”an“ Jlifllllllllljfl’ WWW! L 632 5298 Michigan State University This is to certify that the dissertation entitled DISCIPLINARY DIFFERENCES IN JOB FACET IMPORTANCE AND JOB FACET SATISFACTION AMONG COLLEGE FACULTY presented by Judith A. Motiff has been accepted towards fulfillment of the requirements for - Ph . D . degree in Educational Administrat ion 1,9" // //////4/// : . p fessr/l Date 7///7 MSU is an Affirmative Action/Equal Opportunity Institution 0- 12771 L13RARJES remove this checkout from —‘—. your record. FINES will be charged if book is returned after the date stamped below. MSU ‘ RETURNING MATERIALS: Place in book drop to w-~,- . 1 n 19'; JUL , ‘1‘":1’3 ‘ 7‘ 154C 'fii' DISCIPLINARY DIFFERENCES IN JOB FACET IMPORTANCE AND JOB FACET SATISFACTION AMONG COLLEGE FACULTY By Judith A. Motiff A DISSERTATION Submitted to Michigan State University In Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements For the Degree of DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY Department of Educational Administration 1987 ABSTRACT DISCIPLINARY DIFFERENCES IN JOB FACET IMPORTANCE AND JOB FACET SATISFACTION AMONG COLLEGE FACULTY By Judith A. Motiff The purpose of this study was to examine differences in levels of importance of eight job facets among faculty in four academic disciplines--fine arts, humanities, social sciences and natural sciences. Levels Of satisfaction with the eight job facets were investigated using facet satisfaction scores weighted by importance ratings. The Faculty Job Values and Satisfaction Survey was used to measure the facets of the work itself, work role clarity, chairperson, administration, pay, promotion, facilities, and colleagues. Participants in the study consisted of a proportional random sample of faculty by discipline in eleven independent liberal arts colleges in the midwest. The results indicated that disciplinary differences existed for two dependent variables. Fine arts and humanities faculty attached greater importance to the facet of work role clarity than did faculty in the natural sciences. The facet of facilities was statistically more important for faculty in the fine arts than for those in the social sciences and the natural sciences. NO other significant differences were found among faculty in the four disciplines in their ratings of importance. Analysis Of the mean score for each job facet produced no significant differences in satisfaction among the four disciplines. When one-item measures of facet satisfaction were investigated, fine arts faculty proved to be significantly less satisfied with departmental colleagues than faculty in the social and natural sciences. The entire faculty found the facets to be different in the levels of satisfaction assigned to them and in their importance. The facet of promotion was considered most important by all the faculty, followed by administration, work, pay, colleagues, and chairperson. Of least importance were the facets of the facilities and work role clarity. Faculty were most satisfied with the chairperson, the work itself, colleagues, and facilities. Less satisfying to them were promotion, pay, work role clarity, and administration. It was concluded that faculty in these liberal arts colleges were moderately satisfied with their jobs. Disciplinary affiliation was not found to be a source of difference in how they perceived the importance of various facets of their work nor in the levels of satisfaction assigned to them. To my daughter Katie and my husband Jim. ii ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS To the many who have helped to transform a dream into a goal and have contributed to make that goal a reality, my debt of gratitude is large. Several of them deserve the written acknowledgement of their claim to my indebtedness. For patient advice and lOngstanding support and guidance, my advisor and committee chairperson, Dr. Howard W. Hickey, merits special gratitude. My committee members, Dr. Ben A. Bohnhorst, Dr. Louis Hekhuis, and Dr. James Snoddy provided careful reading and insightful comments on this dissertation. This dissertation would never have been written without my husband, Dr. James P. Motiff. He taught, read, and critiqued with insight and unstinting devotion. Throughout the process, he was an unfailing source of love and support. Among friends and colleagues, Dr. Charles Green distinguished himself with his selflessly-shared expertise, his gentle humor, and his quiet nudging. I owe him a great deal. iii Dr. Neil Wylie, Vice President of the Great Lakes Colleges Association, provided assistance with conceptualizing this research and carrying out the study. Carol Fuller provided the computer lists of faculty for the survey as well as wise suggestions. My colleagues at Hope College Operationalized collegiality in new ways. Dr. Jacob E. Nyenhuis, Hope College Provost, has always enabled and celebrated the milestones in my life. Dr. Donald Luidens and Dr. Roger Nemeth, graciously shared their knowledge of survey research. Richard Burtt tracked down and verified sources with skill and alacrity. Susan DePree could always be counted on for facilitating responses to my needs. I owe special gratitude to my colleagues in the Department of Foreign Languages. In particular, Dr. Ion T. Agheana, my chairperson, has furnished understanding and support in so many ways. Finally, Scott VanderStoep deserves special mention for translating my questions into statistical analyses. Paulina Ruf’s expertise in word-processing, her dedication, and her good humor put this study into its final form. Paulina, together with Karen Elenbaas and Kathy Adamski, furnished friendship as well as secretarial expertise. iv TABLE OF CONTENTS LIST OF TABLES O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O 0 CHAPTER I 0 INTRODUCTION 0 O O O O O O O O O O O O O O 0 Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Change and Higher Education . . . . . . Demographic Changes . . . . . . . . Economic Changes . . . . . . . . . . Technological Changes . . . . . . . Statement of the Problem . . . . . . . . Implications for Faculty . . . . . . Faculty Identified . . . . . . Faculty Environment . . . . . . Faculty Roles . . . . . . . . . Faculty Working Conditions . . Current Levels of Satisfaction . . . Liberal Arts Colleges . . . . . . . Academic Disciplines . . . . . . . . Purpose of the Study . . . . . . . . . . Definitions of Research Terms . . . Research Design . . . . . . . . . . . . Research Hypotheses . . . . . . . . . . Delimitations of the Study . . . . . . . Limitations of the Study . . . . . . . . Summary . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . II. REVIEW OF RELATED LITERATURE Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Job Satisfaction . . . . . . . . . . . . Conceptual Models of Job Satisfaction . Content and Process Theories . . . . Process Theory 1: Discrepancy Theories . . . . . . . . . . . Process Theory 2: Needs, Values and Expectancy Theories . . . V viii t—I COGDQQQUIUIOIkO-VNH 29 29 29 30 30 31 33 III. IV. Job Job Facets Measurements . . . . Importance/Value Ratings . . . . . . Satisfaction in Higher Education . . Factors Relating to the Work Itself Work Role Clarity . . . . . . . . . Administration and Chairperson . . . Compensation and Rewards . . . . . . Facilities and Working Conditions . Co-Workers . . . . . . . . . . . . . Summary . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . RESEARCH METHODOLOGY . . . . . . . . . . . . Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Population . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Sample . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Techniques for Measuring Job Satisfaction . . . . . . . . . . . . . Interview . . . . . . . . . . . . . Critical Incident Technique . . Rating Scales . . . . . . . . . . . Locke, Fitzgerald and White Questionnaire . . . . . . . . . . . Faculty Job Values and Satisfaction Survey . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Procedures . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Summary . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ANALYSIS OF DATA . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Overview of Statistical Analyses . . . . Questionnaire Distribution and Response Rate . . . . . . . . . . . . . Demographic Data . . . . . . . . . . . . Disciplinary Analysis . . . . . . . . . Facet Importance Ratings . . . . . . Facet Satisfaction Scores . . . . . One-Item Facet Satisfaction Ratings Overall Satisfaction Rating . . . . Affect Ratings . . . . . . . . . . . All Faculty . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Facet Importance Ratings . . . . . . Facet Satisfaction Scores . . . . . One-Item Satisfaction Ratings . . . Correlations Among Satisfaction Measures . . . . . . . . . . . . . Overall Satisfaction Rating . . . . Affect Factors . . . . . . . . . . . Summary . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . vi 34 38 4O 41 43 43 45 46 47 47 49 49 49 51 52 53 53 54 56 58 6O 61 63 63 65 67 68 72 72 73 76 78 79 84 84 85 87 88 90 90 92 V. SUMMARY, DISCUSSION, CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS . . . . . . . . . . . . . Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . Summary . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Discussion of Results and Implications Disciplinary Differences . . . . . Importance of Job Facets . . . Satisfaction Measures . . . . Affect Factors . . . . . . . . All Faculty . . . . . . . . . . . Satisfaction Measures . . . . Overall Satisfaction . . . . . Affect Factors . . . . . . . . Conclusions . . . . . . . . . . . . . Recommendations for Future Research . Practical Implications . . . . . . . . APPENDICES . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . A. Faculty Job Values and Satisfaction Survey . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . B. Preliminary Notice to Respondents . . Cover Letter to Accompany Questionnaire Return Postcard . . . . . . . . . . . FOllOW-Up POStcaI‘d o o o o o o o o o 0 LIST OF REFERENCES . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . vii 93 93 93 96 96 96 99 100 102 103 106 107 107 109 111 113 113 117 118 119 120 121 Table Table Table Table Table Table Table Table Table Table Table Table Table Table Table 10. 11. 12. 13. 14. 15. LIST OF TABLES Population and Sample Statistics by Discipline . . . . . . . . . . . . . Response Rate by Discipline . . . . . . Age of Respondents . . . . . . . . . . Years at Institution . . . . . . . . . Percentage Distribution of Salary for Disciplines . . . . . . . . . . . . Facet Importance Ratings by Discipline Univariate Analyses of Facet Importance Ratings for Disciplines . . Facet Satisfaction Scores for Disciplines . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Univariate Analyses of Facet Satisfaction Scores for Disciplines . . One-Item Facet Satisfaction Ratings for Disciplines . . . . . . . . Univariate Analyses of One-Item Facet Satisfaction Ratings for Disciplines . Overall Satisfaction Rating for Disciplines . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Mean Affect Ratings for Disciplines . . Univariate Analyses of Affect Ratings for Academic Disciplines . . . . . . . Analysis of Variance Of Importance of Facets for All Faculty . . . . . . . . viii 68 69 69 70 71 73 74 75 76 77 78 79 81 82 85 Table Table Table Table 16. 17. 18. 19. Analysis of Variance of Facet Satisfaction Scores for All Faculty Analysis of Variance of One-Item Satisfaction Ratings for All Faculty Pearson Correlation Coefficients for Satisfaction Measures Agreement (percentage) with Affect Factors for All Faculty ix 86 88 89 91 CHAPTER I INTRODUCTION Introduction While the literature in the area of job satisfaction in business and industry is overwhelmingly vast, no such claim can be made regarding similar inquiries into the phenomenon of job satisfaction among faculty in higher education. Moreover, as Smart (1978) has noted, the research literature represents more a fragmented collection Of idiosyncratic research reports than a systematic set of inquiries into the intellectual and behavioral patterns of faculty in higher education. Several reasons may account for the comparable paucity of inquiry. First, as labor—intensive, service-oriented institutions, colleges have not historically been expected to adopt the criteria for success necessary to a product-oriented organization. Thus, studies which would ultimately result in increased cost-effectiveness, efficiency, or wider profit margins were perceived as having no basis for application among faculty in institutions of higher education. Second, the nature of the functions of professionals in colleges and universities makes it 2 difficult to relate the notion of job satisfaction to productivity. While the "products" of an institution can be measured, e.g., number of graduates, lifetime earnings of graduates, etc., it is difficult to quantify the professor’s productivity in relation to such measures. Further, individual differences in professional goals among faculty make it difficult to define the very nature of the work, except in broad terms. Lastly, the lack of research indicated above might very well be due to some underlying assumptions about the profession of teaching in higher education. It may be that the professoriate, more than other professions, is regarded as privileged, highly autonomous, and fulfilled as a group. And since these faculty members are presumed to be satisfied with their choice of work, inquiries into aspects and levels of job satisfaction are considered to be superfluous. Change and Higher Education More recently, however, demographic, economic, and technological changes have occurred which have had a major impact upon the very nature of higher education. These changes are mandating transformations of the academy and, as will be discussed later, these transformations may have had major implications in the way in which the professoriate regards its work. 3 Demographic Changgg. Among the demographic changes which have had an impact upon colleges and universities are changes in the ethnic and racial composition of the student body and a shift in the age of the student clientele. Heavy immigration during the 1970’s has produced large and rapidly growing minorities of Asians and Latin Americans. A declining birth rate among the white population compared to that of minority populations translates into a larger proportion Of these minorities in the college-bound population by 1994 (Keller, 1983, p. 13). Social legislation enacted by the federal government during the 1960’s has resulted in greater efforts to provide a college level education to racial and ethnic minorities and thus, has contributed to the ethnic and racial diversity of the college population. In addition to changes in the ethnic and racial backgrounds of students, a major shift in the age of the student population has been taking place. In 1979, the National Center for Education Statistics estimated that 36 percent of all the students enrolled in American colleges and universities were 25 years of age or older (Keller, 1983, p. 14). Current predictions are that by 1987, adults age 25 or older will constitute 45 percent of the college population and that this number will increase to 50 percent by 1992 4 (Hawes, 1985). For a variety of reasons deriving from economic pressures and career needs, an increasing number of people are attending college part-time, spreading their college career over a number of years, or re-entering college after several years in the work force. The result is that the traditional role of the faculty as teachers of post-adolescent youth is being transformed into that of educators of people of all ages after puberty. Economic Changg_. Economic factors have also played a prominent role in changing the environment in which faculty work. Declining enrollments and shrinking monies for higher education have radically transformed the "golden age" of expansionism in higher education. As costs in higher education spiraled upward in the mid-1970’s, faculty salaries eroded (Keller, 1983, p. 23). Schuster and Bowen (1985) reported that after adjusting for inflation, the decline in real earnings between 1970 and 1983 amounted to 20 percent. In addition, the forces of the marketplace have polarized salaries; thus, according to Schuster and Bowen (1985), the new assistant professor of management can be hired at $34,000 while the long-tenured professor of philosophy is earning $28,000. While the early 1970’s saw the two-tier faculty salary scale as prevalent in the larger research universities O (Finkelstein, 1984, p. 59), evidence now exists which indicates that the differential salary structure is well in place in the four-year institutions as well (Schuster & Bowen, 1985). Technological Changgg. Lastly, the rapid growth Of electronic technology during the past two decades is an almost shattering development. The computer is transforming everything on the campus from instruction to support services. It is the first major transformation in the transmission and storage of ideas since the invention of the printing press. The impact of this electronic technology has already demanded changes in the instructional process as well as in the content Of various academic programs, in particular, in programs in the natural and the social sciences. Faculty are being forced to become computer literate, to change the ways in which they store and retrieve information, to deal with increasingly larger amounts of information made possible by the computer, and even to change the way in which research is conceptualized and carried out. The Problem Implications for Faculty While the influences outlined briefly above do not constitute an exhaustive explanation of all the changes 6 taking place at present in higher education, they do underscore some of the major elements in its transformation. In light of these changes, it is apprOpriate to look at some of their implications for faculty in higher education and, in particular, for those teaching in liberal arts colleges in order to understand the nature of the job and job satisfaction. Faculty Identified. The first major area of implications has to do with who the faculty of the 1980’s are. Never a homogeneous group, the faculty of the 1980’s has become an ever more diverse collection of specialists and sub-specialists with new disciplines and subject matters represented (Bowen & Schuster, 1986, p. 146). Reduced mobility, brought about by a policy of retrenchment since the mid—1970’s, has produced an older faculty. Ladd and Lipset (1976a) pointed out that higher education will be dominated for decades by faculty educated in the late 1960’s and the early 1970’s. Since institutions will have a relatively young "senior faculty,’ the rate of entrance of young, junior faculty members will be very low for the next two decades. Cartter predicted that by 1990, the median age of the faculty will be 48. According to one estimate (Three Thousand Futures, 1980, p. 26), faculty over 55 years of age could constitute 52 7 percent of the total faculty population by the year 2000. Indeed, many faculty members can look forward to a thirty-year career in the same institution. In addition, the "local" faculty member (Showalter, 1978), the one whose loyalties and identification resided with the institution, has given way to the "cosmopolitan" or the faculty member whose institutional loyalties are weak and who identifies with a body of professionals committed to a particular discipline. Thus, current faculty can be characterized as more highly-fragmented aging professionals with fewer institutional loyalties than the traditional "parochial" faculty (Bowen & Schuster, 1986, p. 146). Faculty Environment. Major changes have taken place in the faculty’s environment during the past decade. A strong buyer’s market has permitted even four-year institutions to upgrade the importance of scholarly productivity as a criterion for academic personnel decisions. Thus, campus reward systems have changed as effective teaching, long the dominant criterion by which faculty were hired, evaluated, and promoted, was undercut in favor of an emphasis on research (Schuster & Bowen, 1985). Faculty Roles. Historical disciplinary differences have been accentuated and compounded by 8 further differences. The "surge to research" reported by Schuster and Bowen (1985) resulting from the market conditions which permitted even four-year institutions to hire the most talented and best-trained faculty corps in the history of the profession, has now resulted in an insidious and demoralizing segmentation by seniority of faculty. Anxiety-ridden junior faculty doggedly research their way toward tenure. Mid-career faculty regard themselves as being "stuck" (Kanter, 1979), as they contemplate the low ceiling for advancement and the reduced mobility which characterize academic career paths. Senior faculty perceive that they have been devalued and abandoned by institutions that once valued their services and expertise. Both Ladd and Lipset (1976d) and Schuster and Bowen (1985) underscore the tendency toward greater competition among various segments of the faculty. Thus, it may be said that the professional life of the majority Of the faculty is dominated by role stress, perceived inequities, and role conflict arising from the myriad of pressures of the academic environment. Facultngorking Conditiong. In addition to the above elements, there is increasing evidence that environmental elements once considered to be unimportant to college professors have assumed greater importance. Earlier studies of faculty indicated that 9 their satisfactions derived from intrinsic factors relating to the work itself and that they were not dependent on extrinsic factors relating to the work environment (Bess, 1981). As the emphasis on research increased in all disciplines and as the nature of scientific research demanded ever more costly equipment, faculty dependence on their working conditions and support systems grew. The current importance of these and similar items seems to be relatively high. Schuster and Bowen (1985) point out that "...deterioration in the faculty’s working conditions is plainly evident, from diminishing clerical support to increasingly obsolete instrumentation, from negligible travel budgets to poorly prepared students." Current Levels of Satisfaction The above elements raise questions concerning the current levels of satisfaction among faculty in higher education. Many indications of a lessening Of satisfaction already exist. Although Ladd and Lipset (1976b) reported that the majority of the faculty in the United States characterized themselves as a teaching faculty and that they were relatively satisfied with their choice of career, these findings must be interpreted with some caution. Results of that same survey indicated that more than 70 percent would 10 support a unionization of the faculty at their institution. A large majority of these same faculty perceived that the status of the profession had declined during the preceding decade. It is reasonable to assume that these responses would indicate an uneasiness concerning their status. Kanter (1979) also advises caution in interpreting high satisfaction ratings as revealed through surveys, but for a different reason. She notes that in general most people will report a relatively high degree of satisfaction with their jobs when surveyed, but when asked how satisfied the average person is in that job, satisfaction rates drop considerably. She states that most people are unwilling or unlikely to admit on surveys that they themselves may have made a bad choice or are doing something that they don’t find satisfying, but they are willing to guess that everybody else in their position is dissatisfied. Willie and Stecklein (1982), in their longitudinal studies of Minnesota teachers, report a decline in positive attitudes which took place between 1968 and 1980 among faculty at four-year institutions. Faculty at these institutions reporting that they were "very satisfied" dropped from 46.7 percent in 1968 to 32.5 percent in 1980. 11 More recently, evidence of growing dissatisfaction seems to exist among those surveyed in the recent Carnegie Commission study ("The Faculty", 1985). Results indicate that nearly 40 percent of the faculty say that they may leave the profession within the next five years (Jacobson, 1985). At four-year institutions, this figure climbs to 46 percent. It seems important, in light of developments in higher education during the past twelve years, to take a look at the state of job satisfaction among college faculty in greater detail. Liberal Arts Colleges It would seem to be especially important to assess how faculty at small liberal arts colleges view their jobs. Willie and Stecklein (1982) caution that while some studies provide a national dimension, local and regional differences are Often blurred or eradicated. They note that results Of their studies of Minnesota teachers exhibit striking differences among institutions and suggest that smaller groupings of faculty be studied. During the next decade, the private liberal arts colleges may be among those institutions which will have the greatest difficulty in dealing with the conflicting pressures produced by current and developing trends. Maintaining institutional 12 excellence will be a difficult task. As was indicated earlier, expansionism and a buyer’s market have enabled liberal arts colleges to acquire the most highly- qualified and the best-trained faculty ever. It is clear from the literature that this liberal arts college faculty is an increasingly heterogeneous one; these faculty divide themselves along several different lines (Ladd & Lipset, 1975; Ladd & Lipset, 1976d; Smart, 1978; Bowen & Schuster, p. 52). Differing values distinguish faculty on dimensions of research, disciplinary specialty, commitment to teaching and the institution as well as a number of political and ideological perspectives arising from age, gender, rank, and discipline, as revealed in the Ladd and Lipset (1975) survey of the American professoriate. Liberal arts colleges will be confronted with stiff competition in retaining the highly trained members of the professoriate (Bowen & Schuster, 1986, p. 185). While large multitudes of faculty members have not yet abandoned the profession, the declines in satisfaction and the low morale indicated earlier are trends not to be ignored. Retention of established, highly—qualified faculty members will mandate knowledge of their values and what they find satisfying in their professional life. 13 Of greater concern, according to Bowen and Schuster (1986, pp. 201-230), is the dwindling pool of qualified young people contemplating academic careers. Although opinions differ as to the extent of future shortages, it is clear that this pool of highly- qualified people is engaging in a greater variety Of professional, but non-academic activities, as business and industry compete for their services. Thus, the liberal arts institution will find it both imperative and increasingly difficult to attract new recruits who will identify with and contribute to the excellence of the institution unless consideration is given to the values and satisfactions of its faculty. Academic Disciplines The notion of a single academic profession is one that is rejected by most researchers. Rather, it is acknowledged that higher education faculty represent a conglomerate of many types of careers. In an attempt to discover classifications which would account for social behavior in the field of higher education, Light, Jr. (1974) asserts that we have, theoretically, at least, one academic profession for each discipline. "Each discipline has its own history, its own intellectual style, different preferences for articles and books, and different career lines which shift as segments of the profession alter" (Light, Jr., 1974). The disciplinary 14 departments of the modern university, according to Anderson (1976, pp. 3-5), represent both a method and a body of knowledge. There is evidence to suggest that all academic institutions recognize systematic differences in 'Orientation among their faculty members--defined, at the very least, along the lines of disciplinary affiliation (Finkelstein, 1984, p. 95). Ladd and Lipset (19760, pp. 266-267) suggested that disciplinary differences which emerged in their studies were related to an underlying selective recruitment process of personality types into disciplines that have prevailing orthodoxies, biases, and definitions of the "right way" to think and act. Once within a discipline, faculty become subject to powerful professional socialization forces. They also noted that the ideological bent of a discipline subculture is not a casual phenomenon; there is exceptional predictability of divisions within the professoriate. Biglan (1973) established empirically derived dimensions for differentiation among disciplines. Results indicated that disciplines tend to locate themselves on three different continua including the discipline’s degree of paradigm development, concern of the discipline with application to practical problems and the discipline’s focus on organic objects of study. It should be noted that Biglan’s study did not include 15 departments or disciplines associated with the visual or performing arts. In a nationwide study of academic departments, Smart and Elton (1975) determined that goal orientations of departments provided support for Biglan’s conceptual framework. Smart and McLaughlin (1978), in a study of reward structures of a larger university, demonstrated that the three dimensions underlying the Biglan model serve to explain differences in the reward system of the university. Lodahl and Gordon (1972) found statistically significant differences between faculty in the social sciences and the natural sciences based upon the degree of paradigm development using Kuhn’s theoretical framework. In another effort to explain differences among university departments, Morstain and Smart (1976) examined the educational orientations and values of faculty at an eastern university. They applied Holland’s personality classification and vocational choice model and found empirical support for personality differences among disciplines. Although studies may vary in the range of the disciplines they encompass and in their theoretical framework, results indicate clearly that faculty differ along disciplinary lines in all types of institutions. 16 Ladd and Lipset in a national study of college and university faculty (1976, pp. 98-101), reported differences in role preferences, approach to their disciplines, preferences for research versus teaching, and political attitudes based upon disciplinary differences. Kelly and Hart (1971), in a study conducted at a small state university, also found that the academic discipline is related to faculty members’ attitudes regarding their roles. Humanities faculty were more concerned with character development in students than social and natural sciences faculty who viewed the research role as more important. These findings are supported by McCabe (1980) who found that faculty attitudes concerning evaluation criteria also differ according to disciplines. In an evaluation of eleven previous studies of university faculty, it was found that natural and physical scientists perceive and prefer grant success to be more influential in the evaluation process than do other faculty. Faculty in the humanities prefer that teaching be the more influential criterion. The evidence would thus suggest that many of the conflicting results of studies measuring attitudes of college and university faculty may be due to disciplinary differences. These differences are far from being 17 explained by the knowledge currently available. Disciplinary affiliation may serve as a source of explanation for the inconclusive nature of the results of many studies. Purpose of the Study The purpose Of this study is to assess the current levels of job facet importance and job facet satisfaction among faculty in several private liberal arts colleges in the Midwest. The theoretical framework for the consideration of job satisfaction is that of value theory. Value theory requires consideration of job satisfaction as a function of what individuals value or find important in their work. The operational definition and measurement derive from job facets theory, in essence a group of conceptualizations of job satisfaction, whose proponents assert that the phenomenon of job satisfaction must be measured in terms of the unique and essentially dissimilar aspects of the job. The job facets and their relative importance will be measured as a function of four academic disciplines--fine arts, humanities, natural sciences, and social sciences--which will constitute an independent variable. The disciplinary differences for each of the job facet measures (importance and satisfaction) will be discussed. In addition, general affect (a measure of overall satisfaction and mood), intended tenure (intent 18 to remain at the institution). involvement in the college, and perceived work overload will be measured and discussed. Lastly, differences in importance ratings and satisfaction measures among the job facets will be analyzed and discussed. The results of the study will provide information concerning job facets satisfaction and their importance or value differences by academic disciplines. This information will be useful to the administrators of private liberal arts colleges in assessing and promoting job satisfaction among college faculty and in fostering needed development of faculty members. Definitions of Research Termg 1. Job satisfaction: a positive emotional state resulting from the appraisal of one’s job or job experiences 2. Job facet: one of a number of job dimensions that defines a job in terms of a complex set of tasks, roles, responsibilities, and interactions a. Administration: a job facet that describes the faculty member’s relationship to the college administrators concerning resources, honesty, fairness in 19 promotions, respect, information sharing Chair: a job facet that describes the faculty member’s relationship to the department chairperson concerning job support, fairness, and information sharing Colleagues: a job facet describing helpfulness and friendliness of department colleagues Facilities: a job facet describing safety of the physical work place and its effectiveness in supporting teaching and research Pay: a job facet describing fairness and adequacy of salary Promotions: a job facet describing clarity of promotion criteria and fairness of promotions Work itself: a job facet describing significance and interest of work and the opportunity for growth and use of abilities Work role clarity: a job facet describing clarity of role 20 expectations of others and feedback about job performance 3. Value/Importance: a modifier of job facets which quantifies a job facet in terms of an individual's value hierarchy, an acquired sense of worth determining what individuals seek to gain or consider beneficial 4. Job affect factors: job dimensions which describe global emotional responses to the job a. Positive job feelings: general good feelings about the job and the job mood b. Intent to remain: thoughts of changing jobs and checking employment notices c. Non-involvement: negative concepts measuring feelings of lack of involvement in the job on a day-to-day basis d. Overload: the perceived degree of work overload 5. Discipline: 21 e. Will be here in 2 years: intent to be at institution in two years f. Will be here in 5 years: intent to be at institution in five years a separate group of academic departments within a college structure possessing shared problems, techniques Of inquiry and research methodology a. Fine arts discipline (FA): an academic division including the departments Of art, music, and theatre b. Humanities discipline (HH): an academic division including the departments of English, foreign languages, history, philosophy, religion and political science 0. Natural science discipline (NS): an academic division including the departments Of biology, chemistry, mathematics, and physics d. Social science discipline (SS): an academic division including the departments of economics and 22 business administration, psychology, sociology (and anthropology) Research Desigg The two major independent variables in this study are disciplinary division and job facets. The independent variable of discipline has four levels which are designated as follows: FA. Fine arts HH. Humanities SS. Social sciences NS. Natural sciences The job facets independent variable has eight levels, designated by number as follows: 1. Work itself 2. Work role clarity 3. Chair 4. Administration 5. Pay 6. Promotion 7. Facilities 8. Colleagues The three major categories of dependent variables are importance, satisfaction, and affect factors. Importance ratings will range from 0 (No Importance) to 4 (Extremely Important) and will be obtained for each job facet. 23 Satisfaction will be measured in three different ways. The job facet satisfaction score will range from -8 (Dissatisfaction) to +8 (Satisfaction) because it is the product of the unweighted satisfaction rating, ranging from -2 (Very Dissatisfied) to +2 (Very Satisfied), multiplied by the importance rating. The second measure of satisfaction will consist of a one-item facet satisfaction rating ranging from -2 (Very Dissatisfied) to +2 (Very Satisfied). The third measure of satisfaction will be a one-item measure of overall satisfaction, using the same —2 to +2 scale. The third category of dependent variables consists of six affect factors, which include the following: a. Positive job feelings b. Non-involvement in the institution 0. Overload d. Intended tenure at the institution e. Intent to remain for two years f. Intent to remain for five years Multivariate and univariate analyses of variance will be used to test disciplinary differences for all the dependent variables in each of the three categories. Duncan’s Multiple Range Test will be used to determine which disciplines differ from one another. The second independent variable of job facets has eight levels and differences among them on importance 24 ratings and satisfaction scores will be examined. If disciplinary differences are found on importance and satisfaction scores, facet differences will be tested for each discipline. If disciplinary differences on these two dependent measures are not found to be significant, then facet differences will be examined for the faculty as a whole. Research Hypotheses The first set of hypotheses will test disciplinary differences for the three dependent variable categories of importance, satisfaction and affect factors. The resulting hypotheses, stated in their null form, are as follows: 1. No significant difference exists in importance of job facets among four academic disciplines. 2. No significant difference exists in job facet satisfaction among four academic disciplines. 3. NO significant difference exists in one-item facet satisfaction among four academic disciplines. 4. No significant difference exists in overall satisfaction among four academic disciplines. 5. No significant difference exists in affect factor ratings among four academic disciplines. Multivariate and univariate analyses will test the null hypotheses of no disciplinary differences (Ho: FA = HH : SS = NS). Duncan’s Multiple Range Test will examine 25 which of the individual disciplinary differences are significant. The second set Of hypotheses will examine facet differences for importance, facet satisfaction scores, and one-item facet satisfaction ratings. These hypotheses will be tested for each discipline. However, if disciplinary differences are not found fOr these three variables, they will be tested for all faculty. The resulting hypotheses, stated in their null form, are as follows: 1. No significant difference exists in the importance attached by faculty to the eight job facets. 2. NO significant difference exists in job facet satisfaction attached by faculty to the eight job facets. 3. NO significant difference exists in one-item facet satisfaction attached by faculty to the eight job facets. Analysis of variance will test the null hypotheses of no facet differences (Ho: JFl = JF2 = JF3 = JF4 = JF5 = JF6 = JF7 = JF8), where JF indicates job facet. Duncan’s Multiple Range Test will examine which of the individual facets are significantly different from one another. Delimitations of the Study This study is delimited to a population of small, private baccalaureate-granting colleges in the Midwest. 26 Faculty sampled will be grouped into four disciplines—- fine arts (art, music, and theatre); humanities (English, foreign languages, history, philosophy, political science, and religion); natural sciences (biology, chemistry, mathematics, and physics); and social sciences (economics and business administration, physical education, psychology, and sociology). Due to the size and nature of the institutions studied, their structure, and their geographical locations, caution will need to be exercised in generalizing the results to faculty in different departments or institutions. Limitationg of the Study The instrument is new and while convergent and discriminant validities of the job facets have been determined, the reliability of the instrument has not been established. Definition of the job has been limited to the eight facets which the questionnaire measures. The only published study using the instrument sampled faculty from a large major eastern university and a community college and it has not been tested among liberal arts college faculty. While it is generally agreed that academic disciplines are the basic organizational units according to which colleges group departments along disciplinary lines, there is the limitation Of non-generalizability to those colleges which are not so structured. In 27 addition, some colleges do not group departments into administrative divisions which would correspond to the groupings defined in this study. Although care has been taken to protect the anonymity of the respondents and to provide motivation for taking the questionnaire, there is the limitation that rests on the truthfulness of the respondents. Summary Investigations into the area Of job satisfaction among faculty in institutions of higher education are relatively few in number compared to similar inquiries in business and industry. Recent changes in the environment of higher education, including demographic, economic, and technological changes, have had major impact on faculty. Faculty, as a group, are aging; there is increased fragmentation of the faculty by discipline, age, rank, specialty, and affiliation. Economic constraints have created an environment characterized by reduced mobility, low advancement opportunities and role stress. Evidence suggests that support systems and equipment have deteriorated as well. Recent evidence indicates that current levels of satisfaction are declining among college and university faculty. The impact of changes in the faculty’s environment and levels of satisfaction have not been 28 adequately measured, however, among faculty in liberal arts colleges. Thus, the purpose of this study is to assess the level of satisfaction and the importance attached to facets of the job among faculty in eleven liberal arts colleges in the Midwest. Satisfaction will be measured across four disciplinary divisions. Differences in job facet satisfaction and importance will be statistically analyzed across the four disciplinary divisions. CHAPTER II REVIEW OF RELATED LITERATURE Introduction Job satisfaction, as a major construct, has been the subject of a plethora of studies during the past few decades. These studies have resulted in two major types of conceptual models of job satisfaction--content theories and process theories. Among the major categories of process theories are those based on a discrepancy model and those included among needs or values fulfillment models. In this chapter, the relationship of these theories to a variety of job facet measurements and operational definitions will be considered. Importance and value ratings will be shown to be uniquely important for this study. Job satisfaction studies among faculty in higher education will be reviewed in relation to eight different job facet categories. Job Satisfaction Job satisfaction, in its most general terms, refers to the affective responses which one has about one’s work. Locke (1983, p. 1300) defines it as "a pleasurable or positive emotional state resulting from the appraisal Of one’s job or job experiences." Satisfaction, according to this definition, is feeling or affect 29 30 arising out of some cognitive evaluation or conscious assessment of the different aspects of one’s job (Bess, 1981). Bess also notes that for some researchers, satisfaction does not demand that the individual be overtly aware of his or her feelings. Current proliferation of theories has led to a commensurate proliferation of Operational definitions. Thus, job satisfaction is redefined as whatever it is that one’s measure of it measures. Wanous and Lawler (1972) conclude that there are probably several types of feelings that people have which can be called satisfaction or which influence their feelings of satisfaction about their job. Conceptual Models Of Job Satisfaction Content and Process Theories Several researchers have identified two major categories of current theories concerning job satisfaction (Campbell, Dunnette, Lawler, & Weick, 1970; Gruneberg, 1979). The first of these categories, content theories, attempts to specify the particular needs which must be satisfied or the values which must be attained in order for an individual to be satisfied with her or his job (Locke, 1983, pp. 1307-1319). Process theories, the second category, attempt to explain the process by which variables such as expectations, needs, and values 31 interact with characteristics of the job to produce job satisfaction (Gruneberg, 1979, pp. 9, 19). The distinction between content and process theories is somewhat ambiguous in relation to the terminology used. In simplified fashion, however, the difference may be conceptualized as a "static" model versus an "organic" process. The content theories generally preSUppose a "static" view of humans as composed of a predetermined set of needs. Job satisfaction is measured, thus, as the degree to which these needs are met by the job situation. The major content theories include Maslow’s Need Hierarchy Theory (Maslow, 1954, pp. 80-117) and Herzberg’s Two—Factor Theory of job motivation (Herzberg, Mausner, & Snyderman, 1959, pp. 79-81). Process Theory 1: Discrepancy Theories. Process theories, on the other hand, represent a variety of ways of looking at individual variables or groups of variables which interact with job characteristics or situations in an "organic" or changing fashion in order to arrive at a statement as to what produces job satisfaction. The first category Of process theories, according to Gruneberg (1979, pp. 19-24), includes those theories which postulate that job satisfaction is determined by the extent of the discrepancy which exists between what the job Offers and what the individual expects. In this category, two types Of theories are noted: expectations 32 and equity theory and reference group theory. The central notion of expectations and equity theories is that individuals have a concept of what constitutes just rewards for their efforts. Expectations concerning just rewards derive from comparison Of individual efforts and rewards with those of others. Only when efforts and rewards are seen as reasonable in terms of the rewards of other people will job satisfaction exist. Perceived discrepancies will lead to job dissatisfaction which will result in restructuring behavior or attitudes. While equity theory appears to account for some aspects of job satisfaction, Locke (1983, p. 1322) points out that the concept of equity is so loose that it allows for enormous variation in individual interpretation in, for example, the nature of the referent group used for comparison. Reference group theories, the second of Gruneberg’s types of expectancy discrepancy theories, arose out of a need to expand the theoretical considerations lacking in equity theories. More precisely, questions arose regarding the basis of comparison in the equity theories and the need to understand whom individuals choose as referents in deciding whether or not they are equitably treated. What constitutes a reference group, how people choose the reference groups to which they will relate, and the reasons for a particular reference group’s expectations are some of the issues raised by reference 33 group theorists (Gruneberg, 1979, pp. 21-22). While Locke has questioned whether expectations based on reference groups and their relationship to what the job actually gives is of relevance to understanding job satisfaction (1983, p. 1303), proponents would argue that expectations may be critical in determining which values and needs the individual may seek to satisfy in the job situation. Process Theory 2: Needs, Values and Expectancy Theories. The second major category of process theories delineated by Gruneberg are those termed needs or value fulfillment theories. This category includes a variety Of similar theories in which the degree of job satisfaction experienced by the individual is dependent upon what the individual values or finds important in a job. Often referred to as expectancy models of job satisfaction, this category of theories is based upon earlier efforts by Vroom (1964) who related satisfaction to motivation. According to Mowday (1982), although there are a number of theoretical variations of these models, they share two basic components. First of all, individuals are assumed to have expectations about outcomes of their behavior and second, they have preferences among these outcomes. All are predicted on the notion that the more an individual values a 34 particular outcome, the greater the positive effect of that outcome on job satisfaction. That is, people will derive greater satisfaction to the extent that their jobs provide the outcomes that they value. Although Gruneberg uses the terms "needs" and "values" synonymously, more recent investigators have attempted to identify and Operationalize them as two separate concepts. For Locke, needs are "Objective requirements of an organism’s survival and well-being...and they exist whether the organism has knowledge of them or not" (1983, p. 1303). Values, on the other hand, are what a person desires, wants, or seeks to attain. People differ in what they value, since values are acquired. It is values which will determine actual choices made and emotional reactions to them. Job Facets Measurements. While some ambiguity of terminology may exist and while some Of the above process theories may overlap, there does exist a major commonality. Proponents of these theories generally reject the notion that there exists some omnibus feeling of job satisfaction. Rather, a job is a complex interrelationship Of tasks, roles, responsibilities, interactions, incentives and rewards (Locke, 1983, p. 1301). Thus, in these more recent theories, the global concept of satisfaction is broken down into many dimensions or facets (Bess, 1981) in order to analyze the 35 job in terms Of its constituent elements. Often termed "job facets" theory, it is more appropriately a collection of different conceptualizations of job satisfaction and operational definitions for assessing the interrelationship among the various aspects of the job and the person who performs it. Thus, researchers generally assess the level of job satisfaction present by manipulating one or more of three measurements. The first of these measurements is simply an assessment of the level of satisfaction with a particular item or facet which, according to Wanous and Lawler (1972), essentially asks the individual to determine how much of the item is present (Is Now). The second measurement is a discrepancy score which assesses the difference between how much an individual wants or thinks that there should be of an item (Should Be or Would Like) and how much of the item there is in the present job (Is Now), (Should Be — Is Now), or (Would Like - Is Now). The third score consists of an importance or value rating which assesses how much value or importance the individual assigns to a particular item or facet. These three scores have been used to Obtain an assessment of the facets or elements which constitute a job. The simplest models add the various job facet satisfaction ratings to produce a measure of overall 36 satisfaction. Wanous and Lawler (1972), in their empirical test of nine operational definitions, indicate that there is evidence showing a significant positive relationship between the sum of job facet satisfaction (JFS) and an overall measure of job satisfaction (JS) as predicted by the model. facets JS 2 Z (JFS) OI? . facets JS = 2 (Is Now) Proponents of the second group of operational definitions contend that a simple satisfaction rating on a facet obscures the interactive process between the individual and the work environment. Satisfaction, then, is measured as a function of the discrepancy between how much of an item the individual wants or thinks should be in the work environment and how much she or he perceives actually exists. Again, this discrepancy measure is taken for each job aspect; all the discrepancy scores are then summed to produce a measure Of overall job satisfaction. fififlg JS = 2 (Would Like — Is Now) facets JS = 2 (Should Be - Is Now) 37 5mg; JS = 2 (Importance - Is Now) The third category of operational definitions is predicated on the notion that the facets that make up a job are not held to be equally important to the individual. Thus, each job facet satisfaction score is multiplied by an importance or value rating (thereby producing a weighted measure for each facet) and the resulting products are added for the overall satisfaction measurement. A variation of this formula consists in multiplying a discrepancy score for each facet by an importance or value rating in order to obtain each job facet satisfaction rating. facets JS = 2 (Importance x JFS) facets JS 2 2 (Importance x Is Now) Lassie JS = 2 (Importance x (Should Be - Is Now) facets JS = 2 (Importance x (Would Like - Is Now) This proliferation of operational definitions of job satisfaction raises several questions. It is not at all clear whether many of these newer measures are, in fact, measuring the same thing as a simple satisfaction rating. In discrepancy measures, for instance, it is not certain whether "Should Be" and "Would Like" both measure ideal 38 conditions. In a similar vein, the definition of "Is H Now seems not to be dissimilar from a simple facet satisfaction rating. Importance/Value Ratingg Although the arguments for the use of importance weights in scale construction seem plausible, some evidence exists which suggests that a measure of job satisfaction derived from this equation does not yield significantly higher correlations with an external criterion of overall satisfaction than does a simple sum of the job facet ratings alone (Bulls, 1980; Wanous & Lawler, 1972). Locke (1983, p. 1305) suggests that the satisfaction ratings are inherently ‘self-weighted’ by the importance the facets hold for each respondent. The use of separate weights for importance, therefore, can only add redundant information. Caston and Briato (1983) indicate that conclusions as to the redundancy of importance/value ratings to produce weighted measures of job facet satisfaction are premature. They present evidence that the use of a weighting strategy can increase significantly the correlation between a scale of job facet indicators and a criterion of overall job satisfaction. As a final consideration, it should be noted that while weighted facet satisfaction measures may be superfluous in studies of overall satisfaction, studies in which investigators 39 are interested in delineating differences between and among various groups may be enhanced by the use Of importance ratings. The major theoretical considerations outlined above represent one scheme for the conceptualization of the various models. Other writers have characterized the various theories in other fashions. Wanous and Lawler (1972) have divided them into ’subtractive’ and 'multiplicative’ operational definitions. Locke (1983) prefers to categorize the above—named 'process’ theories as ’causal’ models of job satisfaction. Still other authors borrow freely from motivation theory or personality theory and name their models accordingly. Bess (1981) envisages the various theories as a sort of continuum ranging from the non-cognitive, idiographic theories which stress factors internal to the individual to the theories which place more emphasis on cognition and on factors in the organizational environment as determinants of job satisfaction. In summary, it should be noted that all major theories and models have contributed to our knowledge of job satisfaction. Confusion, to the extent that it exists, results from the lack of proof for some of the theories as well as the inconclusive and contradictory nature of many of the findings. These models should be 40 viewed as complementary, not competitive, in nature; each has a role to play until construct validity is achieved. Job Satisfaction in Higher Education Studies of job satisfaction among college and university faculty are, as noted earlier, relatively few in number compared to the plethora of investigations which have been carried out among professionals in other fields. These studies reveal little in the way of major studies of job satisfactiOn of academicians which would correspond to the many efforts to apply the theoretical concepts outlined earlier in studies of job satisfaction pin business and industry. Researchers have, nonetheless, attempted to measure the satisfaction of college and university faculty. As noted earlier, several major national studies have assessed the attitudes of faculty, including their overall satisfaction. These national studies may blur or even eradicate finer distinctions which need to be made at the regional level or at the level of type of institution (Willie & Stecklein, 1982). The overwhelming majority of the remainder of the studies have been carried out in the context of the university or the community college environment. Due to the differing nature of the jobs in these institutions studied, it would be difficult to generalize the results 41 of these studies to faculty of private, four-year liberal arts institutions. In summary, in spite of the difficulties in comparing or equating many of the studies, certain consistencies can be found among the facets which correlate most highly with satisfaction or dissatisfaction. These facets include aspects of the work itself, work role clarity, the administration and chairperson, co-workers, compensation, and working conditions. Factors Relating to the Work Itself In general, there is a considerable body of evidence which suggests that intrinsic factors, those which relate to the work itself, may be the more important determinants of job satisfaction (Finkelstein, 1983, p. 147). Among these factors various studies cite characteristics such as work content, degree of control over the work environment, autonomy, and achievement. Content of their work, sometimes called the work itself, was reported as a chief source of satisfaction by faculty in several studies (Abreu, 1980; Avakian, 1971; Miller, 1986; Onuoha, 1980). Avakian (1971) showed that factors of achievement and work itself related significantly to job satisfaction of faculty members in a survey of college and university faculty. For college instructors surveyed in Wozniak’s 42 (1973) study Of sources of job satisfaction and job dissatisfaction, the strongest sources of satisfaction were achievement, the work itself and responsibility. Achievement as a moderator of job satisfaction was also reported by Abreu (1980) in a study of faculty in Schools of Education in three doctoral-granting universities in Michigan. In Diener’s (1983) study, faculty identified as their chief sources of satisfaction factors associated with the nature of the work itself-—student growth, personal autonomy and development, and the ability and opportunity to work with an arena of ideas. Haun (1975) found the content of the work, achievement, and the possibility of growth to be among the greatest satisfiers in a study of female administrators. Hunter, Ventimiglia and Crow (1980), in a study of university faculty, reported that faculty were more satisfied with their work than with their institution. In an exploratory study of 7,534 teaching faculty in Arts and Science Departments, Cares and Blackburn (1978) found control of the work environment to be the key variable. One of the most consistent and significant findings in their study was that faculty who perceived that they had high control of their environment scored most highly on satisfaction variables. These findings are supported by Haun’s (1975) study of female 43 administrators who also cite job control as an important source of job satisfaction. Work Role Clarity Clarity of work role as Operationalized in various studies as expectations of superordinates, consistency of people’s expectations, and feedback on performance has been shown to be Of major importance among faculty. Araghi (1981), in a study of 300 full-time faculty members in six different colleges of a large university, found that there was a significant positive relationship between task clarity and job satisfaction. He also found a significant negative relationship between role conflict and job satisfaction. Role ambiguity was significantly related negatively with overall satisfaction expressed by higher education administrators in a study reported by Jarrell (1983). Locke, Fitzpatrick and White (1983) found that work role clarity showed the highest first-order correlation Of any variable with overall satisfaction. -Administration and Chairperson Studies in which investigators measured the impact of the administration on faculty satisfaction levels are relatively few. The factors of administration, institutional policy, and interpersonal relations with administrations were significantly related to the job 44 dissatisfaction Of college and university faculty (Avakian, 1971). In a study of community college faculty reported by Cohen (1974), more than two-thirds Of those sampled expressed dissatisfaction with administration and the organization. These findings are supported by Ohuoha (1980) in a study of full-time faculty in physical and occupational therapy programs in eleven Canadian universities. Willie and Stecklein (1982) reported that faculty in Minnesota institutions of higher education found administration to be an important source of dissatisfaction. Infrequently, investigators have reported on the chairperson as a source of job satisfaction among higher education faculty. Results of a study conducted by Feild and Giles (1977) among full-time teaching faculty in a large university suggest that the chairperson serves as a source of moderate satisfaction for faculty. Items measured included the extent of faculty participation in decisions, the manner in which the department head supervises the department, communication between faculty and department head and, support of faculty by department head. Locke, Fitzpatrick and White (1983), in their study of university and community college faculty, reported the chairperson as an important source of satisfaction among faculty in higher education. Hengstler (1980), in a study of faculty in a large 45 university, found that faculty perceptions of their department chairperson’s effectiveness had a positive significant correlation with their satisfaction with their department. Compensation and Rewards Formal rewards in the form of compensation for work efforts have been shown to be Of major importance in many studies of job satisfaction. Earlier studies, such as those reported by Avakian (1971) and Feild and Giles (1977), are inconclusive in their results. Avakian found salary to be significantly related to job dissatisfaction. Feild and Giles, on the other hand, reported that faculty in a large university setting experienced a slight amount of satisfaction with salary. More recent studies have reported a trend toward dissatisfaction with compensation. Hunter et al. (1980) reported that although faculty in their study were relatively satisfied with their teaching, they did not consider their teaching efforts to be formally appreciated. Faculty members in a study by Abreu (1980) expressed job dissatisfaction with the factor of salary. In their survey Of Minnesota faculty in all types of institutions, Willie and Stecklein (1983) found that salary was one of the three greatest sources of dissatisfaction. Pearson and Seiler (1983) also reported that support and compensation were found to be least 46 satisfying in a national study comparing faculty in professional schools and other disciplines. In a study of independent college faculty by Miller (1986). 79% of the faculty surveyed felt that financial rewards in academia were near the "deprived" level when compared with rewards of individuals employed in non-academic jobs. These faculty expressed dissatisfaction with both the opportunities for promotion and their frequency. Facilities and Working Conditions General findings regarding this factor are that facilities and working conditions of faculty are an important source of both satisfaction and dissatisfaction. Willie and Stecklein (1982) found that working conditions were a major source Of satisfaction and dissatisfaction among Minnesota college and university professors. Abreu (1980) reported that university faculty surveyed expressed dissatisfaction with working conditions. Boberg and Blackburn (1983) found faculty from all types of institutions to be dissatisfied with their place of work and quality of work environment. At nine colleges and universities in a southeastern state, faculty surveyed stated clearly that the factors chiefly responsible for dissatisfaction with their work were associated with job conditions, including equipment and facilities (Diener, 1984). 47 Co-Workers Results of several studies carried out during the last decade and a half underscore the importance Of the quality and congeniality of colleagues in the measurement of job satisfaction. Avakian (1971) reported that interpersonal relations with colleagues and subordinates showed a trend in the direction of job dissatisfaction. Later studies also reported interpersonal relationships with colleagues in the work environment as a major source of dissatisfaction (Abreu, 1980; Cohen, 1974; Onuoha, 1980). Feild and Giles (1977) found a satisfaction rating of 5.01 (on a 6.0 satisfaction scale) with congeniality of colleagues; they also reported a high satisfaction rating of competency of co-workers. Faculty from community colleges, liberal arts colleges and universities surveyed by Boberg and Blackburn (1983) indicated that there was a strong concern for quality in their colleagues. In Miller’s (1986) study, faculty in independent colleges reported general satisfaction with their co—workers. These findings suggest that faculty view their peers as an important factor in job satisfaction. Summary The conceptual models which have seemed to show the most promise in the definition and assessment of job satisfaction are those labeled process theories. These 48 models include both discrepancy models and need or values fulfillment models in which the complexity of tasks, roles, responsibilities, motivations, and rewards of the job are examined. The resulting operational definitions of job satisfaction have generally been used to obtain an overall assessment of job satisfaction. The lack of agreement among results of various studies may be due to deficiencies in definitions in which the importance of various job aspects is not examined. For purposes of this study, importance or value ratings were determined to be the uniquely appropriate manner in which to assess differences among job facets across divisions. A review of the job satisfaction literature among faculty in colleges and universities revealed that the major job facets which faculty found important were the work itself, work role clarity, the administration and chairperson, co-workers, compensation, and working conditions. Results of studies carried out during approximately the last decade suggest that factors external to the work itself are assuming greater importance as a source Of job satisfaction and dissatisfaction. Reports of several studies indicate declining overall satisfaction among faculty on a national basis. CHAPTER III RESEARCH METHODOLOGY Introduction In this study, job facet satisfaction and job facet importance were examined across four disciplinary divisions of faculty at eleven private liberal arts colleges. In addition to job facets, the Faculty Job Values and Satisfaction Survey included several measures of faculty’s affective responses to their work. Detailed comparisons were made on differences across the four disciplinary divisions. Population The target population for this study consisted of approximately 650 faculty from eleven liberal arts colleges in the Midwest. The eleven colleges represent the diversity typical of the range of traditional liberal arts colleges in the Midwest. Although the majority were sectarian in origin, several were independent from their beginnings. Geographically isolated and located in towns of modest size, these colleges create and maintain their own intellectual communities, drawing from both their own cultural matrix and the professional associations of their faculty (Elkin, 1982). The size of their respective student populations ranges from approximately 800 full-time students to about 2,600 full-time students. 49 50 The eleven colleges are all classified as General Baccalaureate Institutions by the National Center for Education Statistics. These institutions are characterized by their primary emphasis on general undergraduate, baccalaureate-level education. They are not significantly engaged in postbaccalaureate education. These colleges possess further commonalities, according to Elkin (1982). Common goals and interests have led them to form a consortium with a consortial governing body, subscription to common general principles, and active cooperative programs. The colleges are collectively committed to a continued liberal arts focus, with a few pre—professional programs interspersed among them in fields such as nursing. The high caliber of their student populations is evidenced by the large percentage of their students with SAT verbal and math scores of 600 or higher. All the colleges possess a Phi Beta Kappa chapter. The number of faculty members at the colleges varies from approximately 66 at the smallest institution to approximately 225 at the largest. From 77 percent to 95 percent of the faculty at all the colleges hold Ph.D. degrees. The faculty from these institutions who comprised the population for this study were defined as those considered full-time teaching faculty by their 51 institution. Part-time, visiting, adjunct, emeriti faculty, and faculty on leave or sabbatical during the time period of the survey were omitted. Chairpersons. deans and any others whose identification was administrative were excluded from this population. Although chairpersons in small liberal arts colleges often carry administrative duties as only a portion of their total responsibilities, it was considered that their primary identification was with their administrative position. Faculty were further defined as those who had been at their institution since August, 1984. Fewer than two years of full-time service would not provide the contextual framework within which to assess institutional impact. Lastly, only faculty of departments which were found to be common among the eleven colleges were considered as belonging to the population. For example, faculty from departments of geography, nursing or engineering will not be considered in order to permit comparative measures to be taken. Sample The general offices of the consortium provided a list of faculty who had retired, were on sabbatical or academic leave for the period of the survey, or who were .no longer employed at the institution. Updated lists had 52 been supplied by all but two of the consortium members. Comparison with current college catalogs permitted further verification of eligible faculty. A current master list of eligible faculty was then prepared. Once the population was defined for each institution, departments common to the eleven colleges were grouped into one of four disciplinary divisions-- fine arts, humanities, social sciences or natural sciences. A grid was established which listed the total number of qualified faculty in each department and disciplinary division of each institution. A 40% sample was randomly drawn by department. The resulting sample thereby randomly represented each department, disciplinary division, and institution. It should be noted that one institution included a large conservatory of music. Because this department constituted a professional school and not an academic department equivalent to other departments of music at the other liberal arts colleges, it was not included in the sample. Techniques for Measuring Job Satisfaction A review of studies of job satisfaction among faculty in institutions of higher education revealed that many ways of measuring job satisfaction have been employed. The major methods for assessing job 53 satisfaction include the interview technique and a variety of rating scales. Interview Several studies have relied upon interviews as a means of assessing levels of job satisfaction. While interviews have the advantage of permitting greater expansion and elucidation of responses (Locke, 1983, p. 1336), the problems of interviewer subjectivity and enormous time requirements are encountered. Critical Incident Technique. A major method for gathering data about job satisfaction is the "critical incident" technique described by Flanagan (1954), which was made most visible by Herzberg (Herzberg et al., 1959). Investigators ask employees to recall, through patterned interviews, times when they felt exceptionally good or exceptionally bad about their jobs. Despite continuing controversy over its validity (Bockman, 1971; House & Wigdor, 1967; Onuoha, 1980; Pearson & Seiler, 1983), the method is still used by researchers. Its particular usefulness lies in its capacity to elicit from respondents qualitative dimensions of both satisfaction and dissatisfaction which may not have been previously identified (Bess, 1981). The critical incident technique and the interview are useful measurement strategies when an acceptable or 54 useful operational definition of job satisfaction has not been achieved. However, as Locke (1983, p. 1302) has pointed out, common job dimensions have been found by investigators to include work, pay, promotions, recognition, benefits, working conditions, supervision, co-workers, and management. While the focus of a particular study may include only one or several of the above dimensions, there seems to be general agreement as to the factors which load on job satisfaction. Rating Scales Rating scales have been popular but diverse ways of measuring job satisfaction. The Job Descriptive Index (JDI) (Smith, Kendall, & Hulin, 1969) has been widely used (Bulls, 1980; Miller, 1986; Morgan, 1984; Neumann, 1978). The JDI includes five scales pertaining to work, pay, promotions, people (co-workers), and supervision. While extensive research has been carried out on it, the JDI possesses several characteristics which render it inappropriate for use in this study. The verbal level of the items is quite low, which makes it unsuitable for a target population composed of college professors (Robinson, Athanasiou & Head, 1969). The instrument does not include items specific to the environment of higher education. Lastly, as Robinson et al. (1969) have pointed out, the five subscales do not appear to be statistically independent, which may mean that the JDI is 55 tapping a general job satisfaction syndrome rather than distinctive job facets, the subject of this study. Porter’s Need Fulfillment Questionnaire for Management (Porter, 1962), purports to measure the magnitude, importance and degree of need satisfaction Of managers in relation to Maslow’s hierarchy of needs. Its main usefulness is in studies of motivation and need satisfaction, rather than job facet satisfaction. The Minnesota Satisfaction Questionnaire (MSQ), developed by Weiss and Dawis (1967) for the Minnesota Studies in Vocational Rehabilitation, is primarily a measure of work adjustment. Although some investigators Of job satisfaction among faculty in higher education have employed the MSQ (e.g. Grahn, 1981; Jarrell, 1983; Ramsden, 1983), several problems were noted with its use. While satisfaction ratings are Obtained for 100 items, overall job satisfaction is merely a sum of the item ratings (Buros, 1978, p. 1051). The MSQ does not weight the items according to importance or value, nor does it give a satisfaction rating for individual categories. Thus, it would not be useful in light of the theoretical framework of this study. Of equal importance is the fact that the MSQ is interpreted in light of normative data and it has not yet been normed for college and university professors. 56 Numerous investigators have devised their own rating scales for measuring job satisfaction in specific professional groups or among faculty in higher education (Brawer, 1979; Friedlander, 1978). While many of them have used parts of previously-published scales, they have not obtained reliability and validity measures for the instruments. Many of these scales, moreover, are not based on any theoretical framework. Thus, for the purpose of obtaining job facet satisfaction measures for this study, all the above measures were found to be inappropriate. Locke, Fitzpatrick and White Questionnaire The questionnaire found to be best suited for this study was researched for use in higher education environments by Locke, Fitzpatrick, and White (1983). Items in the original instrument, when factor analyzed, produced eight job facets. The content areas of these job facets were analogous to those measured by other instruments and included work achievement, work role clarity, chairperson, administration, pay, promotions, facilities and co-workers. The mean importance rating Of the items on every job aspect factor was above 4.0 on a 5.0 scale, which would indicate that all the items contained in the questionnaire were considered to be important by faculty surveyed. 57 The scale Obtained two ratings for the items in each job facet-~an importance rating and a satisfaction rating. In addition, overall job satisfaction items (described as criterion factors) formed a second part of the instrument and were taken from the scale developed by Skaggs and Lissitz (cited in Locke et al., 1983). The questionnaire included a one-item satisfaction rating for each of the seven specific job aspects covered in the questionnaire. Convergent and discriminant validities of these seven predictor factors showed that each job factor was highly correlated with its corresponding one—item satisfaction rating and was far more highly correlated with its factor than with any other. It was not anticipated that work role clarity would emerge as a separate factor; hence, there was no one-item satisfaction rating included for it. However, validity measures indicated that it was about equally correlated with all seven of the one-item ratings (Locke et a1, 1983). Convergent and discriminant validity of the job facets have been determined, as has concurrent validity (.96 correlation between the mean score for all items in each job facet and the one-item overall facet satisfaction score). No test-retest reliability studies have been done on the instrument. 58 Faculty Job Values and Satisfaction Survey For the present investigation, the instrument used in the 1983 study outlined above was modified according to Locke’s recommendations (personal communication, September, 1985) to eliminate negatively-phrased duplicates of certain items. In addition, a one-item satisfaction rating for work role clarity and a one—item measurement of overload were added. The only other modifications included format modifications, which, it was hoped, would enhance the clarity, readability, ease of response, and scoring of the scale. The resulting questionnaire used in this survey (Appendix A), entitled Faculty Job Values and Satisfaction Survey, consisted of three parts. The first section consisted of demographic information including faculty member’s department, disciplinary division, academic rank, age, sex, number Of years at institution, and present contract salary. The second part of the questionnaire contained a list of descriptive items which related to faculty work. These items were grouped together according to job facet but not labeled. Solomon & Kopelman (1984) found that grouping items that comprise scales produce better scale reliability than items which are randomly distributed in a questionnaire. They also found that questions which 59 are grouped but not labeled according to category produced a higher mean internal consistency rating. Subjects were asked to give two responses for each item. The first of these responses was a value rating in which respondents indicated how important the item was to them under ideal conditions. The rating scale for the value or importance rating ranged from 0 (Of No Importance) to 4 (Extremely Important). Negative numbers were excluded since they would imply negative importance, a seemingly illogical concept. In addition, Locke et al. (1983) found all questionnaire items to be important to their respondents. The second response consisted of a satisfaction or agreement rating for each item. The bi-polar, five—item Likert scale had values ranging from -2 (Strongly Disagree) to +2 (Strongly Agree). The bi-polar scale enabled the respondent to relate to satisfaction and dissatisfaction on a continuum ranging from negative to positive. A third scale ranging in value from —2 (Very Dissatisfied) to +2 (Very Satisfied) was used for the eight one-item facet satisfaction scores and for the overall global satisfaction measure taken. The third part of the questionnaire consisted of a series of items which measured faculty’s feelings about their work. These items dealt with job mood or general affect, intended tenure, intent to be at their 60 institution in two and in five years, non-involvement, and perception of overload. Since this questionnaire was essentially the same as the instrument used by Locke et al., there was no reason to assume that its validity would be any different from that indicated above. The questionnaire was field-tested among a sample of faculty in a liberal arts institution. These faculty were drawn from the four disciplinary divisions represented in this study. Modifications in format were made to increase clarity and readability; no other problems surfaced. Procedure; General approval for the project was obtained from the consortium Deans’ Council which is composed of the chief academic officers of all the member colleges. Subjects in the randomly drawn sample were notified of their selection for inclusion in the study approximately two weeks prior to the mailing of the surveys. Linsky (1975) reviewed several studies concerned with stimulating mail-questionnaire responses and general agreement existed in nearly all studies reviewed that pre-contact of subjects increased the return rate. Heston (cited in Linsky, 1975) suggested that preliminary letters may be effective in raising response rates because they introduce and "personalize" the researcher, 61 request cooperation, and alert the respondent to the imminent arrival of the questionnaire. Because of the desire to remove the data collection from "administrative contamination", preliminary notice was not sent through the administrative Offices of the colleges, but was mailed directly to the respondents (see Appendix B). Printed questionnaires were mailed with a cover letter (see Appendix B) to members of the sample. The cover letter included an explanation of the study, and a request for cooperation based upon an appeal emphasizing the benefits that the respondent would receive (Champion and Sear 1969). Also included with the questionnaire was a stamped envelope addressed to the researcher as well as a postcard (see Appendix B). Potential respondents were asked to sign and return the card, certifying that they had returned the questionnaire anonymously. Anonymity of respondents was thus assured, while the identity of those who had not returned the questionnaires was preserved for follow—up of non-respondents (Bradt, 1955). Respondents could indicate, in addition, if they wanted to receive a summary Of the results of the survey upon its completion. Summary From approximately 650 faculty in eleven liberal arts colleges in the Midwest, a random sample was drawn so that each disciplinary division of each institution 62 was proportionately represented. The Faculty Job Values and Satisfaction Questionnaire was determined to be the best measure of both job facet satisfaction and importance of job facet items among college faculty. Permission for sampling having been obtained, the questionnaires were mailed directly to members of the sample, as was all follow-up communication. CHAPTER IV ANALYSIS OF DATA Introduction During the past decade and a half, major economic, demographic and technological changes have altered the way in which faculty in higher education conceptualize and carry out their jobs. Recent investigations point to a decrease in levels of job satisfaction among these faculty. However, the lack of a consistent theoretical framework for these studies results in often contradictory and inconclusive evidence. Many of the conflicting results of studies measuring attitudes Of college and university faculty may be due to disciplinary differences. The measurements of job facet satisfaction and job facet importance in this study were examined across four disciplinary divisions of faculty at eleven independent liberal arts colleges. A proportional random sample by disciplinary divisions was drawn and data collected by means of a questionnaire survey. The Faculty Job Values and Satisfaction Survey included information concerning respondents’ academic rank, age, sex, number of years at the institution and contract salary. Data were collected concerning the importance of eight job facets and satisfaction with 63 64 these eight facets. In addition, overall satisfaction, general affect, intent to remain, degree of noninvolvement and perceived overload were measured and analyzed. Two separate categories of hypotheses were examined. The first set tested differences among the four disciplinary divisions of faculty using the dependent measures of importance of job facets, satisfaction measures and six additional affect factors. Since disciplinary differences were so few in number and did not provide meaningful distinctions among the disciplines, no analyses of facets within each discipline were performed. Thus, the second category of hypotheses was generated by considering the faculty as a whole and looking at differences among job facets in terms of their importance and satisfaction measures. This chapter contains five parts. In the first section, a description Of the statistical analyses of the data is outlined. The distribution of questionnaires and response rate will be described in part two. The third section will contain the descriptive statistics relating to the demographics of the respondents. In the fourth section, results of analyses of differences among disciplines will be presented. These differences will be outlined for the major dependent variables measured--the 65 importance or value ratings, satisfaction scores and affect factors. The fifth part will include results of analyses performed on the importance ratings and satisfaction scores for the eight job facets for all faculty. In addition, the analyses of the one-item satisfaction rating will be reported for all faculty. Intercorrelations of the three satisfaction dependent measures will be presented as well. Overview of Statisticgl Analysgg Statistical analysis of the data was carried out using the Statistical Package for the Social Sciences (SPSS-X, 1986). Descriptive statistics used included frequency and percentage tabulations in order to describe the demographic characteristics of the respondents and to present the mean scores of the various sample groups for each of the dependent variables. Inferential techniques were employed to examine the hypotheses in this investigation and to make inferences from the sample statistics to the population parameters. Multivariate analysis of variance (MANOVA), univariate analysis of variance and Duncan’s Multiple Range Test were used to analyze differences in importance, satisfaction and affect among the four disciplines. 66 Univariate analyses were performed on the mean score of each discipline for each facet to determine disciplinary differences on importance and satisfaction. When the results of these analyses indicated that overall disciplinary differences existed for a particular facet, further testing was indicated in order to determine how the disciplines differed. Due to the rapid increase in Type I errors which result as the number of comparisons increases, the t—test is generally considered an unacceptable procedure. A number of post hoc statistical tests have been developed for the purpose of testing all possible pairs Of means, e.g. Tukey, Sheffe, Newman-Keuls and Duncan’s. Duncan’s Multiple Range Test (Duncan, 1955) was selected for its ability to detect real differences without unduly compromising alpha. Questions concerning facet importance and facet satisfaction were then examined. Since disciplinary differences in job facet importance ratings and satisfaction measures were minimal, a within subjects analysis Of variance and Duncan’s Multiple Range Test were then used to determine whether faculty found certain facets to be more important and more satisfying than other facets. Since three different measures Of job satisfaction were elicited by the survey instrument, Pearson Product 67 Moment Correlation coefficients were obtained for these three measures. This procedure permitted the determination of the degree of relationship among the three satisfaction measures. Questionnaire Distribution and Response Rate The total number of faculty in the population consisted of 672 faculty members. A proportional random sample of 272 was drawn by disciplinary division. Some surveys which had been mailed were returned by respondents’ colleagues or secretaries indicating that these respondents were no longer employed by the institution, were on sabbatical or academic leave or had retired. Since the population had been defined as full- time, non-administrative, currently employed faculty members, these respondents were eliminated from both the population and the sample. The final population thus numbered 650 and the final sample numbered 250. Thus, the overall sample percentage was slightly lower (38.5%) than the original 40% sample. As indicated in Table 1, the percentage of faculty in each disciplinary division of the sample ranged from 37.50% to 39.78%. Table 1 shows the distribution of the population across the four disciplinary divisions of fine arts, humanities, social sciences and natural sciences. The population was not distributed evenly among the four 68 disciplines; the largest number was found in the humanities discipline and the fewest represented in the fine arts. Table 1. Population and Sample Statistics by Discipline Number in Population Number in Sample Discipline Population Percentage Sample Percentage Fine Arts 93 14.31 37 39.78 Humanities 240 36.92 90 37.50 Social Sciences 145 22.31 55 37.93 Natural Sciences 172 26.46 68 39.53 TOTAL 650 100.00 250 38.50 A total of 178 surveys was returned, representing an overall response rate of 71.2%. The response rate for each of the four academic disciplines is shown in Table 2. Response rates from all four disciplinary divisions were relatively high and did not differ greatly across disciplines. Demographic Data Forty—five percent of the returns were from Professors, 35% from Associate Professors, 18% from Assistant Professors, and 2% from Instructors. No other possible ranks were indicated by respondents. 69 Table 2. Response Rate by Discipline Number of Percentage of Discipline Responses Responses Fine Arts 28 75.7 Humanities 57 63.3 Social Sciences 37 67.3 Natural Sciences 56 82.4 TOTAL 178 71.2 Table 3. Age of Respondents Number of Percentage of Cumulative Age Respondents Respondents Percentage 30-34 13 7.3 7.3 35-39 30 16.9 24.2 40-44 33 18.5 42.7 45-49 31 17.4 60.1 50-54 28 15.7 75.8 55-59 20 11.2 87.0 60-64 16 9.0 96.0 The respondents ranged in age from 31 to 67 years, with a mean age of 47 years. Table 3 shows the 70 distribution Of respondents’ ages in four year intervals. It is interesting to note that 57 percent of the respondents were 45 years of age or older. Male faculty members comprised 85% of the respondents and female faculty numbered 15%, which correlates closely with gender distribution of faculty in the consortium faculty. The number and percentage of respondents and the number of years they have spent at their institution are displayed in Table 4. Table 4. Years at Institution Number of Percent of Cumulative Years Respondents Respondents Percentage 3-5 23 13.0 13.0 6-10 44 24.9 37.9 11-15 19 10.7 48.6 16-20 34 19.2 67.8 21-25 32 18.1 85.9 26-30 13 7.3 93.2 31-35 11 6.2 99.4 36-38 1 0.6 100.0 Note. The sample included only faculty who had been at their institution since August, 1984. There was one missing case. Since the population in this study was defined as having been employed since August, 1984, the shortest 71 length of time faculty had been at their institution was three years. The greatest number of years reported was 38 years. The average length of stay for all faculty was 15.9 years. It should be noted that 51.4 percent of the faculty responding had been at their institution 16 years or more while only 13 percent of the sample had been employed with in the last five years. Table 5 indicates the percentage Of faculty at each salary interval for each academic division. The mean salary (excluding the uppermost category which had no ceiling) was $32,675, using the median of each interval in the calculation of the mean. Table 5. Percentage Distribution of Salary for Disciplines Fine Social Natural Salary Arts Humanities Sciences Sciences $19,999 or less 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 $20,000-24,999 25.0 15.8 16.2 3.6 $25,000—29,999 28.6 26.3 21.6 33.9 830,000-34,999 21.4 19.3 27.0 16.1 $35,000-39,999 10.7 19.3 18.9 17.9 $40,000-44,999 10.7 8.8 10.8 8.9 $45,000-49,999 3.6 8.8 2.7 10.7 $50,000 or over 0.0 1.8 2.7 8.9 72 Disciplinary Analysis Facet Importance Rating; Faculty were asked to rate the importance of all the items comprising the eight job facets of the work itself, work role clarity, the chairperson, upper-level administration, pay, promotion, facilities and departmental colleagues (see Appendix A for survey instrument). These importance ratings had a possible range from 0, indicating no importance to 4, indicating extreme importance. The mean ratings for each facet for faculty in each of the four disciplines--fine arts, humanities, social sciences and natural sciences--are presented in Table 6. The average ratings varied from 2.65, assigned by faculty in the natural sciences to the facet of work role clarity, to 3.65, assigned to the job facets of upper- level administration and promotion by fine arts faculty. Faculty surveyed thus indicated that all the facets were more than somewhat important to them. A Multivariate analysis Of variance performed on the facet importance ratings for each division was not statistically significant (F(;.,,..,: 1.31197, p=.149). Univariate analyses were performed, nonetheless, for each facet and the results showed that the facets of work role clarity and facilities were statistically significant (see Table 7). Results of the Duncan’s 73 Multiple Range Tests performed on the facet of work role clarity indicated that fine arts and humanities faculty found this facet to be significantly higher in importance than did faculty in the natural sciences. In addition, facilities were found to be significantly more important for fine arts faculty than for faculty in the social sciences and the natural sciences (see Table 6). Table 6. Facet Importance Ratings by Discipline Fine Social Natural Facet Arts Humanities Sciences Sciences Work 3.59 3.42 3.34 3.36 Clarity 3.00» 3.015 2.87.» 2.65. Chair 3.50 3.32 3.22 3.13 Admin 3.65 3.48 3.44 3.43 Pay 3.49 3.31 3.40 3.26 Promotion 3.65 3.50 3.54 3.50 Facilities 3.47. 3.19.» 2.88b 3.15» Colleagues 3.46 3.43 3.20 3.28 Ngtg. Importance ratings are on a scale from 0 (No Importance) to 4 (Extremely Important). For facilities and clarity, means without common subscripts within each row are significantly different from one another, p < .05 (Duncan’s Test). Facet Satisfaction Scores The survey instrument provided for the rating of the level of satisfaction for each of the items contained in 74 the eight job facets. The range of possible values was from -2, which indicated strong disagreement with the facet item, to +2, which indicated strong agreement. The facet satisfaction scores were Obtained by multiplying the raw satisfaction rating for each item by its corresponding importance rating. Thus, these facet satisfaction scores for each item were weighted by the relative importance or value assigned to the item by the respondents. The resulting scale for the facet satisfaction scores could vary from -8, indicating high dissatisfaction to +8, indicating high satisfaction with an item. Table 7. Univariate Analyses of Facet Importance Ratings for Disciplines Hypothesis Error Hypothesis Error Facet SS SS MS .MS Ft3.isa) P Work 1.16273 27.62503 .38758 .18056 2.14658 .097 Clarity 4.05779 68.85941 1.35260 .45006 3.00536 .032 Chair 2.64249 62.72811 .88083 .40999 2.14843 .096 Admin .91163 40.61845 .30388 .26548 1.14463 .333 Pay 1.14635 56.48024 .38212 .36915 1.03512 .379 Promotion .4690? 69.37169 .15636 .45341 .34485 .793 Facilities 4.80414 67.80255 1.60138 .44315 3.61360 .015 Colleagues 1.53943 66.38732 .51314 .43390 1.18262 .318 75 Table 8. Facet Satisfaction Scores for Disciplines Fine Social Natural Facet Arts Humanities Sciences Sciences Work 5.04 4.03 4.47 4.71 Clarity 1.44 2.41 1.10 2.01 Chair 3.15 5.07 4.14 4.32 Administration 2.21 2.30 1.43 2.71 Pay .64 2.27 1.44 2.14 Promotion 1.46 1.94 1.00 1.37 Facilities 2.66 3.46 2.36 3.77 Colleagues 2.67 3.49 4.09 4.70 Ngtg. Facet satisfaction scores were obtained by multiplying Importance (0 to 4 scale) by Satisfaction (-2 to +2 scale) resulting in a scale from -8 (High Dissatisfaction) to +8 (High Satisfaction). The resulting facet satisfaction scores for each disciplinary division are displayed in Table 8. The lowest score of .64 was assigned to the facet of pay by faculty in the fine arts disciplines while the highest score Of 5.07 was recorded by humanities faculty for the chairperson. NO negative scores resulted for any of the facets, indicating that respondents were not dissatisfied with any of the job facets. A multivariate analysis was performed on the eight facet satisfaction scores and was significant (F(3.,4oa)= 1.67870, p=.025). However, univariate analyses performed 76 on each of the facets did not yield any statistically significant differences among the academic disciplines (see Table 9). Table 9. Univariate Analyses of Facet Satisfaction Scores for Disciplines Hypothesis Error Hypothesis Error Facet SS SS MS MS F(3.141) p Work 19.86751 579.76075 6.62250 4.11178 1.61062 .190 Clarity 34.51472 1103.35166 11.50491 7.82519 1.47024 .225 Chair 61.32484 1374.94765 20.44161 9.75140 2.09627 .103 Admin. 28.54841 1545.51289 9.51614 10.96108 .86817 .459 Pay 53.27098 1841.46437 17.75699 13.06003 1.35964 .258 Promotion 16.44158 3230.80669 5.48053 22.91352 .23918 .869 Facilities 44.86479 1023.25762 14.95493 7.25715 2.06072 .108 Colleagues 77.59816 1867.06390 25.86605 13.24159 1.95340 .124 One-Item Facet Satisfaction Ratings Faculty were asked to respond to eight one-item satisfaction questions corresponding to the eight facets included in the survey instrument. them they from to indicate, The resulting ratings, ranged from .00 to 1.57. These values seem to all things considered, how satisfied -2 (Very Dissatisfied) to +2 (Very Satisfied). as indicated in Table 10, These questions asked were with that particular facet on a scale ranging 77 demonstrate that faculty were rather neutral concerning some facets and moderately to very satisfied with most aspects of their work. Some of the highest ratings were obtained on the facets of the work itself, the chairperson and department colleagues while the lower ratings were found for pay and promotion. The multivariate analysis of the ratings was found to be significant (F(24,425)= 1.85828, p=.009). Table 10. One-Item Facet Satisfaction Ratings for Disciplines Fine Social Natural Facet Arts Humanities Sciences Sciences Work 1.46 1.29 1.41 1.30 Clarity .83 .92 .63 .81 Chair .83 1.41 1.44 1.28 Admin .54 .41 .06 .78 Pay .42 .39 .00 .28 Promotion .21 .47 .44 .17 Facilities .71 1.14 .97 1.15 Colleagues .83. 1.14.» 1.53» 1.57» Note. One-item facet satisfaction ratings are on a scale from -2 (Very Dissatisfied) to +2 (Very Satisfied). Within the row for the facet colleagues, means without common subscripts are significantly different from one other, p < .05 (Duncan’s Test). 78 Results of the univariate analyses performed on the one-item facet satisfaction ratings are shown in Table 11. Only the facet of department colleagues was found to be statistically significant (p=.013). Using Duncan’s Test, all possible mean comparisons were made and the results showed fine arts to be significantly lower in satisfaction with department colleagues than the social science and natural science faculties. Table 11. Univariate Analyses of One-Item Facet Satisfaction Ratings for Disciplines Hypothesis Error Hypothesis Error Facet SS 33 MS MS F(3,147) p Work .67650 81.41621 .22550 .55385 .40715 .748 Clarity 1.89760 180.96332 .63253 1.23104 .51382 .673 Chair 6.38381 156.37115 2.12794 1.06375 2.00041 .116 Admin 10.11974 219.49615 3.37325 1.49317 2.25912 .084 Pay 3.87101 253.91707 1.29034 1.72733 .74701 .526 PTomotion 2.79760 256.64611 .03253 1.74589 .53413 .660 Facilities 3.89972 133.86187 1.29991 .91062 1.42749' .237 Colleagues 11.38032 150.60643 3.79334 1.02453 3.70260 .013 Overall Satisfaction Rating A single question asked respondents to assess how satisfied they were overall with their present job, considering all aspects Of it (see question 46, page 4 of 79 Faculty Job Values and Satisfaction Survey, Appendix A). The Satisfaction scale ranged in value from -2 (Very Dissatisfied) to +2 (Very Satisfied). The results indicate that faculty were somewhat to quite satisfied with their present work, with the mean ratings from the four disciplinary divisions ranging from 1.00 to 1.79 (see Table 12). An analysis of variance performed on overall satisfaction showed that the four groups of faculty were not statistically different from one another (F(a.17s)= 0.39, p=.762). Table 12. Overall Satisfaction Rating for Disciplines Standard Discipline Mean Deviation N Fine Arts 1.179 0.772 28 Humanities 1.000 1.086 57 Social Sciences 1.108 0.994 37 Natural Sciences 1.179 0.897 56 Note. Mean overall satisfaction is on a scale from -2 (Very Dissatisfied) to +2 (Very Satisfied). Affect Rgtingg Several items of the Job Values and Satisfaction Survey were designed to measure the respondents’ feelings about their work. For the affect factors of Positive Job Feelings, Non-involvement, Overload and Intent to Remain, 80 faculty were asked to indicate the frequency of these feelings on a Likert scale which ranged from +1, indicating that these affective responses occurred Rarely or Never, to +5, indicating that they experienced these feelings Most or All of the Time. Positive Job Feelings included items such as those which asked respondents how Often they felt in control, if they felt good when talking about their job, or were often in a good mood. Non-involvement was comprised of a series of items assessing faculty members’ feelings of lethargy, lack of enthusiasm, fatigue and disengagement from their work. Overload consisted of one item which asked if faculty felt overloaded with work. Intent to Remain measured how often faculty thought about changing jobs or checking employment notices in journals. Mean ratings for the affect factor of Positive Job Feelings varied from 3.2 to 3.4 (see Table 13). Faculty from all four disciplinary divisions indicated, thus, that they sometimes had good reactions to their work. There were no statistical differences in these rather moderate responses among the four disciplinary groups (see Table 14). Non-involvement ratings varied from 1.5 to 1.9, signifying that respondents feel uninvolved in the daily work of their institution only very infrequently (see Table 13). As shown in Table 14, results of the univariate 81 analysis carried out on this factor indicated that there were statistically significant differences among the four disciplinary groups (F(3.155)= 3.99758, p=.009). Duncan’s Test revealed that the degree of non-involvement was statistically greater for faculty in the humanities disciplines than for those in the natural sciences. Table 13. Mean Affect Ratings for Disciplines Fine Social Natural Affect Arts Humanities Sciences Sciences Positive Job Feelings1 3.220 3.265 3.203 3.415 Non-involvementl 1.736ab 1.921s 1.718ab 1.549. Overloadl 3.500 3.612 3.500 3.580 Intent to Remain1 2.564 2.184 2.696 2.207 Will be here in 2 years2 1.231 1.306 1.294 1.600 Will be here in 5 years2 .731 1.000 .794 1.280 Note. 1Ratings are on a scale from 1 (Rarely) to 5 (Most of the time). 1Ratings are on a Strongly Disagree (-2) to a Strongly Agree (+2) scale. For Non-involvement, means without common subscripts are significantly different from one another, p < .05 (Duncan’s Test). Faculty from all four disciplinary groups indicated that they felt overloaded with work more than sometimes. Average ratings for this factor varied little from 3.5 for the fine arts and social sciences faculty to 3.6 for 82 humanities and natural sciences faculty (see Table 13). Univariate analysis of the ratings, as shown in Table 14. revealed no significant differences among disciplines. Faculty’s Intent to Remain, as measured by their consideration Of checking job announcements in journals or thinking about changing jobs, did not differ greatly among disciplinary divisions. Faculty indicated that these feelings occur slightly more often than infrequently. Mean ratings ranged from 2.18 to 2.70, as displayed in Table 13. Analysis of variance of these ratings resulted in no significant differences among the four groups of faculty. Table 14. Univariate Analyses of Affect Ratings for Academic Disciplines Affect Hypothesis Error Hypothesis Error SS SS MS MS F(3.155) P Positive JOb 1.18755 51.50791 .39585 .33231 1.19121 .315 FeeLUuB Non-involvement 3.44418 44.51424 1.14806 .287193 .99758 .009 Overload. .36974 162.81265 .12325 1.05040 .11733 .950 Intent to 7.62123 169.13069 2.54041 1.09117 2.32816 .077 Ikmmin Will be here 3.51511 158.0823? 1.17170 1.01989 1.14886 .331 iniayrs. Will be here 7.24579 256.75421 2.41526 1.65648 1.45807 .228 Sans. 83 The last two affect factors measured faculty’s intent to be at their present institution in two years and in five years, respectively. Will be Here in Two Years consisted of one item which asked faculty if they intended to be at their institution, assuming that they had tenure, in two years. Will be Here in Five Years asked if they intended to be at their institution in five years, if they were tenured. Possible ratings ranged from -2 (Strongly Disagree) to +2 (Strongly Agree). Faculty ratings of their intent to be at their institution in two years resulted in little variety across the four disciplines; mean ratings, all rather high, varied from 1.2 to 1.6 (see Table 13). Faculty members’ intent to be at their institution in five years was somewhat less strong. Ratings dropped slightly, ranging from .7 to 1.3, signifying a slightly more neutral stance. It is interesting to note that faculty in the natural sciences seemed to be as certain that they’d be working at their institutiOn in five years as the other three disciplines--fine arts, humanities, and social sciences--were that they would be working there in two years. Results Of the univariate analyses carried out on faculty members’ intent to remain both two years and five years indicated no statistically significant differences among the four disciplines (see Table 14). 84 All Faculty The lack of major differences among the four disciplinary divisions of faculty rendered it desirable to obtain a reading of how faculty as a whole in independent liberal arts institutions viewed their work. Results reported in the preceding four sections seem to indicate that these faculty possess more shared values than values which differ along disciplinary lines. Facet Importance Ratingg The importance ratings of each of the eight job facets are listed in Table 15 in descending order of importance. Faculty indicated that all these facets, with the exception Of work role clarity, were important to them. Work role clarity emerged as being of slightly lesser importance. Analysis of variance examined whether the eight facets were statistically equal in importance to one other. The results indicated that the eight facets were not perceived to be equal in importance to these faculty (F(7.1001)=30o35949, p (.001). Duncan’s Test was performed in order to determine which of the facets differed from one another. As displayed in Table 15, means without common subscripts were found to be statistically different from one another. For example, the facets of promotion, administration and the work itself were found to be more important than the 85 facets of chairperson, facilities or work role clarity. Promotion, however, while significantly more important to faculty than the work itself, does not differ significantly in importance from upper-level administration. Table 15. Analysis of Variance of Importance of Facets for All Faculty Standard Facet Mean Deviation Promotion 3.531. .688 Administration 3.484.» .517 Work 3.418bc .430 Pay 3.339cd .617 Colleagues 3.333ca .669 Chairperson 3.288s .637 Facilities 3.151. .694 Clarity 2.880: .669 Ngtg. Facets are in descending order of mean importance. (Importance means are on a scale from 0, No Importance to 4, Extremely Important). Means without common subscripts are statistically different (p <.05), Duncan’s Test. F(7,1°°1)= 30035949, I) (.0010 Facet Satisfaction Scores The facet satisfaction scores were the multiplicative result of the raw satisfaction ratings and the importance ratings for each item and could range in 86 value from -8 (High Dissatisfaction) to +8 (High Satisfaction). Faculty did not indicate dissatisfaction with any of the facets, as displayed in Table 16. They were moderately satisfied with those facets receiving the higher scores (chairperson, work and colleagues) and indicated a relatively low level of satisfaction with the items of promotion, pay, clarity and administration. The respondents were not equally satisfied with the eight facets. Table 16. Analysis of Variance of Facet Satisfaction Scores for All Faculty Standard Facet Mean Deviation Chairperson 4.458. 3.067 Colleagues 3.8833 3.742 Facilities 3.189» 2.749 Administration 2.247c 3.217 Clarity 1.777a 2.845 Pay 1.582a 3.686 Promotion 1.508a 4.830 Note. Facets are in descending order of weighted (by importance) satisfaction. (Scale from -8, High Dissatisfaction to +8, High Satisfaction). F(7,ass)= 27,43640, p (.001. Means without common subscripts are statistically significant (p (.05) by Duncan’s Multiple Range Test). 87 Results of Duncan’s Multiple Range Test indicated that although the facets of chairperson, the work itself and department colleagues were not statistically different from one another, respondents were more satisfied with these three facets than with the remaining five facets. By the same token, faculty indicated that they were statistically less satisfied with work role clarity, pay, and promotion than with the other facets, although these three facets did not differ significantly from one another. One-Item Facet Satisfaction Ratipgg The one-item satisfaction rating for each of the eight facets elicited a global facet rating on a scale from -2 (Very Dissatisfied) to +2 (Very Satisfied). As exhibited in Table 17, faculty indicated the highest levels of satisfaction with the work itself, their department colleagues and their chairperson while those facets with which they were least satisfied were administration, promotion and pay. Analysis of variance resulted in a significant F(F(7,eag)= 33.21271, p (.001) indicating that the levels of satisfaction expressed by faculty for each facet differed significantly. Results of Duncan’s Test indicated, for example, that while the facets of work itself, department colleagues, and the chairperson are not significantly different from one another, they do differ statistically from the 88 remainder of the facets. Faculty were least satisfied statistically with administration, promotion, and pay at their institutions. Table 17. Analysis of Variance of One-Item Satisfaction Ratings for All Faculty Standard Facet Mean Deviation Work 1.344. .747 Colleagues 1.328. 1.005 Chairperson 1.289. 1.051 Facilities .992» 1.008 Clarity .789» 1.099 Administration .445c 1.257 Promotion .297ca 1.324 Pay .188a 1.327 Note. Facets are in descending order Of mean overall satisfaction. (Scale from -2, Very Dissatisfied to +2, Very Satisfied). F(1,oso)= 33.21271, p ( .001. Means without common subscripts are statistically different (p ( .05), Duncan’s Test. Correlations Among Satisfaction Measures In order to show the relationships among the three dependent satisfaction measures--the facet satisfaction score, the one-item facet satisfaction rating, and the single overall satisfaction measure--Pearson Product Moment Correlation coefficients were calculated for these 89 variables. These results are presented in Table 18. Very high correlations, ranging in value from .535 to .880, were Obtained between the facet satisfaction scores and the one-item facet satisfaction ratings for all the eight facets. These correlations were all significantly different from zero. Table 18. Pearson Correlation Coefficients for Satisfaction Measures Facet Satisfaction Facet Satisfaction One-Item Facet Score with One-Item. Score with Overall Satisfaction with Facet Facet Satisfaction Satisfaction Overall Satisfaction Work .535 .579 .428 Clarity .770 .450 .493 Chair .853 .292 .312 Administration .846 .422 .473 Pay .848 .319 .363 Promotion .880 .345 .351 Facilities .777 .309 .303 Colleagues .847 .061¥ .362 Note. all correlations are statistically significantly different from zero at p < .001 except i where p:.210. These high positive relationships do not exist, however, between the two facet satisfaction measures and the overall satisfaction measure. As shown in Table 18, 90 correlations between the facet satisfaction scores and overall satisfaction generally varied between .3 and .6 (with one anomalous correlation for colleagues of .06). In similar fashion, correlations between the one-item satisfaction ratings and overall satisfaction generally varied between .3 and .5. Thus, it would seem that the facet satisfaction scores and the one-item satisfaction ratings are measuring the same thing. The relationship, however, between any measure of facet satisfaction and overall satisfaction is a much weaker one. Overall Satisfaction Rating Following the questions on the eight facets, faculty were asked to give a single global rating of their satisfaction with all aspects Of their job. An overwhelming majority of the respondents (84.8%) indicated that they were somewhat to very satisfied with their job. Only 9.5% expressed overall dissatisfaction with their work. The mean overall satisfaction rating was 1.107 on a scale ranging from -2 to +2, indicating that these faculty were at least moderately satisfied. Affect Factors Several items among the affect factors merit special attention. The rating of the affect categories and the percentage Of the entire sample for each category are contained in Table 19. When faculty were asked if they 91 intended to be at their institution in two years, 86.7% of them indicated that they somewhat or strongly agreed. Table 19. Agreement (percentage) with Affect Factors for All Faculty Affect Strongly Somewhat Neither Somewhat Strongly Factor Disagree Disagree Agree/Disagree Agree Agree Will be here in 2 years 4.7 2.3 6.4 22.7 64.0 Will be here in 5 years 9.3 5.2 13.4 20.3 51.7 Intent to Remain1 34.0 20.8 26.0 14.3 4.2 Same job choice 7.4 17.0 15.9 34.1 25.6 Ngtg. 1The questions for this item were asked.in a reverse manner so that disagreement indicates intent to remain. The percentage of faculty indicating that they would still be at their institution in five years dropped slightly to 72%. The items included in Intent to Remain were reverse measurements of faculty’s intent to remain at their institution by asking if they often considered changing jobs or took action to do so. The majority Of the respondents (58.8%) disagreed somewhat or strongly with these items, indicating that they do not intend to leave their institution. Finally, one item asked faculty to indicate whether they would like to end up in the same job, if they had their life to live over. Again, 59.7% 92 of these faculty expressed moderate to strong agreement with the statement. Summary The results of the study were presented in five sections. In the first section, a description of the statistical procedures to analyze the data was presented. The second section contained the distribution of the questionnaires and the response rate. In addition, the number of faculty in the population and in the sample was described for each discipline and the overall response rate was presented for each discipline. The third section included descriptive statistics about the respondents including their rank, age, number of years at their institution, and salary. In the fourth section, the results of the testing of the hypotheses about differences among the four disciplinary divisions were reported for a variety of dependent variables including importance ratings and satisfaction measures for eight job facets and affect ratings about the job. The final section included the results of analysis of facet differences for all faculty in the sample. as well as ratings for various affect factors. CHAPTER V SUMMARY, DISCUSSION, CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS Introduction This chapter includes five major sections. In the first section, a summary of this study is presented, including major previous findings in job satisfaction among faculty in higher education, the purpose of the present study, the methodology used to carry out the research, the procedures used for analysis of the data, and the results Of the statistical tests performed on all the major dependent variables. The second section contains a discussion of the results of analyses of the data. Where appropriate, comparison with similar research is presented. Based upon the findings of this study, the major conclusions are presented in the third section. Section four includes recommendations for future research. The final section concludes with practical implications. Summary The literature reviewed for this study indicated that in spite of the wealth of studies addressing the phenomenon Of job satisfaction, there exists a need for more extensive research on the subject in the environment Of higher education. This need is underscored by the 93 94 inconclusive results of the relatively few studies carried out among college and university faculty and by recent indicators that major changes in the nature of the higher education environment have produced a decline in levels of job satisfaction among college and university professors. The present study was designed to address this need through the investigation of job facet importance and job facet satisfaction as a function of disciplinary affiliation. Specifically, differences in levels of satisfaction of eight job facets and their importance were examined among faculty in four academic disciplines- -fine arts, humanities, social sciences and natural sciences. The Faculty Job Values and Satisfaction Survey was used to measure the facets of the work itself, work role clarity, chairperson, administration, pay, promotion, facilities and colleagues. Participants in the study consisted of a proportional random sample of faculty by discipline in eleven independent liberal arts colleges in the midwest. The data obtained for the dependent variable of Importance were analyzed using multivariate and univariate analyses of variance. The results indicated that statistical differences existed among the four disciplines. A post hoc test comparing these means using Duncan’s Multiple Range Test revealed disciplinary 95 differences on two Of the facets. Fine arts and humanities faculty attached greater importance to the facet of work role clarity than did faculty in the natural sciences. In addition, the facet of facilities was statistically more important for faculty in the fine arts than for those in the social sciences and the natural sciences. There were no other significant differences among faculty in the four disciplines in their ratings of importance on the remainder of the facets. Thus, the null hypotheses were not rejected except for the facets of facilities and work role clarity. Satisfaction scores on each of the eight facets were analyzed using multivariate and univariate analysis procedures. No significant differences were found among the disciplines in levels of satisfaction on any Of the facets and the null hypotheses for disciplinary differences in satisfaction were not able to be rejected. When one-item measures of facet satisfaction were investigated, analysis of variance and Duncan’s Multiple Range Test produced a significant effect. Fine arts faculty were significantly less satisfied with department colleagues than faculty in the social and natural sciences. Further analyses of the data were then performed to determine if faculty as a whole found the facets to be 96 different in importance and satisfaction. Analysis of variance and Duncan’s Multiple Range Test revealed significant differences in the levels of importance and satisfaction which the faculty as a whole assigned to the various facets. The facet Of promotion was considered most important by faculty, followed by administration, work, pay, colleagues and chairperson. Of least importance to them were the facets of facilities and work role clarity. The highest levels of satisfaction were assigned to the facets of the chairperson, the work itself, colleagues and facilities. Faculty were less satisfied with promotion, pay, work role clarity, and administration. It is clear that faculty in these independent liberal arts institutions possess clear preferences regarding the importance of and satisfaction with various facets of their work. Discussion of these findings and their implications are presented in the following section. Discussion Of Results and Implications Disciplinary Differences Importance of Job Facets. Hypothesis one of the current study states that there are no differences in the level of importance which faculty from four academic disciplines assign to eight job facets. For the facets 97 of the work itself, the chairperson, the administration, pay, promotion, and colleagues, the null hypothesis was not rejected. The null hypothesis was rejected for the job facets of work role clarity and facilities. Work role clarity was rated more important by faculty in the fine arts and humanities than by faculty in the natural sciences. Fine arts and humanities faculty found it more important that expectations for their job be consistent and that they get feedback concerning their performance. They also wanted to participate in decisions affecting their work. Fine arts faculty considered their facilities and working conditions more important for carrying out their work than did their colleagues in the social and natural sciences. For faculty in the fine arts disciplines, the adequacy and safety of physical facilities and the adequacy of support services are important in order to facilitate their teaching and research effectiveness. These findings suggest that few differences exist among the various academic disciplines in the levels Of importance that they assign to certain components of their work. The lack of major differences among disciplines found in this study raises some issues with the findings of previous research which have determined the existence of differing attitudes among faculty in different disciplines. Kelly and Hart (1971). for 98 instance, discovered that faculty in the humanities felt that character development was more important than research while the social science and natural science faculties viewed research as being more important. Further differences were found by Smart and Elton (1975) who were able to characterize university departments according to their goal orientations. In their study, departments were clustered according to Biglan’s model which differentiates academic areas according to their concern with a single paradigm, their concern with application of knowledge, and their concern with life systems. Morstain and Smart (1976) correlated faculty in various disciplinary affiliations with different personality types according to Holland’s Personality and Vocational Choice Model. The above examples seem to argue plausibly that attitudinal differences among faculty would extend to differences in importance of facets of faculty’s work. It should be noted, however, that nearly all the studies were carried out in the context of a university environment. In many instances, the literature reviewed for this study included studies performed on graduate department faculty in various disciplines. In all the cases, attitudinal differences were significantly different among disciplines. The differences uncovered by this study were only minimally supportive of previous 99 research and they suggest that faculty in small, independent institutions may hold differing values about their work than faculty in large universities. The latter group may hold values which are more associated with their disciplinary affiliation. Satisfaction Measures. The second null hypothesis posits no differences among faculty surveyed in their levels Of satisfaction with eight facets of their work, as measured by mean facet satisfaction scores. NO significant differences resulted and the null hypothesis could not be rejected. Null hypothesis three states that a one-item measure of satisfaction for each of the eight job facets will show no differences among faculty in the four disciplines. Fine arts faculty were significantly less satisfied with their departmental colleagues than were the faculty in the natural and social sciences. They perceived that their colleagues were less helpful, and not as friendly or easy to get along with. Thus, the null hypothesis was rejected. The fourth null hypothesis states that no differences exist among the disciplines surveyed on a single item measuring global job satisfaction. NO differences were found and the null hypothesis was not able to be rejected. 100 These results do not conform to expectations derived from the literature in this field. Locke et al. (1983) found significant differences among faculty when they were asked their levels of satisfaction with the same job facets as those included in this study. On only two facets--the equivalent of the work itself and higher level administrators--did Locke et al. find that faculty did not differ according to their disciplinary affiliation. Other researchers have reported a wide variety of reward systems according to disciplinary divisions (Smart, 1978; Tuckman & Hagemann, 1976). And Hunter, Ventimiglia and Crow (1980) suggest that pockets of dissatisfaction may exist among faculty in disciplines where there are fewer job Opportunities and lower salaries. The findings of this study contrast sharply with the studies outlined above. Again however, it should be noted that the previous research was carried out among faculty in large universities. Affect Factors. Null hypothesis five asserts that no differences will exist among the four disciplines on various affect factors including faculty’s intent to remain, perception of overload and degree of non- involvement. The results failed to allow the researcher to reject the null hypotheses for all factors except for the negative concept of non-involvement. In this 101 instance, the null hypothesis was rejected since humanities faculty were significantly less involved than faculty in the natural sciences. The lack Of major differences among the four academic disciplines surveyed in this study suggests that faculty in liberal arts institutions do not possess the same values about their jobs as do faculty in universities. As indicated above, conventional wisdom and empirical data have supported the notion that attitudinal differences exist and that disciplinary affiliation may account for these differences. It may be, however, that faculty in the smaller liberal arts institutions are a self-selecting population whose loyalties lie less with the discipline than with the institution itself. The literature has documented in abundance the changing criteria for hiring, promotion, and tenure which now include, even for the smaller schools, a strong emphasis on research and publication. It should be emphasized again, however, that 57% of the faculty in this study were 45 years of age or Older and that 51% of them had been at their institution 16 years or more. Thus, this faculty is older and since they were employed before criteria for career advancement included stringent research requirements, it may be that their identification is not with a national group of disciplinary scholars but with their own "local" peers. 102 All Faculty Null hypothesis six tests whether faculty attach equal importance to the eight job facets. This hypothesis was rejected. The mean importance scores were high for all the facets and none were indicated by faculty to be unimportant. Least important for these faculty were their facilities and working conditions and clarity of their work role. They ranked the promotion system and its criteria, characteristics of their upper- level administrators, opportunities afforded by their work, adequacy of their pay, congeniality of departmental colleagues and performance of their chairperson as more important facets (see Table 15). The high importance ratings found in this study are consonant with those Obtained by Locke et al. (1983). The relative importance assigned by the faculty to the various facets, however, seem to argue against some of the recent findings reported in the literature. Several studies have underscored the deterioration of the faculty’s work environment and the subsequent increased importance placed upon extrinsic factors, such as working conditions (Bess, 1981; Bowen and Schuster, 1986). In the present study, however, physical facilities and working conditions were ranked relatively low in importance. 103 It is plausible to suppose that the emergence of promotion and the upper-level administration as the two most important factors among faculty relates to career paths and career advancement. The literature is replete with references to the diminished Opportunities for advancement and the decreased career Options available. It is logical, thus, that the means by which faculty advance at their institution become more important as their career development opportunities narrow. Satisfaction Measures. Null hypothesis seven asserts that faculty will not differ in levels of satisfaction assigned to all the job facets. The eighth null hypothesis states, in like manner, that the one-item measures Of each of the job facets will not differ for all the faculty. Both of these hypotheses were rejected on the basis of the results. Correlations between the two measures of facet satisfaction--a mean multiplicative score for all the items in a facet and a one-item facet satisfaction rating--were quite high. These two scores would appear to reflect generally similar levels of job satisfaction. It is interesting to note that for both measures of facet satisfaction, faculty expressed the greatest amount of satisfaction with their chairperson, intrinsic aspects of their work, their departmental colleagues, and their working conditions. Least satisfying to them were their 104 salaries and equity and clarity of the promotion system. It is not surprising that salaries emerged as a facet with which faculty were least satisfied; Finkelstein (1984, p. 59) has noted that salary scales tend to be lower at private colleges. Interpretation of these results in light of the literature on job facet satisfaction must take into account a major caveat. Results of reported studies place the various facets at different points on the satisfaction continuum. The lack of a consistent satisfaction rating for each facet is probably accounted for by the use of different operational definitions and the different populations measured. Therefore, only some global statements concerning general trends seem appropriate. In general, research has determined that higher education faculty find their primary sources of satisfaction in factors relating to the work itself, that is, the tasks performed and the most direct conditions of work (Finkelstein, 1984). The relatively high ratings assigned to this facet by faculty in this study would indicate that they, too, find a great deal of satisfaction in the opportunities provided for self- actualization and professional and personal development afforded by their work. Recent reports, however, indicate that extrinsic factors, such as pay, facilities, 105 or promotion, may be a developing source of both satisfaction and dissatisfaction for faculty. The results of this study demonstrate support for this trend, as well. The work facets with which these liberal arts faculty professed the greatest amount of satisfaction included both intrinsic (the work itself) and extrinsic (facilities and the chairperson) factors. Although this study was not a replicative study, it is interesting to note that the results tend to corroborate those of Locke et al. (1983) on several dimensions. In both studies, pay and promotion ranked among the job facets with which faculty were least satisfied. It is also noteworthy that faculty in both studies, by all facet satisfaction measures, indicated the greatest amount of satisfaction with the same four facets--the chairperson, the work itself, department colleagues, and their facilities. Further, a comparison Of the one-item satisfaction rating for the eight facets reveals that the rank order for the four most important facets--the work itself, department colleagues, the chairperson and facilities--is identical in both studies. A comparison of the facet satisfaction measures with the importance ratings for the eight facets lends mild support to the theory (Locke, 1983, pp. 1304-1306; Mobley & Locke, 1970) that the greater the value or importance assigned to a facet, the more likely it is that extreme 106 satisfaction scores will be assigned to that facet. That is, a variable which is considered to be very important will serve as a source of high satisfaction as well as a source of extreme dissatisfaction. In this study, some scores would seem to confirm this theory. The facet of promotion, for example, which faculty rated highest in importance, received the lowest ratings in satisfaction. Similarly, the work itself was rated high in importance and obtained among the highest scores in satisfaction. In both these cases, high importance ratings produced scores at either end of the satisfaction continuum. Caution should be exercised in interpreting these findings as anything more than mild support for two reasons. First, while some variation in the rank order between the importance ratings and the facet satisfaction measurements exist, the results are not as extreme. Second, even the lowest satisfaction scores were still positive, indicating a small degree of satisfaction. Overall Satisfaction. The overwhelming majority of the faculty surveyed, according to a single measure, are quite satisfied with their work. As indicated earlier in this study, most faculty express at least moderate satisfaction in their jobs, even though some researchers have noted lowered levels of satisfaction on a national level. But as Willie and Stecklein (1982) have pointed out, national studies may blur or even eradicate regional 107 or institutional differences in faculty. It is interesting to note, however, that an earlier study of faculty satisfaction among these same institutions (Miller, 1986) also reported moderate levels of overall satisfaction. Affect Factorg. Several of the affect ratings obtained in this study measured in various ways the faculty’s level of contentment with their institution and their intent to remain in their present position. Although the percentage of faculty who responded positively to these items varies, it is clear that the majority of them not only like their work and their institution but if they could live their life again, they would choose their same career and job. These positive feelings seem to belie the attitudes expressed by faculty in Jacobson’s (1985) study; 46% of those faculty indicated that they might leave the profession in the next five years. Conclusions The current study has produced several significant findings. These findings should enhance the understanding of faculty in liberal arts institutions and contribute to the understanding of the current state of higher education. 108 First, this study has shown that disciplinary differences among faculty in small liberal arts colleges are virtually nonexistent. In contrast to expectations underscored by the literature in the field, faculty in these independent liberal arts institutions exhibit striking disciplinary homogeneity in what it is that they value in their work. In similar fashion, they agree in what they find satisfying about their job. Second, viewed as a whole, these liberal arts faculty confirmed that the job facets of the work itself, work role clarity, the chairperson, upper-level administrators, pay, promotion, facilities, and department colleagues were all of importance to them. It would appear that the intrinsic Opportunities for interesting, significant work provided by their jobs are very important to them. However, extrinsic factors, such as the promotion system and their financial rewards, were equally or more important. Third, the faculty at these liberal arts institutions are rather satisfied. All indications are that aspects of the work itself--opportunities to perform interesting and significant work, to learn new things and use one’s skills, and to experience feelings of accomplishment--are among the most satisfying aspects of the profession. Not surprisingly, faculty were least 109 satisfied with their financial rewards and the promotion system. Recommendations for Future Research The definition and measurement of job satisfaction among professionals in higher education is a particularly relevant subject at the present time. Further research needs to be carried out in order to increase our knowledge about the many kinds of faculty, the work they perform, and the environment in which they carry out their tasks. In the present study, job satisfaction was investigated among faculty in small, independent liberal arts institutions in the midwest. The results indicated that faculty in these institutions differed from university and community college faculty in the way in which they view some aspects of their work. Obviously, further research needs to be carried out in order to refine these differences. Since this study was limited to liberal arts institutions in the midwest, the results are not generalizable to any other population. Investigation of similar institutions in other regions would aid in clarifying the nature of the faculty population in this type of institution. The instrument used in this study defined eight facets of work among faculty in higher education and was 110 selected as the most appropriate questionnaire for use among faculty in higher education. This instrument reflected a set of job facets which the research reported in the literature has determined to be important to faculty and which serve as sources of job satisfaction and job dissatisfaction for faculty. Although only minor differences among faculty in four disciplines surfaced, fundamental differences among faculty in various disciplines may exist. Further refinement of the Operational measures of some Of the facets--a more detailed definition Of the work itself, for instance, in terms of research, faculty-student relationships, or the quality of the students-—may reveal differences to which this instrument was not sensitive. The dimensions measured in this study related entirely to faculty attitudes concerning work. The lack of major differences among the four disciplinary groups may indicate that further research focusing on other dimensions would be fruitful. Among areas of possible interest could be the sociO-economic origins of faculty in the various disciplines, their undergraduate experiences, and personality differences. Finally, since the results of this study clearly indicate that the faculty in independent liberal arts institutions differ in their overall levels of satisfaction with facets Of their work from faculty in 111 other institutions, it is important to learn the sources of these differences. Further research focusing on the variable Of commitment to the institution might help to explain both the high levels of satisfaction and the lack of disciplinary differences in satisfaction found in this study. Practical Implications The results of this study provide a more positive picture of the current state of satisfaction of one segment of faculty in higher education institutions than the literature reports. It should be noted, however, that there are compelling reasons for continued efforts to monitor this area. Several factors point to a possible future lack of qualified talent in the professoriate. The decline in the number of Ph.D.’s produced during the last few years as well as the career choices of talented college populations indicate that interest in the career of college teaching is waning. The steadily less attractive compensation picture and the struggle to advance further compound the problem. It is, thus, quite possible that higher education will go begging for exceptional talent unless ways can be found to counteract these trends. The results of this study provide insight into some Of the practical measures from which the faculty environment can benefit. The high importance and low 112 levels of satisfaction attached to compensation and the promotion system by faculty in this sample suggest that colleges should expand the ways in which faculty are compensated. The reward system should contain mechanisms for acknowledging and rewarding faculty other than a three-tiered promotion system with long years between each level. Lastly, institutions need to be aware Of what facets of their work faculty value and take measures to provide these elements. APPENDICES APPENDIX A FACULTY JOB VALUES AND SATISFACTION SURVEY IF YOU ARE CURRENTLY A DEPARTMENT CHAIRPERSON, PLEASE DO NOT COMPLETE THIS IT IS VERY IMPORTANT, HOWEVER, THAT YOU SIGN AND RETURN THE QUESTIONNAIRE SO THAT WE CAN CHOOSE ANOTHER RESPONDENT. QUESTIONNA IRE . Your department: APPENDIX A Your division: Your rank: Your age: Sex (check one): Number of years at your institution: Your present contract salary: (check one) Full Professor Associate Professor Assistant Professor Instructor Other (write in) years Hale ( ) Female ( years $14,999 or less $15,000-l9,999 $20,000-24,999 $25,000-29,999 $30,000-34,999 $35,000-39,999 $40,000-44,999 $45,000-49,999 $50,000 or more (6-7) (8) (9) (lo-11) (12) (13-14) (IS-16) Signature 1113 11L4 The following list contains descriptive items which relate to your work. You are being asked to give two responses to each item. indicate how impartsnt that item is to you. In the left-hand column, please In the right-hand column, please indicate your degree of agreement with this aspect in your current situation. be entire left-hand column first, then do entire right-hand column. e 0 ~ .9". ‘0’ 6. ‘0’ ‘O. 6' . . ‘ yo. c s ’0 é. c‘ 3‘ JF" 4;. ‘gf ‘ d5 J’ ‘ 6’ ~ e ~ .0" 4 . o e 3‘ e ‘9 o’ ‘I ‘7 ’7‘ 4. 7' ‘4 ‘§ ~ " dmuehnuhsdane ‘3’ if ¢fb o s 21'shyluiiiifiuu e- g? c 6 l 7 I I -t mun-curses .1 _, . ‘fij‘ Manhole—beefs.- gm “a.“ heersdslemdsefssm-l Oso4tmonehblnmk. us a...“ ‘ «unsung-s. us on Imylmumumd "" MESS “I’M“- ““8 ”mg-w- aists-s he: Insect-It ‘- ‘iil I uses the senses-set fen-eons (17) (18) ‘ (l9) (21) (22) (23) (24) (25) (26) (27) (28) (29) (30) (31) (32) (33) (34) (35) (36) (37) The work I do here is significant. (38) My work is interesting. (39) I have dufficient responsibility for making decisions as to how I do my work. (41) l have a chance to learn new things in my work. (42) I have a chance to use my skills and abilities in my work. (43) I get a sense of accomplishment from my work. (44) I feel a sense of progress in my work. (45) There is considerable variety in my work. (46) I feel a sense of completion when I do my work. (47) All things considered, how satisfied are you with your work itself on this job? (Use Satisfaction Scale) (48) I get feedback regarding how well I am doing in my work. (49) It is clear just what is expected of me in my work. (50) I find that different people‘s expectations regarding my work are consistent at this school. (51) l have a chance to participate in the decisions that affect my work. (52) All things considered, how satisfied are you with the clarity of your work role? (Use Satisfaction Scale) (53) The chair of my department facilitates my getting my work done effectively. (S4) The chair of my department facilitates the recruit- ment of competent, helpful colleagues. (55). The chair of my department is fair in recommending pay raises. (56) The chsir of my department it fair in recs-ending promotions. ' (S7) The chair of my department is honest. ($8) The chair of my department keeps me informed of things I need to know. (59) The chair of my department shows respect for me. (60) All things considered. how satisfied are you with the chair of your department? (DEE—SIEIEfaction Scale) (61) e n z s 5 Into-remember".- .tcdtneeehblmmk. Ask 1]L5 Satisfaction Scale Zi'i:;1E::EEinu -l l-ssmse Masseufled O Iamtrsl OI lams‘se “(Mind 92 Very Satisfied yemcealfs Hertha!“- salh law-chimagreamsot “‘.~uwugfih lwltithMC-ICT item to me! (1) Higher level administrators here help to get resources for ny department. (17) (2) Higher level administrators here are fair in recommending promotions. (l8) (3) The higher level administrators here are honest. (l9) (4) The higher level administrators here keep me informed of things I need to know. (2l) (5) The higher level administrators here care about the faculty. (22) (6) The higher level administrators here allow faculty participation in decisions which properly concern the faculty. (23) All things considered, how satisfied are you with the higher level administrators? (Use Satisfaction (24) Scale) (7) The pay on this job is fair compared to similar jobs in similar departments at comparable institutions. (25) (8) The pay on my job is fair in relation to what other people with similar accomplishments get in my department. (26) (9) The pay on this job is enough to fulfill my financial needs. (27) (10) The fringe benefits on this job are fair compared to what people at comparable institutions get. (28) All things considered, how satisfied are (including benefits) on this Job? (Use Satisfaction you with the pay Scale) (29) (ll) The promotion system here is fair. (30) (12) The criteria for promotion here are clear. (31) All things considered, how satisfied are you with the promotion system here? (Use Satisfaction Scale) (32)] (13) The physical working conditions here are safe. (14) The physical facilities help make my teaching more effective. (15) The physical facilities help facilitate my research. (16) Support services (secretarial, xeroaing, etc.) here are adequate. 133) (34) (35) (36) All things considered, how satisfied are you with the work conditions here? (Use Satisfaction Scale) (37) _116 c Q e. .e . e" O" s... . ' .5 .a.‘ ‘0 .3 a. t. e: :4. o 4 ‘ f. ‘ S - ‘ " I s 9. ° ‘ 6. “ e I ~ .~ s‘ o.‘ .9- ‘ 4f ‘ ~ -6 e g, en V 5 Q .0 .. ¢ ~ ‘. ‘ ~ ~ I ~ 1' ‘ 3. ~ ‘J. 4' JF ‘9 ““‘““"'““‘ 4' :9 4f’ o 0‘ ~ ¢ -2 User mum o.“ ‘ f or .9 ‘ I 1 3 ‘ .: ‘wl MM!“ .2 -6. 6 ‘ 1 Inter a whale manner from “ .m" Satisfied Inter a “la umber teen -2 . .to‘tmemehhla‘.“ Ol'ety‘etldted teellmeeehblmnk. Ankya-P yourself: Under Ideal enn- sell: ham much in agreement an dltImmn hum m to thin I with the atonement (38) The faculty in my depart-sot help each other to get the work done efficiently. (4l) (39) The faculty in my department are friendly and easy to get along with. (42) All things considered, how satisfied are you with your department colleagues? (Ilse Satisfaction Scale). '(43) 1 ‘-I still intend to be working here (or would like to. assuming I have tenure) 2 years from now. (44) —I still intend to be working here (or would like to. assuing I have tenure) 5 years from now. (45) -Considering all as ts of your present job. how satisfied are you with it overall? (Use Satisfaction Scale) . - (46) -Considering every aspect of my job here. I would say that mine is a good job. . (47) --If I had my life to live over, I would like to end up in the same job as I have now. (48) s‘ .k s '; u’ 4‘f’¢ " .3" g." .- v s Jf .i l 2 4 3 ks 9e 41-? (49) (50) (51) (52) (S3) (54) (SS) (56) (S7) (58) (59) (61) (62) (63) (64) (65) (66) (67) (68) (69) For each of the following statements, place the appropriate number fron l to S in the blank to the left of the item. 7 Hy job makes me feel in control of life's situations. Uorking at my present job makes ne feel depressed. I have good thoughts about my job when I am home. Hy job makes me have a positive outlook on life. I am in a good mood~more often than in a bad nood during the work day. I feel good when dealing with my chair. I feel good when communicating with my colleagues. when I tell my friends about uy work. I feel like talking about good things. I encourage others to get into the type of job I do. I feel like checking the employment eds in journals. I think about what other type of work I could be doing. I think about changing jobs. I feel like calling.in sick when I am not really physically ill. I don' t feel like waking up ooh-ornings I have to work. I feel energetic during the work day. I feel like leaving work immediately after the final required minute of the day. Mondays are depressing days at work. I feel like being lazy during the days I work. I feel like interrupting what I am doing at work to take a break and relax. I feel as though I am overloaded with work. If there are further comments regarding the importance or satisfaction with aspects of your work. please add them on the reverse side of this page. APPENDIX B APPENDIX B PRELIMINARY NOTICE TO RESPONDENTS HOPE COLLEGE January 8, 1987 Dear Colleague: You have been randomly selected to participate in a study of faculty in the GLCA colleges. In approxi- nately two weeks, you will be receiving a survey. The purpose of this survey is to assess attitudes of faculty in private liberal arts colleges in light of recent trends in high- er education. In spite of your busy schedule, I hope that you'll take the tine to participate so that the results will accurately reflect the attitudes which we have concerning our job. Thank you in advance for your participation. Judith A. Hotiff Associate Professor 117 COVER LETTER TO ACCOMPANY QUESTIONNAIRE (43‘ ‘ HOPECOLLEGE January 22, 1987 Dear Colleague, By now you have received a postcard notifying you of the Faculty Job Vglue§_§nd Satisfaction Survey. This study is intended to help understand better both the importance and the degree of satisfaction we share about various aspects of our work. While there is growing national interest in the professional life of college and university faculty, very few inquiries have been conducted among faculty in private liberal arts institutions. This study is being conducted among the member colleges of the GLCA. The GLCA office has helped in providing directory assistance. A report will be sent to them when the study has been completed. In this way, your participation will have a bearing on future policy decisions in our institutions. Enclosed you will find a questionnaire which will require only 15 minutes to complete. Your participation in completing the questionnaire is obviously vital to the success of this study. I am hoping for a 100% return rate so that the study will accurately reflect the attitudes of faculty in private liberal arts colleges. This study has been designed so that all responses will be entirely_§nonymous. I am asking you to sign and return the enclosed postcard separately from the questionnaire. This will enable me to identify who has responded, yet preserve the anonymity and confidentiality of the questionnaires. PLEASE DO NOT WRITE YOUR NAME ON ANY PART OF THE QUESTIONNAIRE. If you would like a summary of the results of the survey, please check the appropriate box on the enclosed postcard before returning it. Please return the questionnaire as soon as possible. Enclosed is a stamped pre-addressed envelope for this purpose. If you have any questions, please feel free to contact me at (616) 392—5111, extension 3259 or leave a message at extension 3251 and I'll get back to you. Thank you in advance for your participation. Sincerely, J dith A. Motif Associate Professor INHIANU,Mu1nnAN4musumawnnvuanl 2118 RETURN POSTCARD HOPE COLLEGE QUESTIONNAIRE RETURN VERIFICATION Please sign and return this postcard after you have completed and sent in the Job Values and Satisfaction Survey questionnaire. This procedure will ensure the anonymity of your response and allow me to verify the sample. Your returning this postcard and following the guidelines is very important for obtaining accurate interpretation of the results. I have mailed my completed questionnaire. Signature Date Please print name Please check here if you would like to have a summary of the results sent to you when the project is completed. 119 FOLLOW-UP POSTCARD HOPE COLLEGE February 5, 1987 ;{ Dear Colleague: Eia‘ A couple weeks ago, you received a questionnaire ; ,6 entitled Faculty Job Values and Satisfaction Survey. * I've not yet received a postcard from you indicating that you have returned the questionnaire. If you have not yet had the opportunity to complete the question- naire, I encourage you to do so at your earliest convenience. If you have misplaced your copy of the questionnaire or have not received it, please call me at (616)392—5111, ext. 3259 or leave a message at ext. 3251 and I will send you one. Thank you for your cooperation. Sincerely, Judith A. Motiff Associate Professor 120 LIST OF REFERENCES LIST OF REFERENCES Abreu, J. R. (1980). Job satisfaction of the faculty members of the schools of education in three universities granting Doctor of Philosophy degrees in the state of Michigan. Qigsertation Ab§tracts International, 1;, 1849A. (University Microfilms No. 80-25,642) Anderson, G. L. (1976). Organizational diversity. In J. C. Smart J. R. Montgomery (Eds.), Examining departmental management, New Directions for Institutional Research, IQ (Summer), San Francisco: Jossey-Bass. Araghi, M. A. (1981). The relationship between university job satisfaction, role conflict, task clarity and productivity. Dissertation Abstract; International, 3;, 1502A. (University Microfilms No. 81-21.301) Avakian, A. N. (1971). An analysis of factors relating to the job satisfaction and dissatisfaction of faculty members in institutions of higher education. Dissertation Abstracts Internationgl, gg, 1765A— 1766A. (University Microfilms No. 71-26, 754) Bess, J. D. (1981, March). Intrinsic satisfactions from academic versus other professional work: A comparative analysis. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the Association for the Study of Higher Education, Washington, D.C. Biglan, A. (1973). The characteristics of subject matter in different academic areas. Journal of Applied Psychology, §1(3), 195-203. Boberg, A. L. & Blackburn, R. T. (1983, May). Faculty work dissatisfactiong and their concern for quality. Paper presented at the Annual Forum of the Association for Institutional Research, Toronto, Ontario. 121 122 Bockman, V. M. (1971). The Herzberg controversy. Personnel Psychology, g1, 155-189. Bowen, H. R. & Schuster, J. H. (1986). American professors. A national resource imperiled. New York: Oxford University Press. Bradt, K. (1955). The usefulness of a postcard technique in a mail questionnaire study. Public Opinion Quarterly, 19, 218-222. Brawer, F. B. (1979). Personality attributes of two-year college instructors. Community College Frontiers, Spring. Bulls, B. S. (1980). Values as a predictor of job satisfaction of business technology faculty among selected community colleges. Dissertation Abstracts International, 11, 3390A-3391A. (University Microfilms No. 81—01,877) Buros, O. K. (Ed.) (1978). The eighth mental measurements yearbook. Highland Park, N.J.: The Gryphon Press. Campbell, J. P., Dunnette, M. D., Lawler, E. E., & Weick, K. E. (1970). Managerial behavior1 performance, and effectiveness. New York: McGraw-Hill. Cares, R. C. & Blackburn, R. T. (1978). Faculty self-actualization: Factors affecting career success. Research in Higher Education, g, 123-136. Carnegie Council on Policy Studies in Higher Education. (1980). Three thousand futures: The next twenty years for higher education. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass. Caston, R. J. & Briato, R. (1983). On the use of facet importance as a weighting component of job satisfaction. Educational and ngchological Measurement, 13, 339-350. Champion, D. J., & Sear, A. M. (1969) Questionnaire response rate: A methodological analysis. Social Forces, £1, 335-339s Cohen, A. M. (1974). Community college faculty job satisfaction. Research in Higher Education, Q, 369-376. 123 Diener, J. (1984, April). College faculty and job satisfaction. Paper presented at the Annual Meeting of the American Education Research Association, New Orleans, Louisiana. Duncan, D. B. (1955). Multiple range and multiple F tests. Biometrics, 11, 1-42. Elkin, J. L. (1982). The Great Lakes Colleggg Association. Twenty-one years of cooperation in higher education. Ann Arbor: Great Lakes Colleges Association. The faculty: Deeply troubled. (1985). Change, 17(4), 31-34. Feild, H. S. & Giles, W. F. (1977). Dimensions of faculty members’ sensitivity to job satisfaction items. Research in Higher Education, 6, 193-199. Finkelstein, M. J. (1984). The American academic profession. A synthesis of social scientific inquiry gince World War II. Columbus, OH.: Ohio State University Press. Flanagan, J. C. (1954). The critical incident technique. Psychological Bulletin, 51(5), 327-358. Friedlander, J. (1978). The relationship between general job satisfaction and specific work-activity satisfaction of community college faculty. Community/Junior College Resegpch Quarterly, 2, 227-240. Gomez, D. (1982). The job satisfaction of full-time community college faculty in New Jersey: Implications for administrators. Dissertation Abstracts International, 1;, 3197A. (University Microfilms No. 83-04, 017). Grahn, J. (1981). General college job satisfaction survey, University of Minnesota. Summer 1980. General College Studies, 16(1), 1-28. Gruneberg, M. M. (1979). Understandipg job satisfaction. New York: John Wiley & Sons. Haun, H. T. (1975). A study of work satisfaction and dissatisfaction among selected women leaders in higher education. Dissertation Abstracts International, 36, 1330A. (University Microfilms No. 75-18,964). 124 Hawes, G. R. (1985). Going to collegppwhile Working. Strategies for success. New York: College Entrance Examination Board. Hengstler, D. D. (1980). Faculty perceptions of their department and chief administrator. Dissertations Abstracts International, 11, 2515A. (University Microfilms No. 80-26, 518). Herzberg, F., Mausner, B., & Snyderman, B. B. (1959). The motivation to work. New York: John Wiley & Sons. House, R. J. & Wigdor, L. A. (1967). Herzberg’s dual-factor theory of job satisfaction and motivation: A review of the evidence and a criticism. Personnel Psychology, 29(4), 369-389. Hunter, M., Ventimiglia, J. & Crow, M. L. (1980). Faculty morale in higher education. Journal of Teacher Education, 31(2), 27-30. Jacobson, R. L. (1985, October 23). Nearly 40 pct. of faculty members said to consider leaving academe. Chronicle of Higher Education, pp. 1, 22. Jarrell, B. J. (1983). A comparison of the relationships between role ambiguity and role conflict with job-related tension, job satisfaction, and propensity to leave the organization among middle and upper level administrators in higher education. Dissertation Abstracts International, 11, 1205A. (University Microfilms No. 83-18,996) Kanter, R. M. (1979). Changing the shape of work: Reform in academe. In Perspectives on Leadership (pp. 3-9). Washington, DC: The American Association for Higher Education. Keller, G. (1983). Academic strategy. The managpment revolution in American higher education. Baltimore: The Johns Hopkins University Press. Kelly, R. & Hart, B.D. Role preferences of faculty in different age groups and academic disciplines. Sociology of Education, 11, 351-357. Ladd, E. C. & Lipset, S. M. (1975). What professors think. Chronicle of H1gher Education, 11(1), 2,9. 125 Ladd, E. C. & Lipset, S. M. (1976a). The aging professoriate. Chronicle of Higher Education, 3(13). 16. Ladd, E. C. & Lipset, S. M. (1976b). Nearly all professors are satisfied with their choice of academic career. Chronicle of H1gher Education, 12(10), 11. Ladd, E. C. & Lipset, S. M. (1976c). Survey of social, political, and educational perspectives of American college and university faculty. National Institute of Education Project No. 3-3053. Storrs, CN: Connecticut University. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED135278). Ladd, E. C. & Lipset, S. M. (1976d). What do professors like best about their jobs?. Chronicle of Higher Education, 12(5), 10. Light, Jr., D., Introduction: The structure of the academic professions. Sociology of Education, 11, 2- 28. Linsky, A. S. (1975). Stimulating responses to mailed questionnaires: A review. Public Opinion Quarterly, ..3_9.7 82-101s Locke, E. A. (1983). The nature gnd causes of job satisfaction. In Dunnette, M.D. (Ed.), Handbook of industrial and organizational psychology (pp.1297-l349). New York: John Wiley & Sons. Locke, E. A., Fitzpatrick, W. and White, F. M. (1983) Job satisfaction and role clarity among university and college faculty. The Review of Higher Education, 6(4), 343-365. Lodahl, J. B. & Gordon J. (1972). The structure of scientific fields and the functioning of university graduate departments. American Sociolog1cal Review, 11, 57-72. Maslow, A. H. (1954). Motivation and personality. New York: Harper and Row. McCabe, M.V. (1980) Evaluation for advancement: The university faculty point in view. Dissertation Abstracts International, 11, 390A. (University Microfilms No. 81-01, 611). 126 Miller, G. A. (1986). Organizational climate and job satisfaction of independent college faculty (Doctoral dissertation, University of Nebraska, 1986). Dissertation Abstracts International, 11, 2047A. Mobley, W. H. & Locke, E. A. (1970) The relationship of value importance to satisfaction. Organizational Behavior and Human Performance, 5, 463-483. Morgan, L. E. (1984) The perceived leader behavior of academic deans and its relationship to subordinate job satisfaction. Dissertation Abstracts International, 15, 2340A. (University Microfilms No. 84-13,265) Morstain, B. R. & Smart, J. C. (1976). Educational orientations of faculty: Assessing a personality model of the academic professions. Psycholog19al Reports, 39, 57-72. Mowday, R. T. (1982). Expectancy theory approaches to faculty motivation. In J. L. Bess (Ed.), Motivating professors to teach effectively. New Directions for Teaching and Learning, 19 (June), San Francisco: Jossey-Bass. Onuoha, R. A. (1980). Job satisfaction of university faculty. The Canadian Administrator, 29(2), 1—5. Pearson, D. A. & Seiler, R. E. (1983). Environmental satisfiers in academe. Higher Education, 12, 35-47. Porter, L. W. (1962). Job attitudes in management: I. Perceived deficiencies in need fulfillment as a function of job level. Journal of Applied Ramsden, P. A. (1983) The relationship between part-time faculty job satisfaction and perceptions of division chairpersons’ leadership behavior in community colleges. Dissertation Abstracts International, 1Q, 765A. (University Microfilms No. 84-12,743) Robinson, J. P., Athanasiou, R., & Head, K. B. (1969). Measures of occupational attitudes and occupational characteristics (Appendix A to measures of political attitudes), (pp. 105-107). Ann Arbor: Survey Research Center, Institute for Social Research, University of Michigan. 127 Schuster, J. H. & Bowen, H. R. (1985). The faculty at risk. Change, 11(4), 13-21. Showalter, D. E. (1978). Publication and stagnation in the liberal arts college. Educational Record, 52(2), 166-172. Skaggs, G. & Lissitz, R. W. (1981) Discriminant and convergent validation of behavioral tendencies approach to determining job satisfaction. Paper presented at National Council on Measurement in Education, Los Angeles, CA. Smart, J. C. & McLaughlin, G. W. (1978). Reward structures of academic disciplines. Research in Higher Education, g, 39-55. Smart, J. C. & Elton, C. F. (1975). Goal orientations of academic departments: A test of Biglan’s model. Journal of Applied Psychology, 69(5), 580-588. Smart, J. C. (1978). Diversity of academic organizations. Journal of Higher Education, 42(5), 403-419. Smith, P. C., Kendall, L. M., & Hulin, C. L. (1969). The measurement of satisfaction in work and retirement. Chicago: Rand McNally. Solomon, E. & Kopelman, R. E. (1984). Questionnaire format and scale reliability: an examination of three modes of item presentation. Psychological Reports, 54(2), 447-452. SPSS—X, Edition 2. (1986) Chicago: SPSS Inc. Tuckman, H. P. & Hagemann, R. P. (1976). An analysis of the reward structure in two disciplines. Journal of Higher Education, XLVII(4), 447-464. Vroom, V. H. (1964). Work and motivation. New York: Wiley and Sons. Wanous, J. P. & Lawler, E. E. III. (1972). Measurement and meaning of job satisfaction. Journal of Applied Psychology, 56(2), 95-105. Weiss, D. J., Dawis, R. V., England, G. W. & Lofquist, L. H. (1967). Manual for the Minnesota Satisfaction Questionnaire. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota, Industrial Relations Center. 128 Willie, R. & Stecklein, J. E. (1982). A three-decade comparison of college faculty characteristics, satisfactions, activities, and attitudes. Research in Higher Education, 16(1), 81-93. Wozniak, L. C. (1973). A study of the relationship of selected variables and the job satisfaction/ dissatisfaction of music faculty in two-year colleges. Dissertation Abstracts International, 66, 2349A. (University Microfilms No. 73-25,151) 1|H|IHNIWIIIWIHHHIIHIIHIIWIIIIHHHIIHHIIHHI 31293006325298