings. Centers and Bugental, however, reported that women placed more importance on friendly co- 45 workers, and men placed more importance on self-expression. These results provided support for an earlier study by Jurgenson(1947L. He found that women placed more emphasis on social factors on the job than did men. The divergent conclusions of Centers and Bugental from Herzberg et al. were resolved partially by Saleh and Lalljee(1969). They surmised that if age, education, and organization level were controlled, there would be no difference between men.and women on job outcome importance. Saleh and Lalljee's results with three different samples supported that proposition on a broad basis. They used two broad categories of outcomes: intrinsic (achievement, recognition, advancement, responsibility, nature of work, and growth in skill) and extrinsic (conditions, security, salary, prestige, supervision, and peers). Their analysis, however, made it impossible to distinguish if men and women differed on specific intrinsic and extrinsic outcomes as found in previous research (Centers and Bugental,1966); but, in general, they found no differences between genders. Manhardt(1972) suggested that categorizing job outcomes as only intrinsic or extrinsic restricted the analysis of men's and women's evaluations of outcome importance. He, therefore, constructed a list of 25 outcomes which men and ‘women rated. The 25 outcomes were factor analyzed and resulted in three main factors: long-term career, pleasant 46 work environment and pleasant employees, and intrinsic outcomes. Manhardtfls results indicated that men evaluated long-term career as more important than women, while women evaluated pleasant work environment and employees as more important than men. There was no difference on the intrinsic factor. Bartol(1974) replicated Manhardtfis study and confirmed the three factor structure and the male-female differences Manhardt found. Both studies used samples of young people. Bartol had college students and Manhardt used recent hires of a manufacturing organization. The Herzberg, Centers and Bugental, Manhardt, and Bartol results were consonant with literature on occupational role stereotyping, socialization theory, and cognitive consistency theory (CVLeary,1974). Traditionally, women and men have been reared to want to fulfill the role society has cast for them. The origins of ego style of women lay in an empathetic, intuitive, person-oriented style of perception; and in the central role that the motive to affiliate played in the development of self—esteem among women (Douvan and Adelson,1966; Hoffman,1972). If a womanfis self-esteem focused on affiliation, it would have been cognitively consistent, or in keeping with her self-esteem, to have valued pleasant employees more than men, who focused 47 their self-esteem on independence, aggressiveness, and competition. Continuing with other studies of factor importance, Chernik and Phelan(1974) found that‘women ranked first the importance of the factor of security. .And men managers in their study indicated 86 percent more satisfaction with security than did women managers. Hinricks(1968) and Ronan(1970b) reported some gender differences as women tended to be concerned more with their supervisors than men were concerned; and women felt less secure on their jobs. But, as with men, the three components--work itself, pay, and the company-—were more important in overall job satisfaction. A contradiction was found in the results of TriandisW1959a) study in that all groups, except women, considered pay an important characteristic of the job. Schuler(1975), controlling statistically for age, education, and organizational level, found that women placed relatively more importance on the opportunities to work with pleasant employees than did men; while men placed greater importance on opportunities to earn money and influence decisions. However, Brief, Rose, and Aldag(1977) believed Schulem"s conclusions to be erroneous, and presented data from an extensive matched sample supporting earlier findings (Brief and Aldag,1975; Brief and Oliver,1976; Saleh and Lalljee,1969) of no gender differences in preference for job 48 outcomes. These researchers found men and women seeking the same outcomes from their jobs. According to Brief and Aldag(1975), most researchers who had investigated male-female differences in preferences for work contingent outcomes had erroneously concluded that men, in general, prefer career—related outcomes (e.g., pay and promotion) more than women, and that women, in general, prefer outcomes associated with the social asPects of work (e.g., congenial co-workers and friendly supervision) more than men. Brief and Aldag's work suggested that if one held constant such potentially confounding effects as occupation and organization level, no differences in preferences between the genders would be detectable. Support for the proposition that no gender differences in work motivation existed if one controlled for occupation and organizational level was found in a study reported by Miner(1974). In a more recent study by Linda Keller Brown of Columbia University's Center for the Social Sciences, 250 women managers were surveyed (Brown,1982). Brown found that despite the stereotype of women managers as being more helpful, intuitive, and understanding than men managers, statistics showed that men and women managers had more characteristics in common than they had differences. This supported a study she cited from 1980, in which a survey of 49 2,000 men and women managers found a significant case of no significant difference. Brown also cited another study with results which contradicted the expected findings. This study found that men managers considered personnel decisions the most important part of their jobs, while women rated task decisions highest; a reversal of the stereotype that women are oriented toward relationships and men toward tasks (Brown,1982). Furthermore, a study conducted by Jones in 1986 of 235 men and women college administrators indicated that the administrative effectiveness and leadership styles of the men and women did not differ. Specifically, the men were not found to be more task-oriented or authoritative than were the women administrators. Singer's(1974) research investigated gender differences in preferences for various job factors which college students considered important in their job selection decisions. 'The results showed that while college students had strong differences in their preferences, these differences were not stereotypically male or female. Overall, both men and women college students were looking primarily for jobs in which they could learn, accomplish something worthwhile, and work with friendly and congenial co-workers. These findings supported those of Saleh and 50 Lalljee(1969), and Keith and Glass(1977). Further, data from Channels(1980) showed that the gender of the professional was not a significant predictor of preference for advancement opportunity, autonomy, or work environment variables. Job Satisfaction ig Higher Education In a search of the literature on this topic, a scarcity of information was found. In higher education, Solmon and Tierney(1977) were among the fw who had investigated job satisfaction. They surveyed 211 college administrators in 22 private liberal arts colleges. Their study focused on 19 aspects of a college administrator's job. Their findings indicated that college administrators were very satisfied with most (14 out of 19) aspects of their jobs, with senior administrators more satisfied than mid-level administrators. Age was associated positively with an administratorws satisfaction with his/her power and influence, iEither older administrators had managed to acquire greater influence, or they were more resigned to the amount of power and influence they had. .Age also was associated positively with the administrator's time for leisure activities and family. Possibly, work habits were well established in older administrators, and routines allowed them more free time. During 1973-74, 96 women administrators in higher education were interviewed for a study by Reeves. .An 51 analysis of the respondentfis level of education and job satisfaction demonstrated that women with Bachelor's degrees who served in administrative positions were highly dissatisfied; but women administrators with Master's degrees showed a very high satisfaction rate. .Among women with earned Doctoral degrees, 47 percent indicated satisfaction with their work. Ann Austin presented a paper at the Annual Meeting of the Association for the Study of Higher Education, in Chicago in 1985. IHer study sampled 260 administrators at a large research university. She analyzed factors contributing to job satisfaction of university mid-level administrators. Her findings included: gender was a significant predictor of job satisfaction, with women administrators more satisfied than men administrators (Austin,1985). Another recent study analyzed the relationship between organizational climate and job satisfaction of academic administrators in selected community colleges and universities (Jahanshahi,1985). The results indicated a very strong relationship between organizational climate of higher education institutions and the job satisfaction of academic administrators. In addition, Jahanshahi also reported the need for further study regarding the comparison of men and women administrators. 52 Two researchers, Bess and Lodahl(1969), undertook a pilot study of administrators at 17 Big Ten and Ivy-League universities. Their conClusions were that most mid-level collegiate administrators seemed to be generally satisfied with.their work. :For these administrators, the most satisfying aspects of the job were the environment of the institution itself, and relations with peers. The least satisfying aspects of the job were salaries, opportunities for personal growth, autonomy, and learning on the job in the first five or six years of employment. Furthermore, the data suggested that these universities were doing almost nothing to upgrade the competence of their administrators. Fewer than 40 percent of the administrators had taken any university—sponsored course or training program. Of the courses taken, more than half were in data processing. Job-rotation programs, one of the least expensive and, when well-organized, most effective means of upgrading administrative talent, were almost nonexistent in these institutions. Therefore, it was not surprising that one of the least satisfying aspects of the university administrator's job was opportunity for personal growth. In Scott's study(1978), mid-level education administrators reported that most satisfaction was found in opportunities to help students and staff, to act independently. and to make an impact on one's organization. 53 They reported being most frustrated with lack of time to get work done, with paperwork, limited resources and staff, and the lack of recognition and appreciation for their work. An investigation by Cunningham(1978) was concerned with ascertaining whether attitudes or perceptions of men and women.engaged in higher education student personnel administration were significantly different toward four selected job-related variables: job satisfaction, job involvement, job-related tension, and self-esteem. It was found that the attitudes or perceptions of men and women engaged in higher education personnel work were not significantly different toward the job-related variables when the self-perceptions of the subjects were analyzed according to gender, position (vice-presidents, deans, and directors), age, years of experience in the position, and highest degree earned. It was concluded that higher education student personnel administration work was not gender related, i,e., gender was not related to whether an individual was satisfied or dissatisfied with the position; or experienced little or much job-related tension; or whether one's work was a very important part of one's life. Furthermore, gender was not related to the level of self- esteem a person experienced. Bennie Woods(1979) conducted a descriptive study of 224 women administrators in higher education institutions in 54 Michigan, Conclusions which were drawn included: (1) A source of job dissatisfaction was found in the fact that these women had not been employed at the level commensurate with their training and experience; (2) age was related to the level of administrative achievement by women in the study. Woods felt that age itself was not the key factor, so much as years of experience necessary to achieve the higher level positions. And (3), a considerable number of ‘women.expressed satisfaction in combining their domestic and professional roles. They were satisfied with.their present position status. Jones(1986) surveyed 235 men and women college administrators on the subject of whether*women manage differently than men. Overall, the results indicated that the administrative effectiveness and leadership styles of the men and the women did not differ. Differences were noted on several other items, however. For example, the women were much more likely than the men to be unmarried, to hold a position at a smaller institution, and to work in the areas of personnel and student services. Stevenson(1973) conducted a descriptive survey study whose subjects consisted of the entire population of full- time women administrators above entry level in all the Big Ten universities. The purpose of this study was to investigate factors relating to the employment level of 55 women administrators in.Big Ten universities. This study was included in this review because of its relationship to the topic of job satisfaction in higher education. Findings included the following: (1) The changes of position of women administrators tended to be the result of non—supportive situations, and they reflected the unsatisfactory environment by their lack of commitment to continuing in administrative work. (2) There was growing awareness of the need for and willingness of women to support each other professionally. (3) Women administrators felt that there were causes for their lack of advancement: not being sponsored by those above them, and not uniting to improve their position. And (4) women administrators in Big Ten universities lacked the following factors considered by management theory to be important for career development: sponsorship; management training; informal interaction, particularly among men co-workers; support in their personal lives; and clear goals. Those few who had some form of management training or internship for higher level administration, had a more positive attitude toward their profession. A study was conducted by Mann in 1980. The purpose was to investigate and analyze career sponsorship of selected current women senior-level administrators in.higher education to determine whether mentor/protege relationships 56 occurred in their careers, and whether the sponsorship was a factor in their career advancement. Using guidelines describing a mentor as a "person who sponsors or grooms," nearly two-thirds of the women indicated the presence of mentors in their careers. The mentor was of help to more than half of the women in gaining their present positions. There was a high level of agreement among the women that having a mentor was helpful to a woman beginning a career in administration. Carol Shakeshaft, in her article ”A Gender at Risk," pointed out that if one studies the culture of female educators, one begins to question whether the strategies proposed to encourage top-flight professionals to choose and remain in education are methods that will retain women. Studies of women educators found that higher salaries, though always welcome, and more levels in the hierarchy, are not motivators for women. For women, less hierarchy and more emphasis on educational content, and the development of a cooperative culture that validated both public and private values were what drew them into education. The solutions to the problem of the flight of the best and the brightest from education are currently solutions that target men, not women, teachers and administrators (Shakeshaft,1986). 57 Summary In the section Definition of Job Satisfaction, Vroom(1964) defined job satisfaction as the positive orientation of an individual towards the work role which he or she is presently occupying. In the section Theories of Measurement of Job Satisfaction, the Fulfillment, Equity, Discrepancy, and Two— Factor theories were presented, with the Discrepancy Theory identified as the theoretical basis for this study. In the section Factors of Job Satisfaction, types of factors, numbers of factors, factors found in job content and job context, and factors found in characteristics of individuals were discussed. In the section Significant Research in Job Satisfaction, differences due to occupational level, gender differences, and job satisfaction in higher education were discussed. In reviewing the literature, it should be noted that there may have been some methodological problems connected with many of the studies of gender differences. In general, the questionnaires which were used to measure job satisfaction seemed to have been designed for, and validated on, men employees. This practice may have introduced a bias of unknown but substantial magnitude. An additional problem was the fact that these investigations all used different 58 and not necessarily equivalent measures of job satisfaction (Smith,1963). Thus, it is not known if the apparently contradictory results were due to differences in the measures used, or to true differences in satisfaction levels between men and women. Another limitation was found in the fact that such types of studies were especially rare where the sample of individuals studied came from more than one or two organizations. This greatly inhibited the generalizability of any findings. Furthermore, differences in general prosperity and unemployment levels, when various samples were studied, could have had considerable influence on the way the subjects perceived relative importance of job values. In summary, the inconsistencies of results obtained in previous studies, in some instances, Seemed to be a product of overly simplified models of satisfaction. Other problems lay in the nonequivalence of the frame of reference; the extent to which the measures were evaluative; and the time perspectives to which they referred. This review of the literature encompassed at least 63 research.studies of differences between men and women administrators in job satisfaction. The findings can be summarized as follows: X; it 3(- 59 15 reports indicated no difference between men and women administrators 11 reports indicated men are more satisfied on the job than women 6 reports indicated women are more satisfied than men factors on the job, most important to women were: — 7 reports indicated social or work environment factors were most important - 3 reports indicated pay, security, and personal achievement factors were most important factors on the job, most important to men were: 5 reports indicated pay factors were most important 3 reports indicated promotional opportunities and long-term career factors were most important 2 reports indicated self-expression and influencing decisions were most important 1 report indicated that personnel tasks and relationships were most important CHAPTER I I I METHODOLOGY Introduction The procedures used in collecting and analyzing the data in this study included the following: (1) determination of the population; (2) development of the research instrument; (3) collection of data; and (4) analysis of data. Survey research was found to be an appropriate means of gathering information for this study because: (1) the goals of this research called for quantitative data, (2) the information sought was reasonably specific and familiar to the respondents, and (3) there was considerable prior knowledge of the range of responses likely to emerge. Furthermore, the strength of a sample survey lay in its potential for quantification, replication, and generalizability to a broader population. Measures of job satisfaction used in published research included a wide variety of approaches, ranging from 60 61 responses to single questions or statements, to complex rating scales, attitude scales, and questionnaires. In this area of research, the problems of attitude measurement have not been, as yet, completely resolved, and no one method had been shown to be adequate. The methodology used in this research was designed specifically to explore the influence of gender on the degree of satisfaction of job content and job context; and the perceived barriers and aids to job satisfaction for men and women administrators. Research Population The population studied was limited to high-level full- time men and women administrators in large, public four-year institutions of higher education in the United States. A total of 105 institutions with enrollments of 15,000 students or more were included in this population. Men and women administrators in the areas of General Administration, Academic Affairs, and Student Services, functioning in both staff and line positions, were the subjects of this study. The reasons for having selected this population follow. Members of this population generally have had more professional experience to draw upon in determining their personal attitudes towards their job satisfaction. They were generally of an age whereby many career plans and goals had been realized. They held positions of authority and 62 responsibility. The different perceptions of job satisfaction among men and women in this group may have been more personal than those of the achievement-driven attitudes of employees just beginning the career ladder (Herzberg et al.,1959). Sampling Procedures Phase I: A letter and self-addressed stamped envelope was sent to all of the Presidents or Chancellors of the 105 institutions of higher education which satisfied the definition of large, public four-year institutions with a minimum of 15,000 students (see Appendix C). This letter requested the name, title, and address of all men and women administrators who were within the defined limits of the study. The letter also requested that the administrators be identified by level, area, and function. A 64% return was received from the letter to the President or Chancellor. The remainder of the names were acquired from college catalogues and directories. The same criteria for qualification for the survey were used in gathering the names in the remaining 46% of the population. Phase II: From the responses in Phase I, 1,000 administrators were surveyed: 563 men administrators and 437 women administrators. Note: The 437 women administrators were all women who qualified for the survey. The 563 men administrators represented every fifth male 63 administrator who qualified for the survey. .Members of the sample were mailed a survey instrument, a stamped return envelope, and a blank mailing label to use if they wished to receive a copy of the results of the study. Participants were assured the strict preservation of their anonymity by the investigator. The Research Instrument It was determined that a self-administered questionnaire was the most feasible design instrument for this survey. Hochstim and Athanasopoulos(1970) argued that researchers have obtained good responses in sensitive areas from mail questionnaires. Questionnaires provided the necessary anonymity needed by some respondents. iHowever, the best reason for choosing a questionnaire was the extent of the geographic area surveyed, and the difficulties of time and cost in contacting all the respondents personally or by telephone interviewu Furthermore, with a questionnaire, the subject selected a time when he or she could reflect on the questions and respond with greater accuracy. The instrument was a detailed questionnaire requiring approximately 10 minutes to complete (see Appendix B). The quantitative data for this study was collected by using a revision of Lyman W. Porter's 13-item need satisfaction questionnaire, which he developed for studying perceived 64 need satisfaction of managers (1961). Note copyright permission for use of instrument in Appendix A. In order to develop a more sensitive and precise instrument for the purposes of this study, additional factors from other researchers were included. .A total of 28 factors of job satisfaction was included in the first part of the questionnaire. 'The objective of this instrument was to provide employees with a reasonably complete set of items, worded in the language used by them, through which they could adequately express their feelings and opinions about the work environment. Respondents were asked to answer three questions for each of the 28 items. For example, given the statement: The feeling of self-esteem a person gets from being in my management position: a) How much is there now? (min) 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 (max) b) How much should there be? (min) 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 (max) c) How important is this to me? (min) 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 (max) This method of measuring perceived need satisfaction, thus, was an indirect measure derived from three direct answers by the respondent for each item. These attitudes were assessed with a Likert scale of 1 to 7. This scale was used in order to achieve greater accuracy and a better perspective on the respondents' 65 attitudes, preferences, and perceptions than can be achieved from a narrower scale, such as 1 to 5. .A narrower range tends to collapse the perceptions of the respondents, and it is more difficult to determine to what degree they feel the way they do. Porter's method of determining job satisfaction had two presumed advantages: (1) The subject was not asked directly concerning his or her satisfaction. Therefore, any tendency for a simple "response set" to determine his or her expression of satisfaction probably was reduced. It was more difficult for the respondent to have manipulated his or her satisfaction measure to conform to what one thought one ought to put down versus what one actually felt the real situation to be. (2) Secondly, this method of measuring need fulfillment was a more conservative measure than would have been a single question concerning overall satisfaction experienced. Thus, it was designed to be a realistic and meaningful measure in studying job satisfaction. The second part of the questionnaire was designed to collect demographic information about the respondents. 'This section requested data on sex, age, marital status, degrees earned, position now held, number of years in present position, etc. Other questions expanded on data sought relative to training, support, and professional activities. 66 The validity of this instrument--the degree to which it actually measured the characteristic or phenomenon it claims to have measured, and the reliability of this instrument-— the consistency of a measure, the degree to which it can be expected to provide similar results for the same subject under different conditions--have been shown to a great extent by the research of Porter and Lawler(1968). This instrument was an adaptation of one used in their research, and for which validity and reliability have been established. Further, the additional factors of job satisfaction derived from other research have demonstrated good test-retest reliabilities (Friedlander,1964; Herzberg et al.,1959; Vroom,1964; Porter,1961). An assumption of validity and reliability was made on the basis that these have been demonstrated by past researchers, Porter et al,; and this assumption was confirmed by a pretest of the questionnaire. Prior to the implementation of the questionnaire, the instrument was pretested for content validity by 31 men and*women administrators in higher education randomly selected from the population, Men and women administrators from each area of General Administration, Academic Affairs, and Student Personnel Services were tested. Comments and suggestions for improving the research instrument were obtained, 67 considered, and, when appropriate, incorporated into the questionnaire. Following the pretest of the questionnaire, ten survey respondents were interviewed by telephone to further validate the content of the survey instrument. The respondents were asked their interpretation of the survey questions. Suggested changes to improve clarification were incorporated. Data Collection Procedures A cover letter, stamped return envelope, questionnaire, and blank mailing label were mailed to the sample. The cover letter (see Appendix D) was designed to motivate the respondent to quickly complete and return the questionnaire. The letter referred to the fact that qualified administrator's names were acquired through the office of the President or Chancellor. The value of the results in better understanding their own sources of job satisfaction, and those of their associates was stated. The length of time (ten minutes) to complete the survey was noted. The surveys were numbered for the purpose of controlling the returns, that is, if a second mailing were necessary due to a small return after the first mailing. However, the anonymity of the respondents was assured. 'This anonymity was preserved by first, not requesting the respondent to sign the questionnaire; and second, upon 68 completion of entering the data into the computer, the questionnaires were destroyed. To expedite the return of the completed surveys, a time limit of ten days was emphasized. This was to add urgency to the data collection. To provide a sense of participation and ownership in this study, a mailing label for the respondent to complete was enclosed. This was to be used in later mailing the respondent a copy of the research results. The cover letter was typed on the stationery of the Office of the President of Michigan State University. This was made possible by the Chairperson of my Doctoral committee, Dr. Marylee Davis, Assistant Vice President and Acting Executive Assistant to the President, Michigan State University. Dr. Davis also co-signed the cover letter. A stamped return envelope was included. Data Analysis The data collected and analyzed consisted of the responses from the questionnaire. For purposes of analysis, the 28 job characteristics included in the questionnaire were collapsed into two major factors: job content and job context, Job satisfaction of a factor was determined as a simple sum of all a - b discrepancies. Thus, job satisfaction was determined by the difference between what a person felt he or she should experience in relation to a job factor, and what he or she actually did experience. The 69 complete satisfaction of all needs would result in a sum of 0 discrepancy. A negative difference indicated a deficiency in job satisfaction. Scores of individuals were summed, and the mean found for comparison of groups of men and*women administrators. This approach to determining job satisfaction has its basis in the Discrepancy Theory. This is the foundation on which Porter designed his research instrument. The importance of individual factors of job satisfaction was determined by how large a number was indicated by the respondent to part C. The higher the number for a given factor the greater the perceived importance of the factor. The information collected from the survey instruments was recorded and processed with the aid of computers. An IBM PC running DOS 322 was used for the data entry. A data entry program called PC Entry was utilized. The file was then up-loaded from the PC and sent to an IBM main frame. The SAS statistical package was used to do the analysis of the data. The analysis proceeded in two stages. In the first stage of analysis, responses were tested for any differences between men and women administrators in job satisfaction. This was determined by analyzing the difference of means. The independent variable was gender; and the dependent 70 variables were the job factors contained in the survey questions. In the second stage of analysis, controls were introduced for factors that affect job satisfaction and importance, i.e., job content and job context. These variables were controlled to determine whether the differences in job satisfaction which were expected in the first stage of analysis disappeared in the second stage. Analysis of covariance was used to compare performance of the two groups, men and women, on the dependent variables, the job factors contained in the survey. This analytical tool was employed in order to determine whether any differences in the mean scores of the men and women were large enough to reflect true differences, that is, statistically significant differences, rather than chance (Borg and Gall,1979). ‘ Frequency and percentage tabulations were completed on demographic information. This was done because the information was in the form of continuous data. A frequency distribution can be inspected to determine the dispersion, or variability, of scores within a category (Borg and Gall,1979). 71 Summary The design and methodology of this study were described in Chapter III. Included in this chapter were: (1) the population of the study; (2) development of the research instrument; (3) data collection procedures; and (4) data analysis procedures. CHAPTER IV ANALYSIS OF THE DATA Introduction As previously indicated, the purpose of this study was to examine possible gender differences in the achievement of job satisfaction of men and women administrators in higher education in the United States. Areas that were investigated were: overall job satisfaction; satisfaction with job content; satisfaction with job context; satisfaction between levels of administrators, between types of jobs, and between line and staff functions. The importance of job factors to men and'women administrators was analyzed. And perceived barriers and perceived supports for men and women were identified. Both statistical analysis and descriptive methods were used in the presentation and analysis of the data. The remainder of this chapter is divided into: (1) a description of the findings pertinent to each hypothesis; (2) other relevant findings; (3) a profile of the respondents; and (4) a summary of the data analysis. Questionnaires were mailed to 1,000 administrators. 72 73 Responses were received from 565. Fifty—eight percent of the men administrators responded; and 55% of the women administrators responded (see Table 1). Table 1 Questionnaire Respondents. Men Women Administrators Administrators Total Mailed 563* 437 1,000 (56)** (44) (100) Returned 326 240 566 (33) (24) (57) Useable 318 229 547 (32) (23) (55) Unuseable 8 10 18 (1) (1) (2) *Denotes number. **Denotes percent. Description 9; the Findings Hypothesis 1: There is no significant difference between men and women administrators in higher education in their overall job satisfaction. The testing of the hypothesis was by t-test for difference in the means. .An alpha level of'.05 was used. This alpha level has been established as a reasonable criteria for testing statistical 74 significance (Borg and Gall,1979). It is not uncommon for researchers to use a level of .05 in most social science research. i women - - 22.6 R men - - 16.6 where i is the mean of the scores. The absolute value of the t-test was 4.1, with p = (L0001. Therefore, there was a statistically significant difference in job satisfaction between men and‘women administrators. ‘Women were less satisfied in their jobs than men. A test of significant differences was conducted on the remaining six hypotheses. The results follow: Hypothesis 2: There is no significant difference between.men.and women administrators in higher education in their satisfaction with job content. The value of the t- test was 3.3, with p - 0.0012. Women administrators were found to be significantly less satisfied with their job content than men administrators. iFor purposes of this study, the term job content includes the factors listed in the Definitions of Terms in Chapter I. Hypothesis 3: There is no significant difference between.men.and women administrators in higher education in their satisfaction with job context. The value of the t- test was 4.4, with p =- 0.0001. Women administrators were 75 significantly less satisfied with their job context than men, The term job context includes the factors listed in the Definitions of Terms in Chapter I. Hypothesis 4: There is no significant difference between men and women administrators in higher education in the importance of the job content to them, The value of the t-test was 2.7, with p - 0.0070. Job content was significantly more important to women than to men. Hypothesis 5: There was no significant difference between men and women administrators in higher education in the importance of the job context to them, The value of the t-test was 1:7, with p - 0.0821. Although the difference between men and women and the importance of job context to them was not found statistically significant, a p value of 0.0821 should be recognized as close to being significant. The difference of women finding job context more important than men find it, should be noted as a trend. Hypothesis 6: There is no significant difference between men and women administrators in higher education in the perceived barriers to job satisfaction. The value of the t-test was 0.7, with p - 0.4774. There was no significant difference in the degree of barriers perceived by men and women, .Analysis will follow later in this chapter, describing any differences in types of barriers perceived. 76 Hypothesis 7: There is no significant difference between men and women administrators in higher education in the perceived aids and supports to job satisfaction. The value of the t-test was 1.7, with p - 0.0881. Again, although no significant difference was found, the p value is close to being significant, However, in this area, men are indicating more aids and supports than women. Types of aids and supports perceived by men and women will be discussed later in this chapter. Other Findings Analysis g; Question Q It was determined whether a person's perceived level of job satisfaction.(Question 6 on the survey) correlated with the computed level of job satisfaction. The computed level of job satisfaction was the sum of individual job factors arrived at through the formula: a (How much is there now?) - b (How much should there be?) (A negative number indicates a deficiency in job satisfaction.) The Pearson Product-Moment Correlation was applied to scores on the perceived level of job satisfaction (Question 6 on the survey), and to the computed score of job satisfaction (the mean of Questions 1-5 and 7-28). The scores were highly related, The correlation coefficient was 0.0001, with p (0.05. The Pearson Product-Moment 77 Correlation was used given the form of the variables to be correlated and the nature of the relationship. Both variables which were correlated were expressed as continuous scores. This technique was chosen to describe the strength of the relationship between the two variables because it is the most stable technique, i,e., it is subject to the smallest standard error (Borg and Gall,1979). Table 2 illustrates the percentages of men and women desiring levels 6 or 7 in job satisfaction; and the percentages of men and women achieving levels 6 or 7 in job satisfaction. Levels 6 or 7 are the highest levels on the rating scale. Eighty-eight percent of the women administrators and 90% of the men administrators desired a job satisfaction level of 6 or 7 on the survey. Fifty percent of the men administrators reported that their achieved level of job satisfaction was 6 or 7. And a smaller percentage of women administrators (41%) reported having achieved a job satisfaction level of 6 or 7. 78 Table 2 Analysis of Question 6: The Opportunity for Satisfaction in my Position? Men Women Job Satisfaction: 288* 201 Level 6 or 7 desired (90)** (88) Job Satisfaction: 161 96 Level 6 or 7 achieved (50) (41) *Denotes number. **Denotes percentage. Analysis g; Job Satisfaction by Job Level, Job Type, and Job Function Table 3 refers to job satisfaction differences between men and women administrators found in various levels, types of jobs, and functions, i,e., line and staff positions. Those differences in satisfaction that were statistically significant have been indicated. In job levels there was no difference in job satisfaction between men and women at the President or Vice President positions. However, women were significantly less satisfied than men at the Assistant Vice President and Director levels. Note that the women at the Director level were less satisfied in both job content and job context. Women in General Administration were significantly less satisfied than men in this area. 'There was no significant 79 Table 3 Analysis of Job Satisfaction by Job Level, Job Type, and Job Function. Category Item Mean: Mean: Value of Women Men p Level IA: President Job Satisfaction -23.50 -18.00 0.7927 Job Content - 6.00 - 6.33 0.9708 Level IB: Vice Job Satisfaction -15.62 -12.64 0.4476 President Job Content - 5.50 - 4.17 0.4331 Level II: Assistant Job Satisfaction -20.34 -13.65 0.0265* Vice Job Content - 7.21 - 5.70 0.2848 President Job Context -13.09 - 8.09 0.0080* Level III: Director Job Satisfaction -26.22 —17.78 0.0001* Job Content - 9.91 - 6.51 0.0007* Job Context -16.53 -ll.25 0.000l* Type: General Job Satisfaction -23.79 -15.75 0.0001* Administra- Job Content - 8.98 - 5.67 0.0002* tion Job Context -14.45 - 9.98 0.0001* Type: Job Satisfaction -21.93 -18.51 0.3142 Academic Job Content - 8.74 - 7.25 0.3521 Affairs Job Context -11.65 - 9.00 0.2467 Type: Job Satisfaction -20.54 -16.53 0.2209 Student Job Content - 6.79 - 6.26 0.7369 Services Job Context -13.75 -10.30 0.0528 *Significant at alpha - 0.05. 80 Table 3 (cont'd.). Category Item Mean: Mean: Value of Women Men p Function: Job Satisfaction -20.96 —l6.20 0.0065* Line Job Content - 7.24 - 5.78 0.0736 Job Context ~13.91 -10.42 0.0008* Function: Job Satisfaction -24.47 —17.72 0.0320* Staff Job Content -10.25 — 7.75 0.0945 *Significant at alpha - 0.05. 81 difference in job satisfaction of men and women administrators in Academic Affairs or Student Services. ‘Women administrators in both line and staff positions reported significantly less job satisfaction than men in both functions. Importance 9; Job Factors Table 4 ranks the 28 job factors from the survey instrument. Men and women indicating level 7 on the survey felt that those factors were very important to their achieving job satisfaction. The rankings of the factors for men and women; and the percentage of their p0pulations indicating level 7 are presented in Table 4. Some of the differences in the ranking of the importance of job factors to men and women should be noted. The differences in the degree of importance indicated by where a factor is ranked within the 28 factors; and the percentage of men and women who found these factors important are notable for the following. Rank % of Rank 3 of Order Women Order Men X: Access to information 6 (52) 14 (32) ”- Opportunity for growth and development 8 (so) 15 (32) * Good relations with colleagues 14 (41) 9 (35) * Opportunity to motivate others 15 (40) 10 (34) 82 Table 4 Importance of Job Factors. Women Men % % Factor Rank Reporting Rank Reporting Order Level 7 Order Level 7 Use of personal skills and abilities I 59 5 43 Feeling of competency 2 58 2 48 Opportunity for achievement 3 55 3 44 Opportunity for challenge 4 55 4 44 Opportunity for job satisfaction 5 55 1 52 Access to information 6 52 14 32 Opportunity for independent thought and action 7 50 5 40 Opportunity for growth and development 8 50 15 32 Degree of responsibility 9 48 8 38 Opportunity to plan and set goals 10 47 11 33 Opportunity to solve problems 11 46 7 39 Opportunity to participate in decision-making 12 44 12 33 Opportunity to communicate 13 42 13 32 Good relations with colleagues 14 41 9 35 Opportunity to motivate others 15 40 10 34 Self-esteem I receive 16 36 17 23 Opportunity to budget 17 36 16 30 Good working conditions 18 35 18 27 Feeling of security 19 27 21 20 Opportunity to participate in professional organizations 20 27 20 21 Degree of authority 21 26 24 15 Opportunity to delegate 22 26 19 25 Feeling of prestige 23 24 22 13 Financial compensation 24 23 25 15 Promotional opportunities 25 21 26 15 Amount of leisure time 26 16 23 18 Appropriate on—the-job training 27 15 27 15 Frequency of recognition 28 14 28 10 83 Table 5 takes a closer look at the rankings in Table 4. Listed are factors which were marked very important by 40% or more of men or women. The first six factors listed were important to at least 40% or more of both men and women administrators. Those six factors were: * Use of personal skills and abilities * Feeling of competency * Opportunity for achievement * Opportunity for challenge * Opportunity for job satisfaction * Opportunity for independent thought and action However, the remaining nine factors were found to be very important to 40% or more of the‘women administrators only. The percentages of men dropped below 40% for each factor ranked after the first six. The percentages of women ranking 1 through 6 range from 59% to 52%. The percentages of men ranking 1 through 5 range from 52% to 32%. In general, women ranked the same first six factors that men ranked; however, more women (approximately 10% more per factor) found them very important. In addition, women placed great importance on nine other factors which contribute to their job satisfaction. 84 Table 5 Factors Very Important to 40% or More Men and Women Administrators Surveyed. Job Factor Women Men Use of personal skills and abilities Feeling of competency Opportunity for achievement Opportunity for challenge Opportunity for job satisfaction Opportunity for independent thought and action ><><><><><>< Access to information Opportunity for growth and development Degree of responsibility Opportunity to plan and set goals Opportunity to solve problems Opportunity to participate in decision-making Opportunity to communicate Good relations with colleagues Opportunity to motivate others xxxxxxxxx xxxxxx I 85 Perceived Barriers Perceived barriers to job satisfaction are shown in Table 6. Men and women listed the same four out of the first five most important barriers to job satisfaction. They were: * lack of opportunity for advancement * lack of role models * lack of geographic mobility * lack of encouragement from others Thirteen percent more women than men ranked lack of role models as very important. The factors which differed for men and women in the top five were 26% of the women reported gender as an important barrier; and 12% of the men reported lack of appropriate degree. Perceived Aids and Supports Perceived aids and supports to job satisfaction are shown in Table 7. Men and women ranked the same first four aids and supports most important to job satisfaction, They were: * self-confidence * apprOpriate degree * motivated coworkers * encouragement from others Self-confidence ranked highest with 80% of women and 84% of men indicating its importance. 'Two other factors, 86 Table 6 Perceived Barriers to Job Satisfaction. Women Men .% % Item Rank Reporting Rank Reporting Order Level 5-7 Order Level 5-7 Lack of opportunity for advancement 1 31 1 25 Gender 2 26 8 4 Lack of role models 3 22 4 9 Lack of geographic mobility 4 17 3 11 Lack of encouragement from others 5 16 5 8 Lack of self-confidence 6 15 10 Lack of appropriate degree 7 13 2 12 Lack of training 8 11 7 6 Children 9 7 9 2 Too old 10 5 6 6 Lack of motivated coworkers 11 0 11 0 Too young 12 0 12 0 Lack of appropriate counseling 13 0 13 0 Race 14 0 l4 0 Lack of appropriate leadership 15 0 15 0 Marital status 16 O 16 0 87 Table 7 Perceived Aids and Supports to Job Satisfaction. Women Men % % Item Rank Reporting Rank Reporting Order Level 5-7 Order Level 5-7 Self-confidence 1 80 1 84 Appropriate degree 2 63 2 65 Motivated coworkers 3 55 4 54 Encouragement from others 4 55 3 55 Opportunity for advancement 5 44 8 31 Training 6 43 7 39 Role models 7 33 6 39 Appropriate leadership 8 24 5 47 Geographic mobility 9 20 9 27 Marital status 10 17 10 20 Gender 11 15 15 10 Children 12 12 14 13 Appropriate counseling 13 11 12 17 Being older 14 11 13 16 Race 15 10 16 9 Being young 16 9 11 19 88 opportunity for advancement, and training, were ranked as very important by approximately 44% of the women administrators. Profile 9: the Respondents Tables 8 through 23 present a summary of the data on the personal characteristics of the men and women administrators surveyed. Table 8 Age Level of Administrators. Age Level Women Men No. % No. % Under 30 2 (1) 2 (1) 30—36 38 (16) 22 (6) 37-43 67 (29) 75 (23) 44-50 63 (27) 89 (28) 51-57 35 (15) 77 (24) Over 57 23 (10) 53 (16) Table 8 shows that 56% of the women and 51% of the men were between the ages of 37 and 50. In the age range of 30- 36, there were 16% of the women, and 6% of the men. Furthermore, in the age range 51-57 there were 15% of the women surveyed, and 24% of the men surveyed. This illustrates that approximately 10% more women than men were in the early stages of their careers, and 10% more men than women were in the later stages of their careers. 89 Table 9 Race of Respondents. Race Women Men No. % No. % Black 17 (7) 18 (5) Asian 4 (1) 4 (1) White 196 (85) 289 (90) Hispanic 6 (2) 6 (1) American Indian 2 (1) 1 (1) Other 4 (1) 0 (0) Table 9 shows the racial numbers and percentages of the administrators. :Differences to note include 2% more black women administrators (7%) than black men administrators (5%). Whereas there were 5% more white men administrators (90%) than white women administrators (85%). The population of the women.administrators was slightly more racially diverse. Table 10 Marital Status of Respondents. Marital Women Men Status No. % No. % Single 110 (48) 35 (11) Married 113 (49) 275 (86) 90 Table 10 shows that 48% of the women administrators ‘were single, and 11% of the men administrators were single. Forty-nine percent of the women were married and 86% of the men were married. Thirty-seven percent more women than men held a single status. Table 11 Highest Degree Held by Administrators. Degree Women Men No. % No. % BA/BS 33 (14) 59 (18) MA/MS 93 (40) 97 (30) Ed.D. 12 (5) 25 (7) Ed.S. 7 (3) 5 (1) Ph.D. 59 (25) 105 (33) Other , 22 (9) 22 (6) Table 11 shows that the profile of the education of women administrators was that 40% held Masters Degrees, and 25% held Doctorate Degrees (a total of 65%). Thirty percent of men administrators held Masters Degrees, and 33% held Doctorate Degrees (a total of 63%). Tables 12 through 17 represent a summary of information about the administrative positions held by the respondents. 91 Table 12 Level of current Position. Level Women Men No. % No. % I President 2 (1) 3 (1) Vice President 28 (12) 60 (18) II Assistant Vice President 43 (18) 54 (17) III Director 118 (51) 164 (51) Table 12 illustrates the level of current position. Thirteen percent of women administrators were found in Level I, as defined in this survey (President and Vice President). And 19% of men administrators were in Level I. Level II shows 18% of women administrators and 17% of men administrators. Level III has 51% of women administrators and 51% of men administrators. This data reflects the fact that women are proportionately represented in the upper levels of management in the institutions surveyed. Table 13 Type of Current Position. Type Women Men No. % No. % General Administration 111 (48) 172 (54) Academic Affairs 48 (21) 60 (18) Student Services 62 (27) 74 (23) 92 Table 13 indicates that almost one-half of the men and women administrators worked in the area of General .Administration, 48% and 54% respectively. Table 14 Function of Current Position. Function Women Men No. % No. % Line 145 (63) 235 (73) Staff 65 (28) 60 (18) As shown in Table 14, there were 10% more men than women in line positions, 73% of the men and 63% of the women. There were 10% more women than men in staff positions, 28% and 18% respectively. Table 15 Number of Years in Present Position. Years Women Men No. % No. % 1 31 (13) 41 (12) 2 28 (12) 34 (10) 3 31 (13) 25 (7) 4 23 (10) 27 (8) 5 16 (7) 18 (5) 6 14 (6) 21 (6) 7-59 85 (38) 151 (48) 93 Table 15 shows that 62% of women administrators have been in their jobs for 6 years or less; and 52% of men administrators have been in their jobs 6 years or less. It seems important to consider that attempts at improving job satisfaction can be focused on a personfls first 1 to 6 years on the job in order to reach the greatest population. Question 40 on the survey was "How many years have you worked within this institution?" Responses showed that 55% of the women administrators worked within their institutions for 12 years or less. Fifty—six percent of the men administrators worked within their institutions for 15 years or less. Table 16 Gender of Immediate Superior. Superior Women Men No. % No. % Man 196 (85) 287 (90) Woman 29 (12) 26 (8) Table 16 illustrates that 85% of women administrators, and 90% of men administrators had men as immediate superiors. Question 43 on the survey was "How many people do you directly supervise?" The responses indicated that 55% of 94 women administrators supervised 6 or less people. And 50% of men administrators supervised 7 or less people. Table 17 Hours of Work Per Week. Hours Women Men No % No % Under 31 10 (4) 1 (1) 31-40 92 (40) 12 (3) 41-50 85 (37) 138 (43) 51-60 25 (10) 105 (33) 61-70 15 (6) 47 (14) Over 70 2 (1) 8 (2) Data from Table 17 indicates that 77% of the women administrators worked 31-50 hours per week; and 76% of the men administrators worked 41-60 hours per week. Eight percent more men than women worked 61-70 hours per week (14% vs. 6%). 95 Table 18 Membership in Professional Organizations No. of Women Men Organizations No. % No. % o 14 ( ) 17 (5) 1 22 (9) 21 (5) 2 44 (19) 74 (23) 3 54 (23) 83 (26) 4 41 (17) 53 (16) 5 24 (10) 20 (6) 6 12 (5) 22 (6) 7-93 18 (8) 28 (9) Table 18 indicates that 86% of women administrators, and 85% of men administrators held membership in 1 to 6 professional organizations. Table 19 Number of Seminars Attended in Past Year. No. of Women Men Seminars No. % No. % 0 64 (28) 66 (20) 1 43 (18) 66 (20) 2 45 (19) 68 (21) 3 35 (15) 52 (16) 4 19 (8) 26 (8) 01 l 29 22 (10) 39 (13) Table 19 indicates that 62% of women administrators, and 67% of men administrators attended 1-4 seminars or workshops during the past year. 96 Table 20 Internship Prior to Degree. Women Men Internship No. % No. % Yes 23 (10) 33 (10) No 204 (89) 278 (87) Table 20 indicates that 10% of both men and women administrators participated in an internship prior to receiving their degrees. Table 21 How Important Was an Internship Prior to Degree. Level of Women Men Importance No. % z O a? H raccoon-woo I‘" ~qouna-wrow moonouw AAAAAAA NHHHOHH VVVVVVV Table 21 represents the fact that 14 women out of 22 (63%) who participated in internships prior to their degree found them important to their present job satisfaction by a level of 5 or higher. Nineteen men out of 36 (52%), found these internships important by a level of 5 or higher. 97 Table 22 Internship Since Degree. Women Men Internship No. % No. % Yes 15 (6) 24 (7) No 209 (91) 284 (89) Table 22 indicates that approximately 7% of both men and‘women administrators participated in an internship since receiving their degrees. Table 23 How Important Was an Internship Since Degree. Level of Women Men Importance z 0 fl 2 O * qmmthi-I NDU‘IO‘OON A N wqwhhwm H V Table 23 presents the information that 11‘women.out of 19 (57%). Who participated in internships since receiving their degree, found them important to their present job satisfaction by a level of 5 or higher. Thirteen men out Of 98 30 (43%), found these internships important by a level of 5 or higher. Summary 9; Data Analysis Chapter IV focused on the presentation of the analysis of data from the survey questionnaire. The results of the analyses of the seven hypotheses led to the conclusion that: (1) There is a significant difference between men and women administrators in higher education in: * overall job satisfaction * satisfaction with job content * satisfaction with job context * the importance of job content A greater discrepancy was found between the ideal level of job satisfaction and the actual level of job satisfaction for*women than for men. In general, women were almost always in the same direction, 11%, less satisfied, or experiencing a greater discrepancy. Women placed significantly more importance on job content than did men. (2) There was no significant difference between men and women administrators in higher education in: * the importance of job context * degree of perceived barriers to job satisfaction * degree of perceived aids and supports to job satisfaction 99 Additional descriptive analyses focused on the demographic characteristics of the respondents; and on the characteristics of the administrative positions they held. A discussion of these findings, along with conclusions, implications, and recommendations for future research will be the focus of Chapter V. CHAPTER V SUMMARY, CONCLUSIONS, AND IMPLICATIONS Summary In the area of higher education administration, there has been little research involving individuals who have achieved upper level decision-making positions in the last decade. This study examined the subject of gender differences in the achievement of job satisfaction of men and women administrators in higher education in the United States. The purpose of this study was to determine possible differences between men and women administrators in the areas of: (1) overall job satisfaction (2) satisfaction with job content and job context (3) importance of job content and job context (4) perceived barriers and aids to the achievement of job satisfaction. One hundred and five institutions with enrollments of 15,000 students or more were included in the population. Men and women administrators in the areas of General 100 101 Administration, Academic Affairs, and Student Services, functioning in both staff and line positions, were the subjects of this study. A questionnaire*was mailed to 1,000 administrators: 563 men administrators, and 437 women administrators. Members of the sample were mailed a survey instrument, a stamped return envelope, and a blank mailing label if they wished to receive a copy of the results of the study. Responses were received from 566 administrators (57%), with 547 responses used in the study. The analysis of the data included analysis of covariance techniques; and frequency and percentage tabulations were completed on demographic information. The main findings were: (1) There was a significant difference between men and women administrators in overall job satisfaction, satisfaction with job content, and satisfaction with job context, ‘Women administrators*were significantly less satisfied than men administrators in these areas. Within job levels. types, and functions, the largest populations of‘women.exhibiting significantly less job satisfaction than men were found in General Administration at the Assistant Vice President and Director levels. Women in both staff and line positions at any level or type of job were 102 significantly less satisfied than men in those positions. There was not a significant difference in job satisfaction between men and women administrators at the President or Vice President levels. (2) Women administrators placed significantly more importance on job content than did men administrators. Women administrators did not place more importance on job context than did men administrators. Women and men identified the same six job factors as most important, but, substantially more women rated these important. Forty percent of the women also rated an additional nine other factors as very important. (3) There was no significant difference between men and women administrators in their perceived barriers and aids to achieving job satisfactiOn. The most important barriers listed by both men and women were: lack of opportunity for advancement, lack of role models, lack of geographic mobility, and lack of encouragement from others. The most important aids listed by both men and women were: self—confidence, appropriate degree, motivated coworkers, and encouragement from others. Conclusions and Implications Women administrators had greater deficiencies in job satisfaction than did men administrators. Specific 103 conclusions and practical implications from the findings follow: (1) (2) The largest percentage of individuals experiencing a deficiency in job satisfaction was found in the women administrators employed in the area of General Administration, at the Assistant Vice President and Director levels. Considering the areas of most importance to*women.administrators, the first areas of examination should be the use of their personal skills and abilities, their sense of competency and achievement, and their opportunity for independent thought and action. Factors of the most importance may contribute to the greatest deficiencies. The use of personal skills and abilities, and a feeling of competency were desired by approximately 60% of the women and 45% of the men administrators surveyed. A sense of competency is a set of psychological feelings of confidence an individual has about his or her abilities to accomplish tasks and goals. These findings indicated that challenging jobs and increasing levels of responsibility were the motivational techniques required for achieving job satisfaction for men and women administrators. Women administrators also desired nine other factors which can be summed up as a need for more access to 104 information, and more access to power and decision- inaking. Participation in decision-making, or the lack of, plays a role in feeling competent. It is understood that participation in decision-making increases the employee's commitment to the decision, as well as his or her feelings of personal worth and importance. ‘More opportunities to participate in decision-making may result in greater job satisfaction for women administrators. Encouragement for women requires opening channels of communication among women already in the organization. Through talking with.peers and meeting more experienced women who serve as role models, women increase their self—confidence, learn to deal with any sense of isolation, and develop new tools for dealing with their problems. (3) An analysis of perceived barriers and aids to achieving job satisfaction.for both men and women showed a lack of role models, lack of encouragement on the job, and the lack of opportunity to use one's skills, as major barriers. Conversely, the presence of these factors greatly enhanced the achievement of job satisfaction, With women experiencing less job satisfaction than men, these perceived barriers and aids are even more critical to them. 105 It might be observed that the importance of role models and mentors for women administrators cannot be stressed enough. One significant difficulty lies in the fact that there are fewer women in the position to be mentors than men. Encouragement also requires on—the-job counseling. It requires teaching superiors how to motivate women managers and how to help women to recognize and attain their goals. Men and women managers need to be taught how to encourage women and, in particular, how to provide honest positive and negative feedback. Lastly, it must be noted that an appropriate degree was listed as an important aid to job satisfaction by approximately 65% of both.men and women administrators. This has important ramifications for those educators and counselors who are preparing men and women for future roles in higher education administration. The curriculum which is designed, the quality of the instruction, and the appropriateness of the training play an important role in the future job satisfaction of their students. Recommendations for Future Research Recommendations for future studies related to this research follow: (1) (2) (3) (4) 106 A parallel study should be conducted within the next decade. The same administrative positions in higher education should be surveyed. The study could be modified with greater control of some of the variables that have been identified, such as, age, marital status, and years of job experience. As men and women gain more experience in working together in managerial roles, values, barriers, and supports may change. Conducting this study again may reveal changes in job satisfaction for men and*women administrators. A study should be conducted to analyze where the greatest deficiencies are found among the various job factors that result in overall job satisfaction for men and women administrators. Each of the 28 factors in this study could be analyzed for its contribution to overall job satisfaction. As reported in this research, self-confidence is the most important aid and support to 80-84% of men and women administrators, respectively. Research should be conducted on whether there is a relationship between one's self-concept and the achievement of job satisfaction, Possible differences between men and women administrators should be tested. A study should be conducted to analyze why 37% more of the women administrators were unmarried than men (5) (5) 107 administrators. A descriptive study could be conducted to investigate women's reasons for working as professional administrators and remaining single. Furthermore, a comparison with those professional women who are married should be made. The findings in this research demand future studies of marital status. A study is needed analyzing the relationship between a person's career aspirations and the achievement of job satisfaction, The findings from this research lead to a question as to whether more men than‘women.achieved a higher degree of job satisfaction because they were satisfied with their level of attainment within their career. It should be investigated as to whether men have a clearer understanding of their career goals than women in similar positions. The findings from this research Suggest a future study comparing satisfaction or dissatisfaction with job content and the level of competency achieved by women administrators. This research indicated that women at higher levels were more satisfied. A study should be conducted to analyze if there is greater satisfaction due to more job experience, and possibly greater competency. (7) (8) (9) (10) 108 Another area of future research is identified in the findings of a 10% differential between men and women administrators in line and staff positions. The reasons for this difference need to be studied. Findings in this research indicated that some respondents did not participate in any professional organizations or seminars. An area of future research would be to conduct a comparison of those administrators who have no participation in professional organizations with those who are involved. Does participation in organizations and of professional development enhance job satisfaction? Another area of recommended research is job satisfaction of men and women.administrators on smaller campuses and at private institutions. It is suggested that similar job satisfaction research be conducted with men.and*women managers in the corporate world. APPENDICES Appendix A Copyright Permission 110 RICHARD D. IRWIN-INC. 1818 RIDGE ROAD - HO MEWOOD, ILLINOIS . 60450 CHICAGO TELI'II’IIUNI'C: (512) Joli-W0!) LONG DISTANCE TELEPHONE: (372) 798-6000 November 10, 1981 Ms. Bobbie R. Thomas c/o Dr. Marylee Davis Assistant Vice President Administration 8 Public Affairs Michigan State University 484 Administration Building East Lansing, Michigan 48824 You may have permission to use material in the manner and for the purpose specified in your letter of October 29 from the following book(s): MANAGERIAL ATTITUDES AND PERFORMANCE by Porter and Lawler (1968) Amount of material: ‘X as cited in your letter only Limitations: 'maximum number of copies to be duplicated one—time use only classroom use only , "7K_— dissertation, not for republication author's approval also required; please contact: Rights: U.S., its territories etc., and Canada only throughout the world Fee: please refer to # and send the check to my attention When making payment Credit: X full credit must be given to author and publisher. The title, copyright notice and date must appear on every copy reproduced exactly as it appears in our book(s). This permission does not extend to any copyrighted material from other sources ‘which may be incorporated in the book(s) in question. If the material is to be ‘used In a book, please send a complimentary c0py to our permissions department upmipmblumthnu Sincerely, “,2 J/ . 8% Y . (lbs.)/S irl W. Olander SNO;mb Permissions Manager I’lllil IC\lll;RS ()l: BOOKS IN H ()NUMH 5 ANI) IIUSINI >5 Appendix B Survey Instrument 112 2 JOB SATISFACTION OF mxsmmns IN HIGHER EIIJCATIGI Survey Instrument Please respond to all statements. Your response to each item should reflect your personal belief or opinion. The following items list several characteristics or qualities relative to your own administrative position. Please circle the number that best represents the amount of that characteristic or quality being rated. A (1) represents 'hme," a (2) represents "very little, " a (3) T'ePriesents "a less than moderate amount," (ll) "a moderate amount," (5) "a little more than moderate amount," (6) "a great deal," and (7) "the minim amomt." l. The opportunity for independent thought and actim in aw position: (min) (max) a) How much is there now? 1 7 b) How much should there be? 1 7 c) How inportant is this to me? 1 7 NMN www #1:: WWW ONO’\O\ 2. ‘Ihe opportunity for achievement in nu position: a) How much is there now? 1 2 3 ll 5 6 7 b) HOW much should there be? 1 2 3 [I 5 6 7 c) How important is this to me? 1 2 3 ll 5 6 7 3. The degree of responsibility in not position: a) How much is there now? 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 b) HOW much should there be? 1 2 3 '4 5 6 7 c) How inportant is this to me? 1 2 3 II 5 6 7 A. The use of perscnal skills and abilities in my position: a) How much is there now? 1 2 3 ll 5 6 7 b) How much should there be? 1 2 3 it 5 6 7 c) How important is this to me? 1 2 3 ll 5 6 7 5. The opportunity for challenge in 11w position: a) How much is there now? 1 2 3 ll 5 6 7 b) How much should there be? 1 2 3 ll 5 6 7 c) How important is this to me? 1 2 3 ll 5 6 7 6. The opportunity for satisfaction in my position: a) How much is there now? 1 3 ll 6 b) How much should there be? 1 2 3 ll 5 6 7 c) How important is this to me? 1 3 14 6 7. The opportunity for growth and development in my position: a) How much is there now? b) How much should there be? c) How inportant is this to me? 8. The feeling of prestige in my position: a) How much is there now? b) How much should there be? c) How inportant is this to me? 9. The feeling of security in my position: a) How much is there now? b) How much should there be? c) How inportant is this to me? lO. 'Ihe financial carpensation in nu positim: a) How much is there now? D) How much should there be? c) How important is this to me? 11. 'Ihe degree of authority in my position: a) How much is there now? b) How much should there be? c) How inportant is this to me? 12. m position: a) How much is there now? b) How much should there be? c) How important is this to me? 13. The self-esteem I receive frcm being in my position: a) How much is there now? b) How much should there be? c) How important is this to me? 11‘. a) How much is there now? b) How much should there be? c) How important is this to me? 15. Good working conditions in m position: a) How much is there now? b) How much should there be? c) How inportant is this to me? The pranotimal opportunities in The opportmity for participation in decision making in my position: HHH HHH r—w—n—a Hl—‘H r—n—aa—a NNM NMM MNN NNN NNM NNM MNN NNM MMM WWW WWW WWW WWW WWW WWW WWW 31:1: 33:3: #1:: «2:2: 3:3: 2': \flUlU'l U'IU'IU'I UlUlUl U1U'1U'I \flU‘IUl UTU'lU‘ U'IU'IW UTU'IUI UTU'IW O\O\O\ O\O\O\ O\O\O\ O\O’\O\ O\O\O’\ O\O\O\ O\O\O\ O\O\O\ O\O\O\ was: was: «INN NNN «14‘: -1~:-1 «Ids: Nada «IN-q 16. 17. 18. 19. 20. 21. 22. 23. 21%. Good relations with colleagues: a) How nuch is there now? b) How lunch should there be? c) How inportant is this to me? 'Ihe frequency of recognition in nu position: a) How web is there now? D) How such should there be? c) How inpor'tant is this to me? Access to information in my position: a) How mch is there now? b) How nuch should there be? c) How inportant is this to me? ‘Ihe opportunity to participate in professional organizations: a) How much is there now? D) How much should there be? c) How inportant is this to me? 'Ihe amount of leisure time outside Job: a) How much is there now? b) How much should there be? c) How important is this to me? My feeling of conpetency in aw position: a) How ranch is there now? D) How much should there be? 0) How important is this to me? Appropriate on—the-Job training for no position: a) How much is there now? b) How much should there be? 0) HOW inportant is this to me? Opportunity to conununicate in nw position: a) How much is there now? b) How much should there be? 0) How important is this to me? Opportunity to solve problems in my position: a) How much is there now? b) How much should there be? c) How important is this to me? HHH HHH HHH n—sn—an—a n—an-an—a HHH NMM NNM MNM MMN NNM MNN WWW WWW WWW WWW WWW WWW WWW #12:: 3:: 2t: 23:: 21:1:- 21:1: UlUlU'I unmm U'IU'IU'I WU'OUl UlU'IU'I U'lUlU'I U'IUlU'I UlUlU'I O’\O\O\ O\O\O\ O\O\O\ O\O\O\ O\O\O\ O\O\O\ O\O\O’\ O\O\O\ O\O\O\ «as: «1‘24 «nus: ~n~n~n ~n~n~n slsn-q ~n~n~n NNNE xnxnsn 25. mportunity to plan arnd set goals in m position: (min) ( a) How much is there now? 1 b) How much should there be? 1 c) How inportant is this to me? 1 NNN moon» rec-4:- \nuun oxoxox «snag 26. Qaportunity to delegate in W position: a) How much is there now? 1 2 3 ll 5 6 7 b) How much should there be? 1 2 3 14 5 6 7 c) How inportant is this tome? 1 2 3 ‘1 5 5 7 27. Opportunity to motivate others: a) How much is there now? 1 2 3 14 5 5 7 b) HOw much should there be? 1 2 3 u 5 6 7 c) How important is this to me? 1 2 3 u 5 6 7 28. mportunity to budget in “U position: a) How much is there now? 1 2 3 in S 6 7 b) How much should there be? 1 2 3 l4 5 6 7 c) How inportant is this to me? 1 2 3 h 5 6 7 29. To what degree have the following factors been barriers or constraints on your achieving Job satisfaction? (min) (max) a) lack of opportunity for advancement . 1 2 3 ll 5 6 7 b) lack of geographic mobility ..... 1 2 3 14' 5 6 7 0) lack of self-confidence ....... 1 2 3 14 5 6 7 d) lack of appropriate degree ..... 1 2 3 h S 6 7 e) lack of motivated coworkers ..... 1 2 3 In 5 6 7 f) too young .............. 1 2 3 18 S 6 7 g) too old ............... 1 2 3 14 5 6 7 h) lack of appropriate counseling . . . 1 2 3 ll 5 6 7 1) race . . .............. 1 2 3 l: 5 6 7 J ) gernder ............... l 2 3 14 S 6 7 k) lack of appropriate leadership or supervision ............. 1 2 3 14 5 6 7 1) marital status ........... 1 2 3 11 S 6 7 m) children .............. l 2 3 14 5 6 7 n) lack of encouragement Iron others . . 1 2 3 ll 5 6 7 0) lack of role models ......... 1 2 3 u 5 6 7 p) lack of training, prior to or on-the-Job ............ 1 2 3 u 5 6 7 q) other ................ 1 2 3 u 5 6 7 (please specify) ——.— _ 6 30. lb what degree have the following factors been aids or supports to your achieving Job satisfaction? (min) (max a) opportunity for advancement ..... 1 2 3 l! 5 6 7 b) geographic mobility ......... 1 2 3 ll 5 6 7 c) self-confidence ........... 1 2 3 ll 5 6 7 d) appropriate degree ......... 1 2 3 l! S 6 7 e) motivated coworkers ......... 1 2 3 is S 6 7 1‘) being young ............. 1 2 3 In 5 6 7 g) being older . ............ 1 2 3 is S 6 7 h) appropriate counseling ....... 1 2 3 ll 5 6 7 1) race ................ 1 2 3 h S 6 7 .1) gender ............... 1 2 3 '4 5 6 7 k ) appropriate leadership or supervision ............. 1 2 3 ll 5 6 7 1) mrital status ........... l 2 3 h 5 6 7 m) children .............. 1 2 3 13 5 6 7 n) encouragement iron others ...... l 2 3 it 5 6 7 o) role models ............. l 2 3 ll 5 6 7 p) training, prior to or on-the-Job . . 1 2 3 in 5 6 7 q) other ................ 1 2 3 u 5 6 7 (please specify: ) GENERAL INFORMATION Circle the appropriate response. 31 . Sex: male ............... 1 female .............. 2 32. How old are you as of your last birthday? under 30 ............. 1 30-36 .............. 2 37-143 .............. 3 1116-50 .............. u 51-57 .............. 5 over 57 ............. 6 33. Race: Black .............. 1 Asian American .......... 2 White .............. 3 Hispanic ............. in American Indian ......... 5 Other V 3’4. 35. Marital status: 8111818..............1 Wide-000000000092 Please irndicate if: ’youarethesolemgeeamerinyourhousehold . . 36. 37. 38. 39. 130. 111. U2. 1&3. .1 sponseisenployedmll-time............2 spouseisanployedpart-time............3 What is the highest degree you now hold? BAor$.............1 Norm.............2 Ed.D.. ...... .......3 Ed.........S ..... ..ln Ph.....D ......... ..5 other (please specify: ) Is your present position one in general administration . . . . . . academic affairs ........ . studentservices. . . . . . . . . WMH Is your present position one of line(supervisory)........l staff(advisory).........2 How many years have you have been in your present position? How many years have you have worked within this institution? What is your current position (or closest in type of responsibility)? President . . . .................. 1 Vice President . . . ................ 2 Assistant Vice President . ............. 3 Director of a division or department ........ in other (please specify: ) Is your imnediate superior: How many people do you directly supervise? an. ‘55. 146. 1&7. 148. ‘49. 50. 8 How nany hours a week do you usually work? To how mam professional organizations do you currently belong? In your present position, during the past year, how many management or administrative training seminars, workshops, etc. have you attended? Prior to receiving a degree did you participate as an intern in an administrative internship program? If "yes" to number 1&7, how important a factor has it played in your satisfaction with your present position? (min)1 2 3 u 5 6 7(max) Since receiving your degree, have you participated as an intern in an administrative internship program? If "yes" to number 1:9, how important a factor has it played in your satisfaction with your present position? (min) 1 2 3 ll 5 6 7 (malt) THANK YOU FOR YOUR ASSISTANCE! Appendix C Sampling Procedure — Phase I Letter to the President or Chancellor 120 MICHIGAN STATE UNIVERSITY VICE PRESIDENT FOR ADMINISTRATION AND PUBLIC AFFAIRS EAST LANSING - MICHIG 484 ADMINISTRATION BUILDING AN ' 48824 October 20, 1981 Dear President, In conjunction with a federally funded project under the Women's Educational Equity Act Program, research is being conducted in the area of job satisfaction of high-level men and women administrators in higher education. This particular study is an integral part of a larger investigation being conducted, and also is being submitted as a Doctoral dissertation at Michigan State University. The purpose of this study is to better determine and understand the values and needs of administrators, and the extent to which these values and needs are being met in institutions of higher education. The results of this research can be of tremendous value to current administrators interested in the retention and performance of those they supervise as well as understanding their own sources of satisfaction and dissatisfaction in their work. In addition, the results will be very important to those members of educational training and preparation programs for future administrators. The role you play in this research is an important one. Your assistance is needed in identifying the names, positions, and addresses of all personnel at your institution who are in administrative positions at the level of Director or above, not including yourself. More specifically, for the pure poses of this study, three levels of responsibility have been defined from which data will be sought. The titles listed below are indicative of the types of positions we wish to include. They are: Level I - Executive Vice President or Vice Chancellor; Vice President or Vice Chancellor; Provost Level II - Assistant to the President or Chancellor; Assistant Vice President or Vice Chancellor; Associate Vice President or Vice Chancellor; Vice Provost; Assistant Provost; Associate Provost; Executive Director; and Executive Dean (in non~ academic areas) Level III - Registrar; Comptroller; Business Affairs Manager; Deans (in non- -academic areas); Treasurer; Directors (in nonvacademic areas), positions include those in: admissions and records alumni affairs placement human relations counseling development personnel services business affairs information services financial-aid budget and planning grants MS U u an Affirmative Adina/Equal Opportunity Insulating research public affairs branch institutions campus and facilities student housing finance women’s programs affirmative action Note: Deans of Students, Men and/or Women are included in this study, but Deans of Graduate Students are not. Also, not.inc1uded are Associate or Assistant Deans; Directors of Library Services, Computer Services, Contine uing Education, and University Extension Services; Assistant Directors; Deans or Department Chairpersons in academic areas; or persons "acting” in a position during an interim. All positions relevant to this study may not be listed. Please use your own discretion and judgment in determining the appropriate level as defined in the limits of this survey. Furthermore, to the best of your knowledge, please indicate whether these positions lie under the heading of (1) General Administration (i.e., business affairs and finance, development, public affairs, and research); (2) Academic Affairs (i.e., academic planning and supervision of academic personnel); or (3) Student.Services.(i.e., supervision of students, counseling, financial aid, admissions, housing, and placement). It is also important for these positions to be identified as line (supervisory) or staff (advisory) positions in your institution. The information you will provide will be essential for completing Phase I of this study, i.e., identifying the population. The focus of this research is on high-level administrators in institutions such as yours, and we are anticipating your assistance in identifying these individuals. We are extremely grateful for your time and your interest, and anxiously await your response so that Phase II, the collection of data, can be expedited. Please return the completed forms (feel free to photocopy extra forms if enough were not included) in the self-addressed stamped envelope by November 11, 1981. Again, thank you for your time and cooperation. Sincerely, Dr. Marylee Davis Assistant Vice President Ms. Bobbie Thomas Research Assistant, Higher Education Women's Educational Equity Act PLEASE PRINT! NAME TITLE INSTITUTION ADDRESS ZIP CODE ( ) I810 ( ) general administration ( ) level I ( ) female ( ) academic affairs ( ) level II ( ) student services ( ) level III ( ) line ( ) staff NAME TITLE INSTITUTION ADDRESS ZIP CODE ( ) male ( ) leneral administration ( ) level I ( ) female ( ) academic affairs ( ) level II ( ) student services ( ) level III ( ) line ( ) staff NAME TITLE INSTITUTION ADDRESS ZIP CODE ( ) male ( ) Reneral administration ( ) level I ( ) female ( ) academic affairs ( ) level II ( ) student services ( ) level III ( ) line ( ) staff Appendix D Sampling Procedure - Phase II: Cover Letter 124 MICHIGAN STATE UNIVERSITY OFFICE O! m PRESIDENT EAST LANSING 0 MICHIGAN 0 WING November 1986 Dear Administrator: You have been identified by the office of your President or Chancellor as a person critical to research being conducted on job satisfaction of administrators in higher education. We invite your assistance and cooperation. The achievement of job satisfaction will be studied, in addition to the importance administrators place on specific aspects of a job. We believe the results of this research will be of tremendous value to current administrators interested in understanding sources of satisfaction and dissatisfaction in their own work. And furthermore, the results will assist those administrators interested in enhancing the performance and job satisfaction of those they supervise. The survey takes approximately ten minutes to complete. You can be sure that your complete anonymity will be observed; as will the confidential use of data collected. Every survey is numbered for the purpose of controlling the returns. For your convenience, a self-addressed, stamped envelope is enclosed. To expedite this research, please return the survey in tea da S upon receiving it. If you would like a copy of the research results, please complete the mailing label with your name and address. The information you will contribute by completing the survey instrument is of great importance. Your cooperation is needed because the population of senior-level administrators in large public institutions of higher education is relatively small. Anticipating your interest and participation in this study, we thank you for your time and your unique contribution. Sincerely, ,3 B _ ,7 (LILLI éfoe‘/’C)&t~x.( 3",] 96.46% \%tflq__ Dr. Marylee Davis Ms. Bobbie Thomas Assistant Vice President Doctoral Candidate and Michigan State University Acting Executive Assistant to the President Encl.: Survey instrument, return envelope, mailing label MSU is an Allirmetl'w‘Actwvn/Equel Opportunity Institution BIBLIOGRAPHY BIBLIOGRAPHY Books Bernard, Jessie. _A_cademic Women. University Park: The Pennsylvania State University Press, 1964. Borg, Walter R. and Gall, Meredith D. Educational Research. New York: Longman Inc., 1979. Brown, Linda K. The Woman Manager in the United States. Washington, D.C.: Busi—ness and_ Professional Women's Foundation, 1982. Carroll, Bonnie. Job Satisfaction: é Review 9; the Literature. New York State School of IndustEIEl and Labor Relations: Cornell University, Key Issues Series, No. 3, February 1969. Crawford, Jacquelyn S. 'Women in Middle Management. Ridgewood, New Jersey: Forkner Publishing Corporation, 1977. Douvan, E. and Adelson, J. The Adolescent Experience. New York: Wiley, 1966. Drucker, Peter F. Management: Tasks, Responsibilities, and Practices. Harper & Row, 1974. Education Directory: Colleges and Universities. National Center or E ucation Statistics. Washing, DJL: 1980- 1981. Epstein, C. F. Women's Place_:_ The Options and Limits in Professional Careers. Berkeley: University of California Press, 1970(b). Fishbein, Martin ed. Readin s in Attitude Theory and Measurement. New York: Wiley, 1967. Gappa, Judith M. and Uehling, Barbara S. ‘Women in Academe: Steps to Greater Equality. Washington, DAL: American Association for Higher E ucation, 1979. 127 128 Hahn, C. P. Dimensions 9; Job Satisfaction and Career Motivation. Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania: American Institute for Research, 1959. Hennig, Margaret and Jardim, Anne. 'The Managerial Woman. New York: Anchor Press, 1977. Herzberg, Frederick. Work and the Nature 9: Man. New York: World Publishing, 1966. Herzberg, F.; Mausner, B.; Peterson, R. 0.; and Capwell, Dora F. Job Attitudes: Review of Research and Opinion. —Fittsburgh: PsychologIEaI Service of P s urgh, 1957. Herzberg, F.; Mausner, B.; and Snyderman, B. The Motivation 39 Work. John Wiley and Sons, Inc., 1959. Hoppock, R. Job Satisfaction. New York: Harper, 1935. Jacklin, C. N. and Maccoby, E. E. Sex differences and their implications for management. In F. E. Gordon and M. H. Strober (eds.). Bringing Women Into Management. New York: McGraw-Hi , 1975. Jackson, Douglas N; and Messick, Samuel eds. Problems ig Human Assessment, New York: McGraw-HilI, 1967. Jacques, E. Equitable Payment. London: Heinemann, 1961. Janeway, E. Man's World, Woman's Place. New York: Dell, 1981. Jennings, Eugene. Routes 33 the Executive Suite. New York: McGraw-Hill, Inc., 1976. Kahn, Robert et a1. Organizational Stress. New York: John Wiley and Sons, 1964. Kanter, Rosabeth Moss. Men and‘Women gg the Corporation. Basic Books, 1977. Kanter, Rosabeth Moss. Women and the Structure of Organizations. In Another Voice. Marcia Millman and Rosabeth Moss Kanter (edsa. New York: Anchor Books, 1975. Kish, L. The Survey Sample. New York: Wiley, 1965. Lawler, E.IL, III. Motivation in Work Organizations. Monterey, California: Brooks/Cole, 1973. 129 Likert, R. New Patterns 9; Management. New York: McGraw- Hill, 1961. Maccoby, Eleanor and Jacklin, Carol Nagy. The Psychology 9: Sex Differences. Reprinted by permission 0 S an ord University Press, 1974. Maslow, A, H. Motivation and Personality. New York: Harper & Brothers, 1954. Mead, Margaret. Male and Female. New York: Morrow, 1949. Morse, Nancy C. Satisfaction $3 the White-Collar Job. Ann Arbor: Survey Research Center, Institute fOr Social Research. University of Michigan, 1953. Mumford, Enid. Job Satisfaction, London: Longman Group Ltd., 1972. Oppenheim, A. N; Questionnaire Desigg and Attitude Measurement. New York: Basic Books, 1966. Place, I. and Robertson, L. Opportunities in Management Careers. New York: Universal, 1969. Porter, Lyman Wk Organizational Patterns 9: Managerial Job Attitudes. .American Foundation for Management Research, 1964. Porter, Lyman W3 and Lawler, III, Edward E. Managerial Attitudes and Perfgrmance. Homewood, Illinois: Richard . Irwin, Inc., 1968. Porter, Lyman Wk; Lawler, III, Edward E.; and Hackman, Richard J. Behavior i3 Organizations. McGraw-Hill Book Company, 1975. Rosenberg, M. Occupations and Values. New York: Random House, 1957. Schwarz, P. A. .Attitudes of Midgle-Management Personnel. Pittsburgh, Pa.: .AmeEIcan Institute fOr Research, 1959. Selltiz, Claire; Johoda, Marie; Deutch, Martin; and Cook, Stuart W. Research Methods ig Social Relations. New York: Holt, Rinehart, and Win3ton, 1964. Sheppard, Harold L. and Herrick, Neal Q. Where Have All the Robots Gone? New York: The Free Press, 1972. 130 Smith, P. C.; Kendall, Lorne E.; and Hulin, C. L. The Measurement of Satisfaction in Work and Retirement. Chicago, IIlIEbis: Rand McNEIly & Co., 1969. Stead, B.A. (ed.) Women 1.3 Management. Englewood Cliffs, New Jersey: Prentice-Ha , 1978. Stewart, Nathaniel. The Effective Woman Manager. :New York: John Wiley 5 Sons, Inc., 1978. Vroom, V; H. Motivation i3 Management. New York: .American Foundation for Management Research, Inc., 1965. Vroom, vu H. Some Personalit Determinants g; the Effects 9; Participation. EngIewood Cliffs, New Jersey: Prentice-Hall, 1960. Vroom, V. H. Work and Motivation. New York: John Wiley and Sons, Inc., 1964. Whyte, Jr., William H. The Organization Man. Simon and Schuster, 1956. Wolfe, H. B. Women in the World 2: Work. Division of Research. The State Education Department, New York: 1969. Journals and Periodicals Adams, J. S. Toward an understanding of inequity. Journal 9; Abnormal Psychology. 67 (1963): 422-436. Anderson, Joyce S. College administrators: The shoemakerws children. Community and Junior College Journal. 54 (March 1984): 20-21. Armstrong, T. B. Job content and context factors related to satisfaction for different occupational levels. Journal 9: Applied Psychology. 55 (1971): 57-65. Bare, Alan C. Managerial behavior of college Chairpersons and administrators. Research ig Higher Education. v. 24 no. 2 (1986): 128-138? Baron, Alma S. New data on women managers. Training and Development Journal. v. 32 no. 11 (November 1978(a): 12-130 Baron Alma S. ‘Women in management: A new look. Personnel Administrator. v. 23 no. 12 (December 1978(b): 52-54. 131 Barthlow, Robert L. Staff development on a shoestring budget. Journal pf Staff, Program, 5 Organization Development. 2 (Spring 1984): 10-11. Bartol, Kathryn M. Relationship of sex and professional training area to job orientation. Journal pf Applied Psychology. v. 61 no. 3 (1976): 368-370. Bartol, Kathryn M. The sex structuring of organizations: A search for possible causes. The Academygf Management Review. 3 (1978): 805-815. Benge, B.;L How to learn what workers think of job and boss. Factory Management Maintenance. 102 (5) (1944): 101-104. Bess, James L. and Lodahl, Thomas M. Career patterns and satisfactions in university middle-management. Educational Record. 50 (Spring 1959): 220-229. Blai, Boris, Jr. A job satisfaction predictor. Personnel Journal. 42 (October 1963): 453-456. Blair, B. An occupational study of job satisfaction and need satisfaction. Journal g: Experimental Education. 32 (1964): 383-388. Blood, M. R. The validity of importance. Journal pf Applied Psychology. 55 (1971): 487-488. Brayfield, Arthur H. and Rothe, Harold F. An index of job satisfaction. Journal 9: Applied Psychology. v. 35 no. 5 (1951): 307-311. Brief, A. P. and Aldag, R. J. Male-female differences in occupational values within majority groups. Journal pf Vocational Behavior. 6 (1975): 305—314. Brief, A. P. and Oliver, R. L. Male-female differences in work attitudes among retail sales managers. Journal pf Applied Psychology. v. 61 no. 4 (1976): 526-528. Brief, A. P.; Rose, G. L.; and Aldag, R. J. Sex differences in preferences for job attitudes revisited. Journal pf Applied Psychology. 62 (1977): 645-646. Burke, R. Differences in perception of desired job characteristics of the opposite sex. The Journal pf Genetic Psychology. 109 (1966(a): 27-37. 132 Burke, R. Differences in perception of desired job characteristics of the same sex and the opposite sex. The Journal pf Genetic Psychology. 109 (1966(b): 37— 46. Burnham, L. B. and Roueche, J. E. Models of excellence for professional development. Journal pf Staff, Program, g Organization Development. 2 (Spring 1984): 20-24. Centers, R. Motivational aspects of occupational stratification. Journal pf Social Psychology. 28 (1948): 187—217. Centers, R. and Bugental, D. E. Intrinsic and extrinsic job motivations among different segments of the working population. Journal pf Applied Psychology. 50 (1966): 193-197. Chase, F. S. Factors for satisfaction in teaching. Phi Delta Kappan. 33 (1951): 127-132. Chernik, D. A. and Phelan, J. G. Attitudes of women in management I. Job Satisfaction: A study of perceived need satisfaction as a function of job level. International Journal pf Social Psychiatry. v. 20 no. 1-2(1974): 94—98. Cochran, Judith. How do women administrators view job satisfaction and discrimination? Journal pf National Association pf Women Deans and CounseIors v. 41 no. 2 (Winter 1978): 67-68. Cole, R. J. A survey of employee attitudes. Public Opinion Quarterly. 4 (1940): 497-506. Costello, J. M. and Lee, S. M. Needs fulfillment and job satisfaction of professionals. Puhlic Personnel Management. (September-October 1974): 454-461. Cummings, L. L. and El Salmi, Aly M. The impact of role diversity, job level, and organizational size on managerial satisfaction. .Administrative Science Quarterly. (March 1970): 1-11. Day, R. and Stogdill, R.M. Leader behavior of male and female supervisors: A comparative study. Personnel Psychology. 25 (1972): 353-360. Deaux, K. Authority, gender, power, and tokenism. Journal pf Applied Behavioral Science. v. 14 no. 1 (January- Marc 1978): 22-25. 133 Dempster, C. Pitfalls of performance. The Times Higher Educational Supplement. Times Newspapers Ltd}, London, England. (Spring 1986) 724:14. Dunnette, M. D.; Campbell, J. P.; and Hakel, M. D. Factors contributing to job satisfaction and job dissatisfaction in six occupational groups. Orgagizational Behavior and Human Performance. 2 (1967): 143-74. England, G. W. and Stein, C. I. The occupational reference group--a neglected concept in employee attitude studies. Personnel Psychology. 14 (1961): 299-304. Epstein, C. F. Encountering the male establishment: Sex status limits on women's careers in the professions. American Journal pf Sociology. 75 (May 1970 (a): 965- 982. Evans, M. G. Satisfaction with and importance of various facets of the job. Personnel Journal. (September 1970): 740-773. Ewen, R. B. Some determinants of job satisfaction: A study of the generality of Herzberg's Theory. Journal 9_f: Applied Psychology. 48 (June 1964): 161-163. Ewen, R. B. Weighting components of job satisfaction. Journal 2: Applied Psychology. 51 (1967): 68-73. Ferris, R.J. The changing world of work. United. (November 1986): 7. Ford, R. N. and Borgatta, E. F. Satisfaction with the work itself. Journal pf Applied Psychology. v. 54 no. 2 (1970): 128-134. Fournet, G. P.; Distefano, Jr., M. K.; and Pryer, M. W. Job satisfaction: Issues and problems. Personnel Psychology. 19 (1966): 165-183. Friedlander, F. Job characteristics as satisfiers and dissatisfiers. Journal pf Applied Psychology. 48 (1964): 388-392. Friedlander, Fa IRelationships between the importance and the satisfaction of various environmental factors. Journal pf Applied Psychology. 49 (1965): 160-164. Friedlander, F. Underlying sources of job satisfaction. Journal pf Applied Psychology. 47 (1963): 246-250. 134 Gelmon, D. et a1. Just how the sexes differ. Newsweek. May 18. 1981: 72-33. Glenn, N. D.; Taylor, P. A.; and Weaver, C. N. Age and job satisfaction among males and females: A multivariate, multisurvey study. Journal 9_f_ Applied Psychology. 62 (1977) 189-193. ““‘"‘ Glennon, J. R.; Owens, W. A.; Smith, W. J.; and Albright, L. E. A new dimension in measuring morale. Harvard Business Review. 38 (1960): 106-107. Golembiewski, R. T. Testing some stereotypes about the sexes in organizations: Differential satisfaction with work. Human Resource Management. 16 (Summer 1977): 30-32. Graen, G. B. Addendum to An Empirical Test of the Herzberg Two-Factor Theory. Journal o_f Applied Psychology. v. Graham, G. H. Job satisfaction. Personnel Journal. 45 (October 1966): 544-547. Halpern, G. Relative contributions of motivator and hygiene factors to overall job satisfaction. Journal 5; Applied Psychology. 50 (1966): 198-200. Harrison, R. L. Sources of variation in managers' job attitudes. Personnel Psychology. 13 (1960): 425—434. Hinrichs, J. R. A replicated study of job satisfaction dimensions. Personnel Psychology. 21 (1968): 479- 503. Hochstim, J. R. and Athanasopoulos. D. A. Personal follow- up in a mail survey: Its contributions and its costs. Public Ojinion Qparterly. v. 34 no. 1 (Spring 1970): 69-81. Hoffman, L. W. Early childhood experience and women's achievement motives. Journal pf Social Issues. 28 (February 1972): 192-195. Hulin, C. L. and Smith, P. C. A linear model of job satisfaction. Journal pf Applied Psycholfigy. 49 (1965): 209-216. Hulin, C. L. and Smith, P. C. Sex differences in job satisfaction. Journal _o_f Applied Psychology. 48 (1964): 88-92f—““' 135 Hunt, J. W. and Saul, P. N. The relationship of age, tenure, and job satisfaction in males and females. Academy pf Management Journal. 18 (1975): 690-701. Ivancevich, J. M. and Donnelly, J. H. Job satisfaction research: A manageable guide for practitioners. Personnel Journal. 47 (1968): 172-177. Johnson, G.IL An instrument for the measurement of job satisfaction. Personnel Psychology. 8 (1955): 27—38. Jones, Steven W. Do women college administrators manage differently than men? Educational Horizons. 64 (Spring 1986): 118-119. Jurgenson, C. E. Selected factors which influence job preferences. Journal pf Applied Psychology. 31 (1947). 553-564. Jurgenson, C. E. What job applicants look for in a company. Personnel. 25 (1949): 352—355. Kanter, R.M. The impact of hierarchical structures on the work behaviors of men and women. Social Problems. 23 (1976): 415-430. Katzell, R. A.; Barrett, R. S.; and Parker, T. C. Job satisfaction, job performance, and situational characteristics. Journal g: Applied Psychology. 45 (1961): 65-72. Keaveny, T. J.; Jackson, J. H.; and Fossum, J. A. Are there sex differences in job satisfaction? Personnel Administrator. v. 23 no. 3 (March 1978): 55-58. Keith, P. M. and Glass, L. Sex differences in the perception of job factors. College Student Journal. v. 11 no. 1 (Spring, 1977): 43—48. Kraus, John D. Jr. Middle management in higher education: A dog's life? Journal o_f_ the College 5 University Personnel Association. 34 (Winter 1983): 29-35. Kuhlen, R. Needs, perceived need satisfaction opportunities, and satisfaction with occupation. Journal pf Applied Psychology. 47 (1963): 56-64. Lahiri, D. K. and Srivastra, S. Determinants of satisfaction in middle-management personnel. Journal pf Applied Psychology. 51 (1967): 254-265. 136 Locke, E. A. What is job satisfaction? Organizational Behavior and Human Performance. 4 (1969): 309-336. Locke, E. A; Smith, P. C.; Kendall, L. M.; Hulin, C. L.; and Miller, A. M. Convergent and discriminant validity for areas and methods of rating job satisfaction. Journal pf Applied Psychology. 48 (1964): 313-319. Manhardt, P.;L Job orientation of male and female college graduates in business. Personnel Psychology. 25 (1972): 361-368. Miner, J. B. Motivation to manage among women: Studies of business managers and educational administrators. Journal pf Vocational Behavior. 5 (1974): 197-208. Mobley, W. H. and Locke, E. A. The relationship of value importance to satisfaction. Qrganizational Behavior and Human Performance. 5 (1970): 463-483. Monczka, R. M.; Foster, L. W.; Reif, W. E.; Newstrom, J. W. Pay satisfaction: Money is not the only answer. Compensation Review. (Fourth Quarter 1977): 22-28. crLeary, V. E. Some attitudinal barriers to occupational aspirations in women. Psychological Bulletin. 81, 11 (1974): 809-828. Orth, C. D. and Jacobs, F. Women in management: Pattern for change. Harvard Business Review. (July-August 1971): 139-147. Osborn, R.N. and Vicars, W.M. Sex stereotypes: An artifact in leader behavior and subordinate satisfaction analysis? Academy pf Management Journal. 19 (1976): Peck, L. A. A study of the adjustment difficulties of a group of women teachers. Journal 2: Educational Psychology. 27 (1936): 401-416. Petty, M.N. and Lee, G.K. Moderating effects of sex of supervisor and subordinate relationships between supervisory behavior and subordinate satisfaction. Journal pf Applied Psychology. 60 (1975): 624-628. Porter, L. W. A study of perceived need satisfactions in bottom and middle management jobs. Journal pf Applied Psychology. 45 (1961(a): 1-10. 137 Porter, L. W. Job attitudes in management: I. Perceived deficiencies in need fulfillment as a function of job level. Journal pf Applied Psychology. 46 (1962): 375-384. Porter, L. W. Job attitudes in management: II. Perceived importance of needs as a function of job level. Journal pf Applied Psychology. 47 (1963): 141-148. Porter, L.‘W. Perceived trait requirements in bottom and middle management jobs. Journal pf Applied Psychology. 45 (1961(b): 232-236. Porter, L. W. and Ghiselli, E. E. The self perceptions of top and middle management personnel. Personnel Psychology. 10 (1957): 397-406. Reeves, M. E. An analysis of job satisfaction of women administrators in higher education. The Journal of the National Association pf Women Deans and*Counselor§T'—38 (Spring 1975): 132-135. Robinson, H. A. Job satisfaction researchers of 1958. Personnel and Guidance Journal. (May 1959): 669-673. Ronan, W. W. Individual and situational variables relating to job satisfaction. Journal pf Applied Psychology Monograph. 54 (1970(a): 1-31. Ronan, W. W. Relative importance of job characteristics. Journal g: Applied Psychology. v. 54 no. 2 (1970(b): 192-200. Rosen, H. Desirable attributes of work: Four levels of management describe their job environments. Journal pf Applied Psychology. 45 (1961(a): 156-160. Rosen, H. Occupational motivation of research and development personnel. Personnel Administrator 26 (1963): 37-43. Rosen, H. Managerial role interaction: A study of three managerial levels. Journal pf Applied Psychology. 45 (1961(b): 30—34. Rosen, H. and Weaver, C. G. Motivation in management: A study of four management levels. Journal pf Applied Psychology. 44 (1960): 386-392. Roussell, C. Relationships of sex of department head to department climate. Administrative Science Quarterly. 19 (1974): 211-220. 138 Saleh, S. and Lalljee, M. Sex and job orientation. Personnel Psychology. 22 (1969): 465-471. Sauser, W. I. and York, C. M. Sex differences in job satisfaction: A re-examination. Personnel Psychology. Scarlett, Melvin G. Your leadership role. College and University. 59 (Winter 1984): 189-198. Schaffer, R. H. Job satisfaction as related to need satisfaction in work. Psychological Monographs. 67 (1953): Schien, V. Sex role stereotyping ability and performance. Personnel Psychology. 3 (1978): 259-268. Schuler, R. S. Sex, organizational level, and outcome importance: Where the differences are. Personnel Psychology. 28 (1975): 365-376. Schultz, J. R. Blueprint for executive job satisfaction. Personnel. 41 (July/August 1964): 8-18. Schwartz, M. M.;.Jenusaitis, EL; and Stark, H. Motivational factors among supervisors in the utility industry. Personnel Psychology. 16 (1963): 45-53. Shakeshaft, C. A gender at risk. Phi Delta Kappan. v. 67 no.7'(March.1986): 499—503. Shapiro, H. J. and Stern, L. W. Job satisfaction: Male and female, professional and non-professional workers. Personnel Journal. 54 (July 1975): 388-39+. Singer, J. Sex differences--similarities in job preference factors. Journal pf Vocational Behavior. 5 (1974): 357-36 Singer, S. L. and Stefflre, B. Age differences in job values and desires. Journal pf Counseling Psychology. 2 (1954(a): 89-91. Singer, S. L. and Stefflre, B. Sex differences in job values and desires. Personnel and Guidance Journal. 32 (1954(b): 483—584. Solmon, L. C. and Tierney, M. L. Determinants of job satisfaction among college administrators. Journal pf Higher Education. 48 (July/August 1977): 412-431. Stockford, L. O. and Kunze, K. R. Psychology and the pay check. Personnel. 27 (1950): 129-143. 139 Super, D. E. Occupational level and job satisfaction. Journal pf Applied Psychology. 23 (1939): 547-564. Swan, J. E.; Futrell, C. M.; and Todd, J. T. Same job—— different views: women and men in industrial sales. Journal pf Marketing. (January 1978): 92-98. The world of work. Savvy. (November 1986): 17. Thompson, A. S. Homo-laborans--an analysis of the meaning of work. Bulletin pf the International Association pf Applied PsychoIogy. 12 (1963): 5-23. Tinsley, A.; Secor, C.; and Kaplan, S. (Eds.). Women in higher education administration. .New Directions for Higher Education. Issue 45, 12 (No. 1) (March 1984): 96. Triandis, H. C. Categories of thought of managers, clerks, and workers about jobs and people in an industry. Journal pf Applied Psychology. 43 (1959(a): 338-344. Triandis, H. C. Differential perception of certain jobs and people by managers, clerks, and workers in industry. Journal pf Applied Psychology. 43 (1959(b): 221-225. Trotter, V. Y. ‘Women in leadership and decision-making. Vital Speeches pf the Day. April 1, 1975: 373-375. Troxell, J. P. Elements in job satisfaction. Personnel. 31 (1954): 199-205. Tucker, R.B. The company she keeps. United. (November 1986): 43-146. Twery, R.; Schmid, Jr”,;L; and Wrigley, C. Some factors in job satisfaction: A comparison of three methods of analysis. Educational and Psychological Measurement. 18 (1958): 189-202. Wagman, M. Sex and age differences in occupational values. Personnel and Guidance Journal. 44 (1965): 258-262. Wanous, J; P. and Lawler, III, E. E. Measurement and meaning of job satisfaction. Journal pf Applied Psychology. 56 (1972): 95-105. Weaver, C. N. Job satisfaction in the United States in the 19705. Journal pf Applied Psychology. 65 (1980): 364-367. 140 Weaver, C. N. Relationships among pay, race, sex, occupational prestige, supervision, work autonomy, and job satisfaction in a national survey. Personnel Psychology. 30 (1977): 437-445. Weaver, C. N. Sex differences in job satisfaction. Business Horizons. (1974): 43-49. Wells, Theodora. Equalizing advancement between women and men. Training and Development Journal. (August 1973): 20-240 Wernimont, P. F. Intrinsic and extrinsic factors in job satisfaction. Journal pf Applied Psychology. 50 (February 1966): 41-50. What's news. Savvy. (November 1986): 34-35. Wilder, J. Male and female: The significance of values. American Journal pf Psychotherapy. v. 31 no. 1 (January 1977): 11-18. Q.S. Governmenp and Associapions Publications, Reports, and Papers Austin, A. E. Factors contributing to job satisfaction of university mid-level administrators. .ASHE 1985 Annual Meeting Paper. (March 1985). Austin, A. E. Work orientation of university mid-level administrators: Commitment to work role, institution, and career. Paper presented at Association for the Study of Higher Education. Chicago, March 1984. Bartol, K. Sex difference in job orientation: A re- examination. Proceedings g; the National Academy 92 Management. Seattle, 1974. Mark, Sandra Fay. Leadership in higher education: Success attributions and self—perceptions of college administrators. Paper read at Association for the Study of Higher Education. Chicago, March 1984. Quinn, R. P.; Staines, G. L.; and McCullough, M. R. Job satisfaction: Is there a trend? Manpower Research Monograph no. 30. (LS. Department of Labor, Manpower Administration, 1974. 141 Scott, R. A. Lords, Squires, and yeoman: Collegiate middle managers and their organizations. AAHR-ERIC/Higher Education Research Report no. 7 (1978L. (LS. District of Columbia: ERIC Document ED 165 641. Smith, P. C. Cornell studies on job satisfaction. I. Strategy for the development of a general theory of job satisfaction. 1964. U.S. Working Women: A data book. Bulletin 1977. Washington, D.C.: 1977. Women ip Higher Education Administration: A Book of Readin 5. Margaret Berry (ed.L (LS. DisEriEE of CqumBi . 1977. ERIC Document ED 191 342. Unpublished Materials Al-Thubaity, A. M. Department chairpersons' perception of their position regarding the requirements and process of selection for the major responsibilities and requirements for job satisfaction in Saudi Arabian universities. Unpublished dissertation. (PhJL Michigan State University, 1981). Ansah, G. T. A comparative study of the academic department chairmen.and chairwoman at Michigan State University with respect to their upward mobility to their present position, their retrospective role expectations, and their job satisfaction. Unpublished dissertation. (Ph.D. Michigan State University, 1980). Channels, N. and Yeannakis, L. Sex and organization as predictors of preferred job characteristics. Unpublished thesis. (Trinity College, Hartford, Connecticut, 1980). Cohen, M. B. and Cohen, R. A. Personality as a factor in administrative decisions. Unpublished manuscript, 1962. Cunningham, M. C. .A national study of the perceptions of male and female higher education student personnel administrators: Job satisfaction, job involvement, job-related tension, and self-esteem. Unpublished dissertation. (Ed.D. Oklahoma State University, 1978). Glitzer, B. M. Job satisfaction and its relation to sources of self-esteem in working women. Unpublished dissertation. (Ph.D. Rutgers University, 1979). 142 Hinkley, N; E. The relationship between sex and intrinsic job satisfaction of adult educators. Unpublished dissertation. (Ed.D. North Carolina State University at Raleigh, 1975). Jahanshahi, B. The relationship between organizational climate and job satisfaction of academic administrators in selected community colleges and universities. Unpublished dissertation. (Ed.D. Oklahoma State University, 1985). La Rocque, E.2Rn Jru .A comparison of need strength, need satisfaction, and personality factors as they relate to job satisfaction in selected occupational levels. Unpublished distion, and personality factors as they relate job satisfaction in selected occupational levels. Unpublished dissertation. (Ph.D. Georgia State University, 1976). Mann, B. A. Career sponsorship of*women senior-level administrators in higher education. Unpublished dissertation. (Ph.D. The Florida State University, 1980). Stevenson. F3 B. ‘Women administrators in big ten universities. Unpublished dissertation. (PhJL Michigan State University, 1973). Woods, B. B. Significant characteristics of professional women employed in public two-year and four—year higher education institutions in Michigan. Unpublished dissertation. (Ph.D. Michigan State University, 1979). 211)) W “3 li‘H‘ler “0 iii Willi) i; I I3.”