a . . . . ,. e Fuhflvwa‘rru .pum?‘ $234- 0.’ I l. ‘04: :c it} ; 9 . 4. din ..r . ,V: .A. V. om «awn, , LN!“ .44. it: .v ‘v. . A file» {I ‘ .P. Ma . .95 .c vblE u)’ I Y‘ .i “t l -.I‘J7.L79x ’I .".. . I ittyr s 1 3.1.“. .Viu.‘\,.Vvl.u v Rx .. . .vtnAOerI . llhlf? .n&\§|l Vsrval I 111“. .c. ..Y..VD‘D.II‘Q .‘.. ..:.. uh. 1‘- -104 03“ \lil .0 .\ v. «‘1’ .. ...v’0.§t> [lirA-vO A}: .. . Nu .NIr u \ , _ . .|‘II{|\«II‘.| .3 wt ‘ . .. v v. . .{W t . . until? . 4.1:, t. 1‘5) . ctvl u..l'. n :1... \ . 11‘ c . . luah?0¢.rnn I fix.» FIJJ.HJH~H..\.IJ2 >31=4envflf . URI: . .un‘. y.§ .3: . 1. Nu ti ‘ ; . . ‘ . . . l 1 - . u 11. . a} f; L VIN. .AV. ...I .4 1 . In . f ‘ . ‘ , ‘ ? ..\. 3.65.01: 1. -H . {22, {.L,.. ‘ .kv . .:JHM.....|;N«..... AM...§PN§+W.MWPJHH. ~ 3.....|.m..v....w.k.h.h..u. 6.3L. .3». . v .1: , ‘ .. ., . | ._ H . a I- :1 1. ..... . “$.me .l ‘ . . 1!- A: w ‘ . : ., x. .ml 4 . . . . ...‘.‘.¢.A..-nt..fl 1‘ . . . c. 1v :1: ‘ q .u I . loiaulhqimfil15IJN v i ‘ \ \ \ 4 r!"‘ THES’S \ J MICHIGAN STATE UNIVERSITY LIBRARIES L‘ ll!ll!HI/lll/ll/l/llllllIll/(WIN!!!Ill/Ill! 3 1293 01707 5296 This is to certify that the thesis entitled JOB SATISFACTION OF SUMMER DAY CAMP COUNSELLORS STUDIED LONGITUDINALLY OVER THE SUMMER EMPLOYMENT PERIOD presented by LYNNE GAIL DANDO has been accepted towards fulfillment of the requirements for MASER— degree in W lama 0255M 1 Major professor Date q/9/7? 0-7639 MS U is an Affirmative Action/Equal Opportunity Institution LIBRARY Mlchlgan State University PLACE IN RETURN Box to remove this checkout from your record. TO AVOID FINES return on or before date due. I DATE DUE DATE DUE DATE DUE AME Egg? 1198 clams-mu JOB SATISFACTION OF SUMMER DAY CAMP COUNSELLORS STUDIED LONGITUDINALLY OVER THE SUMMER EMPLOYMENT PERIOD By Lynne Gail Dando A THESIS Submitted to Michigan State University in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of MASTER OF SCIENCE Department of Park, Recreation and Tourism Resources 1998 ABSTRACT JOB SATISFACTION OF SUMMER DAY CAMP COUNSELLORS STUDIED LONGITUDINALLY OVER THE SUMMER EMPLOYMENT PERIOD By Lynne Gail Dando The purpose of this study was to investigate the job satisfaction of summer day camp counsellors throughout their employment period. The respondents completed four job satisfaction questionnaires over the course of the summer so that a longitudinal pattern could be established to determine changes in their job satisfaction. It was found that the counsellors job satisfaction was relatively high prior to commencing employment, however it continually dropped throughout the summer to a level which was substantially lower by the end of the summer. This pattern of decreased job satisfaction was not found to be significant at the p>.05 level, however Should cause concern to employers. Samples were taken fi'om two Parks and Recreation Departments summer counsellors in Ontario, Canada. Both groups, when data was isolated, reported the same pattern of gradual decrease in job satisfaction over the summer as the entire sample. The Parks and Recreation Department Administrator's completed a questionnaire which found that they are not aware of this decrease in job satisfaction and thus, do not take appropriate measures to compensate. T 0 my Mother and in loving memory of my Father. iii ACKNOWLEDGMENTS I would like to thank Dr. James Bristor for all his support, encouragement and confidence in me throughout the course of this work and my graduate studies in the Department of Park, Recreation and Tourism Resources. Next, I would like to acknowledge my gratitude and respect for Dr. Betty Van der Smissen. Her support and guidance through my two years at Michigan State University were greatly appreciated. Finally, I would like to thank my family. My Mother and Father who stood by me and supported my every move. I would not be who I am today without their love and encouragement. I only wish my Father could have lived long enough to have read this paper and known about my accomplishments. Chris, thank you for all your understanding through my many years of post-secondary education. And Mark, thank you for your support. Many thanks to all of you for having such a profound impact on my education and my life. iv TABLE OF CONTENTS List of tables ............................................................................. List Of Figures .......................................................................... Chapter One Introduction ................................................................. Problem Statement ........................................... Research Questions ......................................... Limitations ....................................................... Delirnitations .................................................... Definitions ....................................................... Assumptions ..................................................... Chapter Two Review of Literature ..................................................... Job Satisfaction ................................................. Hygiene-Motivator Theory ................................ Controversy of the Hygiene-Motivator Theory Who are Camp Counsellors? .............................. Past Research ..................................................... Pattern of Counsellor Motivation ........................ Chapter Three Methodology and Procedures ......................................... Sample ................................................................ Personal Demographics ....................................... Employment Demographics ................................ Instrumentation ................................................... Collection of Data ............................................... Data Analysis ...................................................... Chapter Four Data Analysis .................................................................. Job Satisfaction Factors ........................................ page vii page viii page 1 Page 4 page 4 page 5 page 5 Page 5 Page 6 Page 7 Page 7 page 8 page 11 page 12 page 13 page 15 page 18 page 18 page 18 page 19 page 22 page 24 page 24 page 25 page 25 Job Satisfaction .................................................. page 26 Retention ............................................................ page 32 Administrators Questionnaire .............................. page 34 Chapter Five Discussion and Conclusion .............................................. page 36 Importance Factors ............................................. page 36 Job Satisfaction ................................................... page 39 Implications and Recommendations ..................... page 43 Appendix A Expected Job Satisfaction Questionnaire .......................... page 46 Appendix B Job Satisfaction Questionnaire .......................................... page 49 Appendix C Administrators Questionnaire ........................................... page 51 List of References .......................................................................... page 54 LIST OF TABLES Table 1 Gender and Demographic Data of Day Camp Counsellors working for the Park and Recreation Departments Of Oakville and Mississauga, Province of Ontario, Canada page 19 Table 2 Employment Demographic Data ................................. page 21 Table 3 Job Satisfaction Factors ............................................. page 23 Table 4 Factors Important to Day Camp Counsellors in Rank Order .......................................................................... page 26 Table 5 Paired T-Test Calculations of Job Satisfaction .............. page 27 Table 6 Individual Changes in Job Satisfaction ........................... page 29 Table 7 Paired T-Test Calculations of Job Satisfaction for Those Respondents Who Initially Displayed an Increase ......... page 30 Table 8 Paired T-Test Calculations of Job Satisfaction for Those Respondents Who Initially Displayed a Decrease ........... page 30 Table 9 Paired T-test Calculations of Job Satisfaction for Those Respondents Who Completed All Four Questionnaires page 31 Table 10 20 Factors Included in Job Satisfaction Over the 4 Test Periods ........................................................................... page 32 Table 11 Paired T-Test Calculations of Return Rate ......................... page 33 vii LIST OF FIGURES Figure l Hygiene and Motivator Factors Continuum ............................ page 10 Figure 2 Pattern of Job Satisfaction ...................................................... page 28 Figure 3 Job Satisfaction Of the Individual Participating Organizations Superimposed on the Entire Sample .......................................... page 35 viii W INIEQDLLCIIQN Seasonal employees are critical to the success of summer recreation programs and activities. Recreation and leisure service agencies rely on summer employees to organize and implement a vast majority of their summer programs especially with respect to summer day camps. For this reason, understanding the motivation of these employees is crucial. Employers and supervisors should be concerned with employee motivation in order to attract, motivate and retain employees. Past studies have found that expectations for advancement within an agency are important to full time employees who view a A position as long term and seek job security (Nogradi, 1982; 1983; Summers, 1986; Neal, & Larsen, 1989). However, it is hypothesized that seasonal summer recreation stafi‘ ”may be more willing to tolerate a relatively poor environment while seeking other benefits" (Hofi‘, Ellis, & Crossley, 1988, p.68). Seasonal summer camp counsellors are generally more motivated by intrinsic factors. In order for managers to efi‘ectively and efficiently supervise summer staff, they first must understand what motivates these employees and how their motivation level may change throughout the summer. Over the last few years employers have Started to become aware of camp counsellor motivation and study results have surfaced (Servedio, 1981; Henderson, 1982; DeGrafi‘, & Edginton, 1992', Henderson, & Bialeschki, 1993). The emphasis of past research has been on camp stafi', both residential and day camp, due to the nature of the employment, time flame, and individuals in the stated positions. Camp 2 staff generally are high school and college or university students between the ages of 16 to 23 years. They are individuals who are seeking only a limited employment from Iune until September and are usually interested in exercising their talents, gaining related job experience, socializing, working with children and being outdoors (Servedio, 1981; Henderson, 1982; DeGrafi‘, & Edginton, 1992). Summer camp counsellors are less likely to be concerned with salary increases and benefits, administrative policies, and opportunities for advancement. They are more motivated by intrinsic factors that are related to the job itself. However, studies have primarily focused only on determining what factors motivate camp counsellors at one particular time and not how these factors may change over time. Some discrepancies in past research findings may be due in part to the time frame the sampling took place at since counsellor motivation changes throughout the summer from the beginning to end. Counsellors tend to have a burnout period in the last few weeks of the summer (Ashmen, 1985; Reapsome, 1986), therefore, time frame must be a consideration in motivating summer camp employees. Studying the factors behind a seasonal employees motivation to work is important and further study must be performed to evaluate how these factors actually influence employee motivation over time. If a manager successfully stimulates the intrinsic and extrinsic factors which motivate employees, will they remain at a level of high motivation during the entire term of employment? It is the assumption that an employee's motivation level fluctuates throughout the employment period. A camp counsellor may be highly motivated and excited prior to commencement of the job and further during the initial employment period. However, this level may drop as the summer progresses, especially in 3 the last few weeks, and continue to fluctuate throughout the summer (Ashmen, 1985; Reapsome, 1986). This change in motivation level is what an employer should be concerned with. Undoubtedly the motivation level of a counsellor will transfer to the campers, and if the level is low, may affect any decision the child makes about returning to camp for future summers. The seasonal employee is the agency's direct, personal link with its consumer, therefore, it is in the agency's best interest to secure continuous high levels of motivation from of their employees for the entire employment period. How satisfied an employee is has a significant impact on how well he or she will perform on the job and his decision to continue working at a day camp and return the following summer (Becker, 1984). Job satisfaction, as explained by Herzberg (1971) in his book, Work and The Nature of Man, is comprised of two parts: motivator and hygiene factors. Motivator factors are those intrinsic factors which lead to satisfaction such as achievement, recognition, work itself and personal growth, whereas hygiene factors are those extrinsic factors which contribute to dissatisfaction such as job security, salary, working conditions and fiinge benefits. It is important that camp Administrators understand how these satisfiers and dissatisfiers influence camp counsellor motivation and job satisfaction and further whether the importance of these factors changes during the course of employment. Camp staff are diverse in nature with varying needs. They range in age, experience, education, and future goals and aspirations. The camp staff are the most important component to any day camp and understanding and managing these diverse needs is important (Gersten, 1988). These factors will have a strong bearing on the 4 employees motivation, thus, impacting greatly on how employers control or influence levels of motivation of their seasonal summer stafl‘. Employers must be concerned with motivating summer day camp stafl‘ correctly throughout the summer so as to enhance performance in order to retain counsellors for future summers and to ensure that the counsellor's positively impact the experiences of campers. W The purpose of this research study was to investigate SUMMER DAY CAMP COUNSELLOR'S JOB SATISFACTION FLUCTUATIONS throughout their employment period. W The study attempted to answer the following questions: 1. To what extent did summer day camp counsellor's job satisfaction fluctuate throughout their employment period? 2. What factors did summer day camp stafl‘ determine to be important to their motivation to choose a summer job? 3. What were Recreation Administration's doing to motivate their summer day camp staff and did this influence the counsellor's job satisfaction? 5 LIMITATIONS The following research study was limited to the following factors: 1) The Recreation Department day camps chosen in the sample may not adequately represent all agencies who provide summer day camps. 2) The support provided by each individual Recreation Department Administration to the importance and benefit of the research study may not ensure the accurate completion of all required questionnaires. 3) The assumption that due to sampling numbers, not all subjects will have answered all five questionnaires. However, there will be an adequate number of each questionnaire completed. DELIMIIAIIQNS The following research study was delimited to only those individuals who are employed by Parks and Recreation Department in the cities of Oakville, Ontario Canada and Mississauga, Ontario Canada day camps during the summer of 1994 and work for the entire employment period. DEFINITIONS Motivation - is the ”energetic behaviour directed toward some goal ...[which assumes]. . .there is some kind of need, want, or desire... behaviour and productivity of employees and managers” (Litwin, & Stringer, 1968, p.7). 6 Job Satisfaction/Dissatisfaction - An individual's attitude toward his or her job. Pay, opportunities for promotion, the nature of the job itself, the organization's policies and procedures, and working conditions usually determine job satisfaction/dissatisfaction. When this attitude is positive, employees are said to be satisfied and dissatisfied when it is negative (Moorhead, & Grifin, 1992, p.112). Day Camp - Summer Mp where children only attend during the day and go home at night which takes place in a natural outdoor setting. Day Camp Counsellor - Any individual who is employed to work directly at a day camp and has direct contact with the campers. Administrators - Those individuals who employ and supervise the camp counsellors but have no or very little direct contact with the campers. ASSUMEIIQNS For the following study it was assumed that all subjects, both counsellors and administrators answered the surveys honestly and accurately and that the survey format correctly measured job satisfaction. Job satisfaction of employees is an irnportant aspect for employers to understand since it will afl‘ect performance on the job, absenteeism, turnover and in many organizations the image portrayed to the public and consumers. Leisure service agencies employees are in constant contact with the consumer; their programs are implemented directly by the employee to the consuming public. Day camps are a summer recreation program whose employees are often students who work directly with the camp children, thus, it is imperative that their job satisfaction is understood since they are working as advocates for the leisure service agency. Many research studies have attempted to understand this job satisfaction, however, they have only performed simple one time analyses, therefore, the purpose of this study was to determine what factors day camp counsellors find important in their jobs and to evaluate job satisfaction over the entire summer employment period to determine if it fluctuates and what pattern these fluctuations take on. I l S . fl . Job satisfaction is a motivational concept which has been studied extensively. By 1972, it was estimated that there had been over two thousand studies of job satisfaction performed (Hopkins, 1983) and since then hundreds more have been performed. Generally, the study of job satisfaction remains dependant on a theory of human needs and looks at an individual's state of nrind when evaluating needs and/or values which are being 8 met by the work environment (Hopkins, 1983). Job satisfaction is most simply defined as "an individual's attitude toward his or her job" (Moorhead, and Griffin, 1992, p.112). It is assumed that when this attitude is positive, then employees are happy and satisfied with their jobs. There are five major factors which affect an employees positive attitude: pay, Opportunities for promotion, the nature of the work itself, administrative policies and procedures and working conditions. An employee will not likely feel equivalently satisfied with each of these factors but the extent to which certain factors are important to the employee will likely afl'ect the employee's overall job satisfaction. Furthermore, job satisfaction has been linked to such issues as turnover and absenteeism, thus, it is crucial for an employer to maintain high positive levels of job satisfaction so as to reduce the likelihood of high turnover and absenteeism. Over the years, many bivariate and multivariate theories of job satisfaction have evolved. Such theories include the Hygiene-Motivator Theory (Herzberg, 1959), the Job Diagnostic Survey (Hackman, & Oldham, 1975) and Maslow's (1943) Hierarchy of Needs. Of all theories, the one which has come under most scrutiny is Herzberg's Hygiene- Motivator theory. Therefore, it will be examined in more detail here so as to determine its validity and usefiilness. H . -1 l . I] One of the most widely known and scrutinized theories in the field of job satisfaction was developed by Frederick Herzberg in 1959 entitled the Hygiene-Motivator or two-factor theory (Herzberg, Mausner, & Snyderman, 1959). This theory is based on 9 the assumption that employees are motivated to perform by two very distinct entities: hygiene factors and motivator factors. The former is characterized by feelings of unhappiness which are not associated with the job itself but with the conditions which surround the execution of the job; these conditions are also called the dissatisfiers. The latter are the motivator factors which are those that lead to a positive job attitude and satisfy an employees need for self-actualization (Herzberg, et. al, 1959). These two sets Of factors are said to exist separately and do not rely on each other for high motivation and high levels of performance. Hygiene factors are called dissatisfiers because they fail to provide satisfaction to the employee; they do not possess the characteristics necessary for giving an emfloyee a sense Of growth and achievement (Herzberg, 1966). Some major dissatisfiers are company policy and administration, supervision, salary, interpersonal relations and working conditions. The term hygiene was given to these factors from a medical standpoint meaning preventative and environmental. Hygiene factors are a form of maintenance factors and tend to fall in the lower levels on Maslow's (1943) hierarchy of needs. Hygiene factors "represent the environment to which man the animal is constantly trying to adjust, for the environment is the source of Adam's sufl‘ering” (Herzberg, 1966, p. 75). Motivator factors are not the factors which surround the actual doing of the job but are the responsibility and achievement which are incorporated in the job (Herzberg, et. al, 1959). Five Of the strongest satisfiers were found to be achievement, recognition, work itself, responsibility and advancement. The term motivator was given to these factors due 10 to the nature of the word itself; the satisfiers motivate a persons job performance and effort. These factors tend to be aligned with the upper levels of Maslow's (1943) hierarchy of needs and can be viewed through a psychological context of a child growing up and mastering skills which provide satisfaction and a feeling of success. Motivator factors are viewed by Herzberg (1966) as growth seeking, while hygiene factors are seen as an avoidance of pain. As stated earlier, the two sets of factors are distinct and separate, thus, must be considered such. Hygiene factors represent job dissatisfaction or the opposite, no job dissatisfaction and motivator factors represent job satisfaction or no job satisfaction. In this instance the Opposite of job satisfaction is not job dissatisfaction but instead is not job satisfaction. See Figure 1 for a diagram of the two continuums. Hygiene Factors / \ \ / Job No Job 11' . a . n“ . a I. Motivator Factors / \ \ / No Job ’9”. . sfim' Satisfaction Figure 1: Hygiene and Motivator Factors Continuum 11 C E l I! . l l . II The hygiene-motivator theory has undergone much scrutiny Since its conception. Many researchers have attempted to test this theory (Hoff, Ellis, & Crossley, 1988; Soliman, 1970; French, Metersky, Thaler, & Trexler, 1973; Maidani, 1991) to prove once and for all its validity, however, no solid proof can be obtained to prove it invalid and untrue. The theory seems to have its flaws from its initial conception, however the underlying principles still ring true. Of the studies referenced above some important findings must be mentioned. French et. al (1973) attempted to repeat the original study looking for consistency in the methodology used and concluded that it is possible to replicate Herzberg's original results by controlling crucial aspects in the experimental process. Further, Maidani (1991) tested Herzberg's theory among public and private sector employees using both satisfied and dissatisfied groups of employees. He concluded that there were significant differences between the groups on motivator factors however, not on hygiene factors. This supports the original results that motivators are sources of satisfaction but calls to question the original conclusion that motivator and hygiene factors exist separately on two continuums. Due to the nature of the above studies, the results lead one to assume that the hygiene- motivator theory tends to lend itself better to certain populations of the work force. Hoff et. a1 (1988) tested the hygiene-motivator theory on employees in summer recreation job settings and concluded that their results supported the validity of the original results. They found that with regard to seasonal summer recreation employees, motivators are a source of job satisfaction and hygiene factors are a source of job 12 dissatisfaction, however, there does tend to be some overlap of the two different factor groups. Professionals in the leisure services management field seem to agree with the usage and validity of the hygiene-motivator theory for measuring job satisfaction of employees (Edginton, & Griflith, 1983; Edginton, and Williams, 1978; Howard, & Crompton, 1980; Neal, Williams, & Beech, 1984). They provide support for the theory in their discussions of motivation of employees in the leisure services agencies. WNW During the summer months in North America, June to September, one of the primary focuses of leisure services agencies is with summer day camps. A summer day camp is defined as a place where children attend during the day to take part in various activities and then return home at night. The focus in this study will only be with those day camps which take place in an outdoor nature setting. For success in these day camps, the leisure service agencies must hire day camp counsellors to interact with the children and organize and implement the camp program. Counsellors are generally students between the ages Of 16 and 25 years who are seeking summer employment which is fun, Outdoors and gives the student an opportunity tO gain job related experience (Servedio, 1981; Henderson, 1982; DeGrafl‘, and Edginton, 1992). Further, students who are employed as day camp counsellors are generally drawn to the position due to their love for children and the enjoyment they gain fiom working with children. Organized camping provides many unique opportunities for students. It enables young people to work as supervisors, program coordinators, disciplinarians, teachers and most importantly it allows them to act as children themselves again. This experience l3 enables youth to grow and learn and is highly regarded on a resume by future employment prospects (Servedio, 1981). Thus, for this reason it is important for managers to understand what motivates youth to become camp counsellors. What makes the job so appealing? And why do youth seek these jobs? Wren Many studies have been completed to answer the above questions of why youth become camp counsellors and what is their motivation behind this type of employment (Servedio, 1981; Henderson, 1982; Gersterr, 1988; Becker, 1984; Hofl', Ellis, & Crossley, 1988; Henderson, & Bialeschki, 1993). Two studies which take a simplistic approach to determining why people take employment opportunities as camp counsellors were completed by Servedio (1981) and Henderson (1982). Both studies had respondents complete a short and Simple questionnaire which measured attitudes towards factors in the camp counsellor position. Servedio (1981) had 143 respondents and concluded that an opportunity to exercise personal skills and talents and the personal satisfaction and enjoyment derived from the experience were of most importance, however, Opportunities for leadership roles and creativity, and ability to gain job related experience were also highly important. Henderson (1982) found that the camp counsellors sought such jobs because they liked to work with children, liked to be out Of doors and enjoyed the social implications of working with the other staff members. Further, she found that both males and females like the overall camp experience equally. However, contrary to past belief, both studies determined that salary was not a large concern to the youth; in fact, they seemed to earn a relatively low salary for the jobs that they were performing. 14 Since the above two studies, more extensive research has been conducted to determine camp counsellor motivation. More specifically research has been performed to ascertain how satisfied counsellors are with their positions and what actually enhances job satisfaction and decreases job dissatisfaction. Originally, Herzberg (1966) found that employees were most satisfied with their jobs when achievement, recognition, the work itself, responsibility and opportunity for advancement were high and were most dissatisfied when supervision, salary, interpersonal relations, working conditions and company policy and administration were high. Hoff, Ellis and Crossley (1988) used this premise to study the job satisfaction and job dissatisfaction summer job seekers in recreation settings and to test Herzberg’s hygiene-motivator theory. They asked respondents to rank each of the individual hygiene and motivator factors on a 10 point likert scale according to importance to them in a summer job. The findings reported that summer job seekers ranked increasing knowledge, having new experiences, future employment skills, fun, gaining work experiences and a sense of achievement as most important and experiencing risk, working away from home and escaping pressures as least important. Further, they found salary to be ranked in the middle of the list, which demonstrates that salary may be relatively important to summer job seekers but when compared with the earlier studies (Servedio, 1981; Henderson, 1982) of only day camp counsellors, it may have been lower in priority. Becker (1984) translated Herzberg's hygiene and motivator factors into camp factors. He defined each of the original factors than gave them meaning, where possible, which would be relevant to camp counsellors. DeGraff and Edginton (1992) took a closer 15 look at Becker's (1984) translation and combined them with Hoff et. al (1988) results and Servedio's (1981) results to form a comprehensive list of hygiene and motivator factors which could be best used to study job satisfaction of camp counsellors. They found that when studying camp counsellors on relevant camp factors the results were slightly difl‘erent than those found by Hofl‘ et. a1 (1988). The counsellors ranked working with youth, having firn, personal growth, helping others, meeting other people and exercising personal skills to be most important and salary, administrative policies, Opportunity for advancement and new status as least important. The comprehensive list seems to accurately portray factors which are Of importance to camp counsellors, however, DeGrafl' and Edginton (1992) divided their initial list into both hygiene and motivator factors separately and their results seem to Show that there is overlap between the two groups and to determine job satisfaction a list of all factors together would be necessary. Win At present, all studies in the area Of job satisfaction of camp counsellors have attempted to define the factors which are of importance to the counsellor and measure satisfaction on a one time occurrence. This is accurate, however, the question still exists that if camp counsellors are motivated and satisfied with their job will they remain in this state throughout the summer? There is evidence that Shows that camp counsellors hit a mid summer slump which lowers motivation and satisfaction on the job. Reapsome (1986) and Ashmen (1985) have expressed that counsellor's experience burnout in the middle of the summer , and if not recognized early may cause the counsellors motivation to consistently decrease throughout the remainder of the summer. Burnout is defined as 16 having both physical and psychological effects and is a loss of will and an inability to maintain interest and capabilities (Potter, 1980). When a person is burnt out, they are not motivated to perform their job. Some symptoms of burnout to be aware of are physical, mental and emotional such as lack Of energy to keep up with the campers, minor health inconveniences, resentment to routine, boredom, apathy, anxiety, worry, preoccupation and confusion (Ashmen, 1985). These symptoms of burnout, if recognized, can be counteracted and deflected before greater loss of job satisfaction occurs. In a summer camp setting, burnout is a crucial thing to intercept Since often the camp counsellor is the leisure service agencies only connection and direct contact with the consumer. However, do camp counsellors actually experience this period of burnout? At present there appears to be only assumptions that burnout occurs and no research has been conducted to determine if camp counsellors job satisfaction does change throughout the summer employment period. The motivational studies already described in this document only attempted to measure motivation and job satisfaction of camp counsellors on a one time occasion. Even though the results of previous studies have been similar they have never proved to have complete replicated results. This may be explained by time and motivational changes over time. Therefore, a longitudinal study of job satisfaction over the summer employment period may provide some explanation of the discrepancies in past findings, determine if there actually is a burnout period and when it occurs and further explain how job satisfaction changes from the beginning of the employment period to the end. This information will prove to be useful to camp administration in order to predict and maintain counsellor job satisfaction so as to retain counsellors for future summers and 17 to preserve the camps reputation which is directly exhibited through the counsellor to the consumer and the public. The purpose of the following study was to measure job satisfaction Of summer day camp employees longitudinally to determine if the job satisfaction fluctuated over the summer employment period. The following chapter outlines the subjects involved in the research study and the methods used to collect the data. The chapter addresses sampling procedures, how the data was collected, the instrument development and how the data was analyzed. Sample A random sample for the study consisted of approximately 200 summer day camp counsellors and 2 day camp Administrators selected from the population of counsellors employed by the Parks and Recreation Departments in the cities of Oakville, Ontario Canada and Mississauga, Ontario Canada. A sample size of 200 counsellors allows for a 95% bound confidence region to estimate importance and satisfaction with errors between 9% above and below the observed means. The sample was restricted to only those individuals employed as day camp counsellors for the summer of 1994. Within: The number of useful questionnaires returned were as follows: expected job satisfaction questionnaire (n=123), job satisfaction questionnaire 1(n=114), questionnaire 2 (n=105) and questionnaire 3 (n=88). Further, there were two administrator questionnaires distributed and returned to evaluate what the agencies are doing presently 18 19 to motivate their summer staff. Table 1 [’0' :IoDejneuzoj D2,. D. gut 0.50 .o,r' e 1"-.’-.H {a ‘.2 H 'I'otlrr‘r o .3.\l_‘ '4. u '2 be“; 0 .112,“ 21:.“ Item Test 1 Test 2 Test 3 Test 4 f % f % f % f % Gender Male 28 25.2 25 28.1 26 28.9 19 23.2 Female 83 74.8 64 71.9 64 71.1 63 76.8 Education High School 58 46.4 56 49.6 52 50.0 51 58.0 College 4 3.2 4 3.5 3 2.9 2 2.3 University 62 49.6 52 46.0 49 47.1 35 39.8 Post Graduate 1 0.8 1 0.9 0 0 0 0 The results concluded that the day camp counsellors in the study were between the ages of 14 and 26 years with an average age of the counsellor at 19 years. In general the respondents were 72% female and 28% male over the four testing periods. For actual numbers of respondents according to gender and last year of education completed for each testing period see Table 1. Due to the age of the respondents, approximately 50% were in high school and 50% were enrolled in post secondary education such as college or university. Emnlnunentflemnstanhigs The respondents were selected from two parks and recreation departments in Ontario: Oakville and Mississauga. They returned the completed questionnaires in a 20 relatively equal proportion of approximately 45% from Oakville and 55% from Mississauga, however, these numbers do vary slightly according to the specific testing periods. The first section of the questionnaires asked for employment demographics such as position in organization, number Of years in that position, number of years working at a summer camp, age of the children who they work directly with and if they work directly with or are involved in some capacity with special needs children. See Table 2 for frequencies and percentages of all employment demographics according to each testing period. Roughly, 85% of all respondents were counsellors and 15% were supervisors of the day camp programs. They averaged approximately 2.5 years of experience in their present position with a range of 1 to 8 years. However, the average number of years working in any day camp position was higher at nearly 3.5 years with a range Of 1 to 10 years of experience. Therefore, providing evidence that many respondents had been employed at l or more day camps other then their current day camp. The employees stated that approximately 90% are involved in some way with children with special needs, however, only about 15% said they worked one on one with a special needs child. Further, the respondents stated working primarily with children 4-13 years of age. Less than 15% of the respondents said they worked with children 13-16 years of age which may be explained by the fact that many teenagers obtain summer jobs or lack the desire to attend a structured day camp. 21 Table 2 Emalexmentflemcaranhicflata Item Test 1 Test 2 Test 3 Test 4 X f % X f % X f % X f % Camp Position Supervisor 19 15.1 19 16.7 18 17.3 6 6.7 Counsellor 107 84.9 95 83.3 86 82.7 83 93.3 Year in Present Position 2.67 2.53 2.41 2.36 1 52 41.3 52 46.0 49 47.1 44 49.4 2 21 16.7 18 15.9 18 17.3 14 15.7 3 13 10.3 10 8.8 11 10.6 7 7.9 4 15 11.9 11 9.7 7 6.7 9 10.1 5 15 11.9 14 12.4 14 13.5 12 13.5 6 4 3.2 4 3.5 2 1.9 1 1.1 7 4 3.2 2 1.8 1 1.0 1 1.1 8 2 1.6 2 1.8 2 1.9 1 1.1 Total years in working in summer camp 3.52 3.38 3.29 3.07 l 32 25.4 33 29.5 32 30.5 33 37.5 2 15 11.9 13 11.6 15 14.3 10 11.4 3 15 11.9 13 11.6 11 10.5 10 11.4 4 20 15.9 18 16.1 13 12.4 10 11.4 5 27 21.4 18 16.1 21 20.0 15 17.0 6 6 4.8 7 6.3 4 3.8 3 3.4 7 5 4.0 5 4.5 4 3.8 4 4.5 8 5 4.0 4 3.6 4 3.8 2 2.3 9 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 10 1 0.8 l 0.9 1 1.0 1 1.1 Organization Oakville 58 46.0 52 45.6 42 40.0 48 53.9 Mississauga 68 54.0 62 54.4 63 60.0 41 46.1 Age of Campers " 4-6 years 81 64.3 75 76.0 76 72.4 70 . 78.7 7~10 years 95 75.4 90 80.4 85 81.0 69 77.5 10-13 years 82 65.1 81 72.3 76 72.4 62 69.7 13-16 years 15 11.9 18 16.1 15 14.3 7 7.9 Have special needs children in camp yes 80 74.8 68 68.0 72 78.3 54 67.5 no 26 24.3 32 32.0 20 21.7 26 32.5 One to one with special needs child yes 18 14.4 12 10.8 11 10.8 6 7.0 no 106 84.8 99 89.2 91 89.2 80 93.0 "Cormsellorsmayworkwithmorethanoneagecategoryatatimeandthisistakenintoconsiderationinthis data,therefore,thetotalsdonotsumto 100%. 22 Instnrmentation. There were a total of three different instruments used to collect data. One questionnaire was designed for Day Camp Administrators to complete and the other two were for the day camp employees to complete. The Administrators questionnaire was designed to control for existing motivational factors and incidents (see Appendix C). During the summer employment period each Administrator was responsible for his or her own camp counsellors and would perform various motivational tasks and activities throughout the summer. Some Administrators provide pre-camp training, social gatherings, staff meetings and much more. Due to the individuality of each camp and its motivational activities, the counsellors will experience different levels of motivation. The aim of this study was to determine the changes in motivation levels therefore, controlling for intervening motivational activities. The questionnaire asked Administrators what motivational activities they implemented throughout the summer employment period. The first instrument adnrinistered to the day camp employees was comprised of three sections (see Appendix A). Section one asked how important job satisfaction factors were to them on a 5 point Likert scale where 1 is very unimportant and 5 is very important. These factors were taken from past studies which also asked immrtance in a summer camp job (Servedio, 1981; Henderson, 1982; Becker, 1984; DeGrafl‘, & Edginton, 1992; Hofl‘, Ellis, & Crossley, 1988). See Table 3 for a list of factors. The factors that were chosen for this study were those that were ranked highest by counsellors in past studies. The rationale behind asking importance again was to clarify if day camp 23 counsellors found them to be important since the past studies were conducted on both residential and day camp counsellors and potential counsellors at a summer job fair. Further, the literature lends differing results on some of the factors. There are an equal number of hygiene and motivator factors included in the instrument. Table 3 I l S . fl . E “Hygiene Factors .3 i g r_ ’ MotivatorFactorsy. e_ . Working with youth Personal growth Having fun Helping others Interacting with others Exercise personal skills and talents Make new friends Sense of achievement Good working conditions Develop skills for future Enjoy outdoors Gain job related experiences Having new experiences Interesting work Participating in recreation activities I like Increasing my knowledge Salary Appreciation of efl'ort Opportunity for advancement or promotion Being in a position of responsibility Section two of this questionnaire asked general demographic data and section three asked the expected job satisfaction available in the summer cay camp job. This section was comprised of the job satisfaction factors listed in Table 3. The respondents were asked to rank the expected availability on a 5 point Likert scale (1= very dissatisfied, 5 = very satisfied). The final questionnaire was developed to assess job satisfaction of summer day 24 camp counsellors and was comprised of two parts: demographic information and job satisfaction (see Appendix B). The job satisfaction section was composed of the factors in Table 3 and are ranked on a 5 point Likert scale (l= very dissatisfied, 5 = very satisfied). Mate The Recreation Department Day Camp Administrators were surveyed at the end of the summer employment period so as to obtain correct data on what motivational activities were actually implemented throughout the summer. The day camp counsellors were surveyed a total of four times throughout the summer. The first time they completed the Expected Job Satisfaction questionnaire and the next three times they completed the Job Satisfaction questionnaire. This allowed for comparisons over time of job satisfaction. The researcher delivered the questionnaires to the Day Camp Administrators and verbally instructed the Administrators on how to administer the questionnaires. At four difl‘erent times assigned by the researcher, the Day Camp Administrators distributed the questionnaires. Once they were completed the respondents placed them in an envelope which was provided, sealed the envelope and then signed over the seal and returned it to the Administrator who returned all the completed questionnaires to the researcher. DataAnalxsis Once all the questionnaires were returned, the data was cleaned, coded and entered into SPSS-PC, a statistical computer application. Descriptive and Inferential analyses were performed. Paired t-test procedures were determined to be the best procedures to conduct hypotheses testing and the means of both the hygiene and motivation factors were graphed together to determine if there was a pattern in the job satisfaction data over time. The following chapter introduces the results collected from summer day camp counsellors and their respective camp administrators. The researcher asked respondents what factors they found irnportant in a day camp job and firrther tested job satisfaction of the employees four times throughout the employment period to determine what fluctuations took place. I I S . f1 . E The expected job satisfaction questionnaire which was administered at the first testing period asked respondents to rank 20 job satisfaction factors according to their importance in a summer camp job. Table 4 provides a list of the 20 factors in rank order as the respondents rated them. The day camp counsellors ranked having fun, gaining work experience, and helping others as the most important in a summer camp job respectively and money or salary as the least important factor. The hygiene and motivator factors seemed to be equally dispersed through the list with neither group of factors being more dominant at the top or bottom of the list. In actual fact both the most important and least important factors were hygiene factors which is consistent to the results found by DeGrafl'and Edginton (1992). 25 26 Table 4 WWW Rank Factor H-M“ X SD. 1 Having Fun H 4.73 .599 2 Work Experience M 4.516 .745 3 Helping Others M 4.500 .690 4 Work with Others H 4.488 .682 5 Interact with Others H 4.488 .691 6 Future employment Skills M 4.488 .858 7 Interesting Work M 4.484 .642 8 Personal Achievement M 4.432 .676 9 Working Conditions H 4.421 .763 10 New Friends H 4.365 .765 11 Personal Growth M 4.349 .719 12 Knowledge M 4.286 .818 13 Position of Responsibility M 4.262 .792 14 Skills and Talents M 4.238 .731 15 New Experiences H 4.206 .762 16 Recreational Activities H 4.198 .738 17 Work Outdoors H 4.192 .780 18 Appreciation of Effort M 4.168 .790 19 Opportunity for Advancement H 4.040 .937 20 Money H 3.397 1.103 * H - Hygiene Factors, M - Motivator Factors “5.5. A Job Satisfaction score was calculated for each respondent by summing all the individual job satisfaction factors together and calculating an average. Unfortunately, not all respondents completed each test questionnaire, therefore, to test the hypothesis that there was a change in job satisfaction over the summer employment period a paired t-test was performed which had varying numbers, means and standard deviation calculations. 27 These results are presented in Table 5. The differences in means were not found to be significant, therefore, the null hypothesis would be accepted stating that there is no difference in job satisfaction of summer day camp counsellors over the employment period. However, the job satisfaction means for the entire sample of respondents does form a recognizable pattern. The expected job satisfaction mean is relatively high prior to commencing work but continually decreases during each actual job satisfaction test period. The decrease from expected to the first actual is only slight but it does drop quite drastically at the second or mid-summer test period and continue to fall afierThe pattern is displayed graphically in Figure 2. However, it is important to analyze the number of respondents whose job satisfaction either increased or decreased causing the sample paired t-test to compute as in Table 5. Table5 E'lI-I C11' [1151' Items N X S.D. t-value sig. 1 Expected 82 4.18 .425 .66 .510 Actual 1 4.15 .481 2 Actual 1 88 4.16 .506 1.21 .230 Actual 2 4.12 .552 3 Actual 2 72 4.14 .503 1.27 .207 Actual 3 4.09 .573 4 Expected 69 4.13 .433 1.19 .238 Actual 3 4.07 .566 28 4.14 a 4.12 - 4.10 4 4.08 ~ g 4.06 4.04 EXPECTED JOBSATl JOBSAT2 JOBSAT3 Figure 2: Pattern of Job Satisfaction The changes in job satisfaction over the summer employment period seemed to be divided relatively equally between the individuals who experienced increased job satisfaction and those who experienced a decrease in job satisfaction at each specified test period. This would in fact have major consequence with obtaining significant results for changes over time. The percentages in Table 6 suggest that almost as many people experienced decreased job satisfaction as those who experienced increased job satisfaction. Further, there were individuals at each test period who did not experience any change in job satisfaction. Table 6 I l 1 1 Cl . I l S . f1 . Change No Change Increase f % Expected to 37 45.1 Actual 1 Actual 1 to 44 50.0 Actual 2 Actual 2 to 40 55.6 Actual 3 Expected to 37 53.6 Actual 3 Further computations of job satisfaction were made to identify the respondents into two groups, those whose job satisfaction increased from the expected to actual and those whose job satisfaction decreased. There were a total of 39 respondents whose job satisfaction increased after the first two questionnaires as indicated in Table 6. A paired t- test calculation provided values which indicated that even after the initial increase in job satisfaction the following values decreased steadily to produce a recognizable pattern the same as that for the entire sample. Table 7 shows that there is a significant overall decrease in job satisfaction from initial questionnaire to the final questionnaire at the p<.05 level. Further, there were a total of 37 respondents who indicated a decrease in job satisfaction after the first two testing periods. Again, these respondents displayed a 30 Table 7 ':_-.,c - ._ .n o n .' .0101 o u‘{‘ nu‘r alt! 1” MW Item N X S.D. t-value sig. 1. Expected 39 4.11 .364 -8.48 .000 Actual 1 4.38 .387 2. Actual 1 34 4.35 .354 1.60 .120 Actual 2 4.28 .404 3. Actual 2 28 4.27 .428 0.26 .794 Actual 3 4.26 .541 4. Expected 30 4.12 .348 -2.07 .048 Actual 3 4.25 .523 Table 8 'zgc -'.,:1 .q z... a an ..‘I.,qar a Ira," {agrarian A‘.‘ I..: Disnlaxedaflectease Item N X S.D. t-value sig.. 1. Expected 37 4.22 .457 6.36 .000 Actual l 3.88 .423 2. Actual 1 30 3.86 .429 0.62 .543 Actual 2 3.82 .579 3. Actual 2 25 3.85 .497 0.47 .640 Actual 3 3.82 .560 4. Expected 28 4.19 .423 4.78 .000 Actual 3 3.88 .572 31 similar continuing decreased pattern of motivation as the total sample with a significant overall decrease in job satisfaction from the initial questionnaire to the final questionnaire which is provided in Table 8. Finally, a further calculation was performed on those individuals who completed all four questionnaires. This calculation was performed to determine if the pattern would still exist if only those individuals who responded to all questionnaires were Studied. The results in Table 9 Show that in fact the pattern still exists. The respondents (n=56) showed a consistent decrease in job satisfaction from the initial questionnaire to the final questionnaire. Table 9 'zogr —'.,¢1 : ,zar a a. :qua. I rogl'mrcar A". OtH’vl‘vr'é Item N X S.D. t-value sig.. 1. Expected 56 4.12 .392 0.18 .859 Actual 1 4.11 .460 2. Actual 1 56 4.11 .460 1.00 .324 Actual 2 4.08 .504 3. Actual 2 56 4.08 .504 0.54 .59] Actual 3 4.05 .584 4. Expected 56 4.12 .392 1.22 .227 Actual 3 4.05 .584 The job satisfaction scores were evaluated by summing the individual factors and calculating the mean. The means of each individual factor are presented in Table 10along 32 with a rank of their participation in the job satisfaction score. Respondents seemed to be most satisfied with different factors during each test but did consistently rank working conditions, appreciation of effort, opportunity for advancement and money as having the least effect on job satisfaction. Table10 21E llll'IlS°fi'D IIIE'I FACTORS I 2 3 4 Rank x SD. Rank x SD. Rank x SD. Rank x SD. Havingfun I 4.44 .691 3 4.41 .621 5 4.35 .693 11 4.19 .676 WorkExperience 2 4.37 .738 6 4.36 .780 7 4.29 .896 5 4.33 .804 HelpingOthers 9 4.27 .628 5 4.36 .582 3 4.39 .565 2 4.38 .574 WorkwithOthers 7 4.30 .587 1 4.52 .583 I 4.56 .570 1 4.50 .606 Interact with Others 3 4.35 .672 4 4.41 .689 2 4.40 .742 4 4.33 .659 Employment Skills 5 4.33 .826 7 4.34 .751 12 4.24 .904 6 4.32 .739 Interesting Work 8 4.29 .755 8 4.27 .708 10 4.25 .731 7 4.30 .631 PersonalAchiev. 13 4.21 .718 10 4.24 .720 6 4.31 .712 8 4.24 .758 WorkConditions 17 4.07 .812 17 4.11 .802 17 4.07 .824 17 3.96 .921 NewFriends 6 4.32 .728 11 4.24 .744 8 4.27 .737 16 4.11 .749 PersonalGrowth 10 4.27 .705 15 4.13 .761 9 4.25 .690 10 4.19 .756 Knowledge 16 4.12 .785 16 4.12 .766 16 4.13 .833 15 4.14 .814 Responsibility 14 4.19 .823 14 4.18 .826 11 4.24 .803 14 4.16 .819 Skills & Talents 12 4.21 .692 12 4.20 .706 13 4.23 .779 12 4.18 .771 New Experiences 1 1 4.25 .720 13 4.19 .763 15 4.19 .773 9 4.22 .738 Rec. Activities 15 4.17 .701 9 4.27 .710 14 4.20 .674 13 4.17 .770 Work Outdoors 4 4.35 .689 2 4.52 .600 4 4.39 .743 3 4.37 .705 Appreciation Effort 18 3.83 .797 18 3.72 .872 18 3.59 1.14 19 3.65 1.16 Advancement 19 3.62 1.04 19 3.56 1.13 19 3.57 1.09 18 3.69 1.08 Money 20 3.16 1.23 20 3.24 1.27 20 3.11 1.21 20 3.29 1.36 Retention One final question the camp counsellors were asked was their intention to return to the camp for firture summers. The respondents seemed to have a high expected return rate prior to starting work, however, their actual potential return rate was consistently 33 lower. The results indicated a difference between expected return rate prior to starting work and the actual potential return rate during the summer to be significantly lower for a 2-tailed test at p<.05 level which can be observed in Table 11. Table 11 E . lI-I Cl 1 . [E E N X S.D. t-value sig.. 1 Expected 84 4.01 1.024 3.49 .001 Actual 1 3.76 1.188 2 Actuall 88 3.76 1.222 0 1.0 Actua12 3.76 1.232 3 Actua12 71 3.83 1.121 0 1.0 Actual3 3.83 1.146 4 Expected 69 4.00 1.057 2.65 .010 Actua13 3.71 1.189 The job satisfaction scores were correlated with the return rates on each test period to determine if there was a relationship between the two variables. The expected test had a correlation of r=.47 (p<.000) and the three actual job satisfaction and return rates had correlations of r=.58 (p<.000), r=.54 (p<.000) and r=.55 (p<.000) respectively. The positive relationship between the two was found to be significant at the p<.001 level which provides evidence that as job satisfaction increases, the potential to return for future summers also increases. 34 5].. C" Due to the sample Size consisting of counsellors from two organizations, Oakville Park and Recreation Department and Mississauga Park and Recreation Department, the administrators questionnaire was only completed by two individuals. These individuals did however, have very consistent beliefs and ideals about summer day camp and camp stafl‘ motivation and job satisfaction. They believed that motivating camp stafl‘ throughout the summer was crucial to maintaining high job satisfaction and that this motivation was an essential element of their own jobs. Both Park and Recreation Departments provided pre- camp training sessions which consisted of training in the following areas: behaviour management, program planning, lesson planning, emergency procedures, games, songs, crafts, environmental activities, policies and procedures, working with special needs populations, group dynamics, health and safety, public relations, dealing with co-workers and risk management. Further, they provided motivational techniques throughout the summer employment period. Weekly staff meetings were held which provided enhanced staff training and socialization. Counsellor performance awards were presented on a regular basis as a form of recognition and performance appraisals of all stafl‘ were conducted twice throughout the summer. One organization (Oakville Park and Recreation Department) also prepared and distributed an end of the summer stafl‘ newsletter. Nevertheless, neither organization sponsored regular social gatherings or social events but did indicate that the senior camp stafl‘ employees coordinated parties, evenings out together, camping trips and other social activities for all the stafl‘. Both departments tend to have a Similar philosophy and belief toward summer day 35 camps and their camp staff. They recognize the importance of high job satisfaction and initiate similar motivational techniques to increase the job satisfaction of their summer camp staff. This is further apparent if the respondents are divided into their respective employment organization and the changes in job satisfaction are calculated and compared. Both groups individually provide data which is comparable to the group as a whole and their respective job satisfaction concurs with the recognizable pattern over time established by the entire sample which is illustrated in Figure 3. g 4.08 ‘ 4.06 ' 4.04 ~ 4.02 ” EXPECTED JOBSATI JOBSAT2 JOBSAT3 Figure 3: Job Satisfaction of the Individual Participating Organizations Superimposed on the Entire Sample Job satisfaction of summer day camp counsellors is a critically important concept to the day camp program. Past research (Becker, 1984; Hofl‘, Ellis & Crossley, 1988; DeGrafl' & Edginton, 1992) however, has only been conducted on a one time basis to provide such data and does not demonstrate if job satisfaction remains constant throughout the employment period. Thus, the following chapter outlines the conclusions made after collecting data to measure job satisfaction longitudinally over the summer employment period. Two recreation departments volunteered their summer day camp stafl‘ to comprise approximately 200 respondents who completed the study. The respondents completed four job satisfaction questionnaires which were analyzed to make conclusions regarding whether job satisfaction fluctuated throughout the employment period and if these changes formed a recognizable pattern for administrators to consider when motivating their summer stafl‘. hnnottanrefamts The results of the study found the most important factors in a summer day camp job to camp counsellors to be having fun, gaining work experience, helping others and working with others. However, as illustrated in Table 4, the camp counsellors stated that all the factors in the study except for salary were quite important; they all received a mean score of four or higher fi'om a maximum potential score of five. Thus, demonstrating that all the factors summed in the job satisfaction score were essential. Perhaps only the score 36 37 for salary would cause job dissatisfaction and lower the overall job satisfaction scores. Nevertheless, salary may not have an extreme efi‘ect on the overall score since there was a relatively high Standard deviation illustrating that it was relatively important in a summer job to some of the respondents and relatively unimportant to others. One may conclude from the demographic data that the fifty percent of respondents who were in post- secondary education were those most concerned with salary in a summer job and the other fifty percent were high school students and thus, less concerned with salary. However, this is only one deduction which can be made from the data to attempt to explain the lower importance score and high standard deviation of the variable salary. The results of the importance factors here are conducive to the results found by Hoff, Ellis and Crossley (1988) and DeGrafi' and Edginton (1992). All three studies found the same factors to be of most importance, however, in a different rank order, and salary and opportunity for advancement to be of least importance. It should be noted however, that even though counsellors initially stated the importance of each factor this did not necessarily carry through when measuring for job satisfaction. For example, having fun was stated to be of most importance but when tested for job satisfaction, gradually it decreased in rank to be placed eleventh in satisfaction by the end of the summer employment period. Further work experience was ranked second under expected job satisfaction but was fifth by the end of the summer. See Table 11 for firrther illustrations of this. Employers and administrators must become aware of these changes. The camp counsellors are initially stating how important factors are to them in their jobs but are not as satisfied with their availability in actuality. Administrators must attempt to increase 38 satisfaction levels of those factors which are most important so as to utilize the utmost potential of their employees. Afterall, the camp counsellors are often the only direct link for an organization to its customers and further, retention of good staff is important to any successfirl and competitive organization. The above results provide clear evidence that a camp counsellors job satisfaction level is not constant throughout the entire employment period, therefore, it is imperative that this be measured numerous times throughout the summer to determine if a clear pattern of change in job satisfaction exists for day camp counsellors. Initially DeGraff and Edginton (1992) labelled their importance factors as either hygiene or motivator factors. Their results seemed to find an overlap between the two groups however, motivator factors in general did rank at the top of the list while hygiene factors were of less importance. The study conducted here did not find the same results; the motivator and hygiene factors were equally distributed among the rank order list which found flaw in Herzberg's (1966) original conclusions. Perhaps for professionals and full- time permanent employees there is some separation between hygiene and motivator factors but for temporary summer camp employees there is no difference between the two types of factors. The conclusions made by DeGrafl‘ and Edginton (1992) that there is overlap between hygiene and motivator factors was further confirmed by the results of this study, from the first test conducted prior to commencing work to the final test results at the end of the employment period. Camp counsellors do not appear to be more job satisfied by motivators and job dissatisfied by hygiene factors. Instead they are equally satisfied by both groups of factors. 39 Ichfiatisfacticn As described earlier, the respondents were asked to complete four questionnaires measuring their job satisfaction at the time with the first questionnaire measuring the counsellors expected job satisfaction after receiving a camp counsellor position but prior to commencing the smnmer employment. The summer camp duration for both participating organizations was eight weeks of employment plus one unpaid training week immediately preceding employment. The respondents completed a questionnaire during the training week and again during weeks two, five and eight of the employment period. The four test periods provided sufficient data to calculate changes in job satisfaction over the employment period and mean job satisfaction scores which were plotted to determine a consistent pattern in job satisfaction for day camp counsellors. The mean job satisfaction scores in Table 5 show that the counsellors expected a relatively high level of satisfaction prior to commencing work, but in actuality experienced a lower level of job satisfaction. The score calculated from the third questionnaire dropped dramatically and continued to drop further by the final week of employment. This drop in job satisfaction is not a significant difi‘erence at a p<.05 level but is large enough to cause concern and should be brought to the attention of camp administrators. The results thus, support the notion of a burnout period during mid-summer as suggested by Reapsome (1986) and Ashmen (1985), however, the participating agencies are not taking aflirmative enough action to counteract these feelings of burnout or reduced job satisfaction. The job satisfaction scores presented do not support significant results to state that 40 camp counsellors questioned will react in the same pattern of change 95% of the time. These results are presented in Tables 5 and 6. They Show that even though the entire sample means produce the pattern displayed in Figure 2 not all the respondents conform to this pattern. Of the counsellors surveyed there seems to be an equal split in individuals whose job satisfaction either increases or decreases at each test period. However, one large underlying problem with the above results is that not all respondents completed every questionnaire so the sample sizes for paired t-tests decreases at each test interval. Nevertheless, this fact may actually help to justify the notion of a burnout period or a definite decrease in job satisfaction. The numbers of respondents decreased quite steadily from the first to final test period which may show that the individuals were not as satisfied with their jobs and bored as the summer progressed, thus, not participating in even completing a five minute questionnaire. The counsellors satisfaction for the job not only decreased but also the motivation to work decreased as well as the desire to participate in organizational activities decreased. Further analysis of the results continued to support the initial assumption that the job satisfaction of camp counsellors followed a recognizable pattern which included a burnout period or period of decreased job satisfaction at mid-summer. Separate change calculations were performed on those individuals who expressed an initial increase in job satisfaction from the expected. These results are presented in Table 7 and once again follow the established pattern of job satisfaction for day camp counsellors as established in Figure 2. Further, Table 8 presents change results for those respondents who indicated an initial decrease in job satisfaction from the expected and it also follows a pattern of steady 41 decreased job satisfaction to the end of the employment period. Therefore, our initial conclusion is further supported and substantiated. As a final test of the hypothesis, the respondents were divided into their respective employing organizations and change calculations were conducted. The results are graphically represented in figure 3 and superimposed on the graph of the entire sample to once again support the pattern of job satisfaction change and employee burnout. The day camp counsellors, although not significant 95% of the time, do seem to follow a recognizable pattern of job satisfaction over the employment period. This helps to support the notion of a mid-summer burnout which is not being given significant recognition and attention by the summer day camp administration. To maintain a successful camp program year after year it is essential that day camp stafl' return for employment summer after summer to maintain consistency in the programs and to increase their own skills. Administrators recognize this necessity and place high levels of authority and decision making power with supervisory or senior camp staff members. When asked the likelihood of returning to the day camp the following summer the respondents seemed to have a relatively high return rate as shown in Table 11. The return rate did decrease significantly from the expected through to the final week of the summer which is important to note, but it did Still remain at a fairly high level. The decrease in potential to return to the camp for future summers may be partially attributable to the decrease in job satisfaction over the summer, however, it may also be attributable to the percentage of respondents who are currently enrolled in post-secondary education and may be completing their final year of study and thus, seeking filll-time permanent 42 employment. However, with such a high return rate, the assumption may be plausibly made here that approximately 50-75% of respondents will return to the day camp for future summers of employment. This will assist administrators in implementing a successful program year after year with experienced, reliable and responsible summer staff. The questionnaire completed by the day camp administrators Showed a concern for their camp staff. They recognize the importance of the counsellors and do provide motivational practices throughout the summer, however, this may not be enough. The counsellors have expressed through their responses that what was most important to them prior to commencing employment was not consistently important throughout the summer. Having fun and gaining experience was most important initially, however, the socialization became more important as the summer progressed. Perhaps the counsellors did not realize initially the close relationships which they would form with their co-workers and the children since this aspect was ranked in the nriddle of the list of factors when given the expected satisfaction questionnaire (Table 4). The day camp counsellors found socialization to be extremely important to them yet they are not satisfied as highly with this in their employment position and the administrators indicated that they are not involved in sponsoring social gatherings and events outside of the camp working hours. Camp administration must become concerned with this decreased job satisfaction during the middle of the summer and listen to the counsellors requests. Social events are important, perhaps more important from the middle to the end of the summer then continued training sessions and seminars. The administrators are actively attempting to motivate their stafi‘ but not in a way which is effectively increasing job satisfaction or 43 preventing decreased job satisfaction; they must listen to their stafl and conduct motivational opportunities which are both desired and help to alleviate burnout. Afterall, when burnout occurs individuals need to remove themselves from the work that is causing it before the physical, mental and emotional consequences such as health problems, boredom, resentment, apathy and anxiety occur (Ashmen, 1985). A social event will refiesh and renew an individual for work as identified in the definitions and grassroots of recreation and leisure which may in turn help to increase job satisfaction and simultaneously increase the potential return rate of counsellors for future summers of employment. The results of the study provide evidence that day camp counsellors job satisfaction does change over the summer employment period and it is imperative that administrators understand and recognize this change. Job satisfaction tends to be quite high at the beginning of the employment period and counsellors are excited and highly motivated for a summer of fun and experience, however, this expectation and high level of satisfaction is not maintained. Counsellor's job satisfaction on average decreases by the middle of the summer and if not counteracted continues to decrease to the end of the summer. Camp administrators must become aware of this change in satisfaction level, when it occurs and what essentially is causing it. For a successful and competitive camp program in a competitive society the administrators must listen to their stafl‘ and attempt to maintain high levels of job satisfaction throughout the entire summer. Therefore, such a study will have implications 44 for both the organizations hosting the summer camp programs, the summer camp stafl‘ and the participants attending the camps. Such results will provide support for the notion of mid-summer burnout and suggest what counsellors are seeking so as to maintain a high level of satisfaction throughout the summer and overcome the burnout period. This summer work experience for youth will be one which they will wish to repeat for multiple summers. Further, the host organizations will have a highly motivated and satisfied staff who will provide an excellent camp experience and summer of fun for the campers who attend which will in turn affect the future attendance rates of the camp. The organizations and administrators must remember that the day camp stafl‘ is their primary link to the public, therefore, it is in their best interest to devote time and energy into maintaining a high morale and high level of satisfaction among the counsellors. The results of the study are limited to day camp counsellors who were employed by the two participating organizations for the entire summer, however, may be generalized to other similar day camp programs. Further, the results must be interpreted and utilized with some degree of caution. Not all respondents completed all four questionnaires which made paired t-test calculations difficult with a small sample size for comparisons. Furthermore, the results did not provide significant findings which would support the pattern of job satisfaction as illustrated in Figure 2. Nevertheless, the results were consistent for both participating organizations and seem to support past research conducted on a one time basis for day camp counsellors. Future research still needs to be conducted to verify the results found here. Would a duplicate study conducted with a greater number of day camp programs provide comparable results with Significant 45 findings? Furthermore, do residential camp staff and day camp staff support a similar pattern of job satisfaction over the summer employment period? A study incorporating more camp programs and camp staff would have broader implications for camp administration and overall camp programs. Counsellors are an essential component of any camp program and therefore, their needs must be met and they must be satisfied with their jobs if they are to be successful and provide a fun, exciting and competitive camp program for children. APPENDIX A 46 APPENDIX A W SECTION ONE Please rank the following statements below as to how important they are to YOU in deciding to work in a summer camp job. 1== VUI - very unimportant to me in a camp job 2 = UI - unimportant to me in a carnpjob 3 = N - neither important nor unimportant to me in a camp job 4=I-importanttomeinacampjob 5 = VI - very important to me in a camp job How important to you in choosing a camp job is VUI U] N 1 VI A) Opportunity to work with others 1 2 3 4 5 B) Helping others 1 2 3 4 5 C) Good working conditions 1 2 3 4 5 D) Having fun 1 2 3 4 5 E) Making new fiiends 1 2 3 4 5 F) opportunity for personal growth 1 2 3 4 5 G) Sense of personal achievement 1 2 3 4 5 H) Opportunity to exercise personal Skills 1 2 3 4 5 and talents I) Interacting with other people 1 2 3 4 5 J) Increasing my knowledge 1 2 3 4 5 K) Opportunity to work outdoors 1 2 3 4 5 L) Developing Skills for future employment 1 2 3 4 5 M) Participating in recreational activities 1 2 3 4 5 I like N) Having new experiences 1 2 3 4 5 0) Having interesting work 1 2 3 4 5 P) Gaining work experience 1 2 3 4 5 Q) Making a lot of money 1 2 3 4 5 R) Appreciation of efl‘ort 1 2 3 4 5 S) Opportunity for advancement or 1 2 3 4 5 promotion 1—a N DJ A M T) Being in a position of responsibility 47 SECTION TWO Date: Age: 2. Gender: M or F 3. Last completed level of education (please check 1f): a) High School Present grade last completed b) College Present year last completed c) University Present year last completed d) Post graduate Present year last completed 4. Area of study if presently in school: 5. Present position in summer camp (please check if): a) Supervisory (Director etc.) Title b) Counsellor 6. Year of employment in present position (please circle): 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8+ 7. Total number of years working in a summer camp, include all years as supervisor or counsellor in any summer camp: 8. Name of organization presently employed at: 9. How many campers are there in total in one camp session: 10. What age of campers do you work with (please check f); 4-6 yr olds 7-10 yr olds 10-13 yr olds __ 13-16 yr olds _ 11. What is the name of the camp which you work with: 12. Do you work directly one on one with a special needs child? yes _ no __ If no, are you at all involved with special needs children at camp? yes_ no__ 13. Please circle the number which best corresponds to how likely it is that you will return as a summer Mp employee next summer. NOT AT ALL SOMEWHAT VERY LIKELY LIKELY LIKELY l 2 3 4 5 Please briefly explain your answer above: 48 SECTION THREE Please rank the following Statements below as to how satisfied you are with their expected availability to YOU in your present summer camp job. 1 = VDS - very dissatisfied with the expected availability 2 = DS - dissatisfied with the expected availability 3 = N - neither satisfied nor dissatisfied 4 = S - satisfied with the expected availabilty 5 = VS - very satisfied with the expected availability In my present job, this is how I apect to feel about VDS DS N S VS A) Opportunity to work with others 1 2 3 4 5 B) Helping others 1 2 3 4 5 C) Good working conditions 1 2 3 4 5 D) Having fun 1 2 3 4 5 E) Making new fiiends 1 2 3 4 5 F) opportunity for personal growth 1 2 3 4 5 G) Sense of personal achievement 1 2 3 4 5 H) Opportunity to exercise personal skills 1 2 3 4 5 and talents I) Interacting with other people 1 2 3 4 5 J) Increasing my knowledge 1 2 3 4 5 K) Opportunity to work outdoors 1 2 3 4 5 L) Developing skills for future employment 1 2 3 4 5 M) Participating in recreational activities 1 2 3 4 5 I like N) Having new experiences 1 2 3 4 5 0) Having interesting work 1 2 3 4 5 P) Gaining work experience 1 2 3 4 5 Q) My salary 1 2 3 4 5 R) Appreciation of efl'ort l 2 3 4 5 S) Opportunity for advancement or 1 2 3 4 5 promotion T) Being in a position of responsibility 1 2 3 4 5 THANK YOU FOR YOUR COOPERATION PLEASE PLACE IN ENVELOPE, SEAL AND SIGN ACROSS SEAL APPENDIX B 49 APPENDIX B W SECTION ONE Date: 1. Age: 2. Gender: M or F 3. Last completed level of education (please check I): a) High School Present grade last completed b) College Present year last completed c) University Present year last completed d) Post graduate Present year last completed 4. Area of study: 5. Present position in summer camp (please check if ): a) Supervisory (Director,etc.) Title b) Counsellor 6. Year of employment in present position (please circle): 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8+ 7. Total number of years working in a summer camp, include all years as supervisor or counsellor in any summer camp: 8. Name of organization presently employed at: 9. How many campers are there in total in one camp session: 10. What age of campers do you work with (please check 1"): 4-6 yr olds 7-10 yr olds 10-13 yr olds _ 13-16 yr olds _ 11. What is the name of the camp which you work with: 12. Do you work directly one on one with a special needs child? yes __ no _ If no, are you at all involved with special needs children at camp? yes_ no_ 13. Please circle the number which best corresponds to how likely it is that you will return as a summer camp employee next summer. NOT AT ALL SOMEWHAT VERY LIKELY LIKELY LIKELY l 2 3 4 5 Please briefly explain you answer above: 50 SECTION TWO 1. Please rate the following statements below in regards to how satisfied YOU are with them in your present summer camp job. 1 = VDS - very dissatisfied 2 = DS - dissatisfied 3 = N - neither satisfied or dissatisfied 4 = S - satisfied 5 = VS - very satisfied In my present job, this is how I feel about VDS DS N S VS A) opportunity to work with children 1 2 3 4 5 B) helping others 1 2 3 4 5 C) Good working conditions 1 2 3 4 5 D) Having fun 1 2 3 4 5 E) Making new fiiends l 2 3 4 5 F) opportunity for personal growth 1 2 3 4 5 G) sense of personal achievement 1 2 3 4 5 H) opportunity to exercise personal skills 1 2 3 4 5 and talents I) interacting with other people 1 2 3 4 5 J) increasing my knowledge 1 2 3 4 5 K) opportunity to work outdoors l 2 3 4 5 L) developing skills for future employment 1 2 3 4 5 M) participating in recreational activities 1 2 3 4 5 I like N) having new experiences 1 2 3 4 5 0) having interesting work 1 2 3 4 5 P) gaining work experience 1 2 3 4 5 Q) my salary 1 2 3 4 5 R) appreciation of effort 1 2 3 4 S S) opportunity for advancement or 1 2 3 4 5 promotion T) being in a position of responsibility 1 2 3 4 5 THANK YOU FOR YOUR COOPERATION PLEASE PLACE IN ENVELOPE, SEAL AND SIGN ACROSS SEAL APPENDIX C 51 APPENDIX C DAY CAMP ADMINISTRATORS QUESTIONNAIRE 1) How would you define motivation? 2) How would you define job satisfaction? 3) Do you consider employee motivation as part of your job? YES NO If yes, what do you do to motivate your staff? If no, why do you not consider employee motivation as a part of your job? The following questions pertain to motivating techniques which you may use during the course of the summer. The responses have been developed from past literature, discussions with professionals in the field and personal experience. 4) Do you provide precamp Staff training (please check If )? YES NO Ifyes, what does it include (please check I)? Behaviour management (Discipline approaches) Program planning Lesson planning Emergency procedures How to teach games, songs and crafts Environmental awareness Policies and procedures Working with special needs populations 52 Camp crafi skills Performing arts Initiative activities Health and safety Group dynamics Self-esteem building Public relations (dealing with parents) Dealing with co-workers other (please specify) other (please specify) llllllllll 5) Do you hold staff meetings (please check if)? YES NO If yes, how often (please check if)? Daily Weekly Every second week Monthly Once during summer other (please specify) 6) Do you sponsor social gatherings for your staff (please check if)? YES __ NO _ Ifyes, what (please check if)? Sports events / tournaments Movie nights Parties Evenings out together Camping trips other (please specify) other (please specify) other (please specify) 7) Do you sponsor a regular newsletter which is either edited by yourself or a committee comprised of your camp staff (please check if)? YES NO Ifyes, does the newsletter continue throughout the non-camp months (please check if)? YES NO 8) Do you sponsor an end of summer yearbook (please check if)? YES _ NO __ If yes, do you incur the entire cost (please check If)? YES NO If no, how much do the staff pay? 3 9) Do you conduct performance appraisals of your summer stafl‘ (please check 1")? YES NO 53 If yes, how often (please check if )? Once at end of summer Once in middle of summer Twice throughout summer other (please specify) 10) Do you promote counsellor awards (i.e. counsellor of the month) (please check 1f)? YES NO 11) Do you provide workshops or training sessions throughout the summer (please check if)? YES NO If yes, please explain 12) Do you consider the above questions (#4 - #11) to be motivation techniques? YES NO Why or Why not? 13) Could you please provide a list of any other motivational tactics you use to motivate your day camp employees: 14) Name of agency: 15) Name of supervisor: Title: 16) Number of years you have been responsible as an Administrator for summer day camp programs: 17) Number of summer day camp employees you are responsible for: 18) Number of campers in one day camp session: Please explain if necessary: 19) Could you please define day camp as it applies to your own Recreation Department and those camp employees who are involved in this Study? THANK YOU FOR YOUR COOPERATION LIST OF REFERENCES WES Ashmen, J. (1985). Summer slump can be risky. mm, 6-8. Becker, WA (1984). The key to staffmotivation. W. 56(7), 32-35. Becker, W. A. & Shepherd, T. (1989) Study suggests ways to improve camp supervisory training Was. 61(3) 32- 35 Crook, DC. (1982). Training equals counsellor effectiveness. Waring Camping. 6-8- DeGraff, D. & Edginton, C. R. (1992). Work motivation and camp counsellors. InumalnffiarkandReeteationAdminislration, 112(4) 37-56 Edginton. C. & Griffith, C- (1983). W New York: Saunders College Publishing. Edginton. C & Williams J (1979) W Organizations New York. John erey and Sons French, E.B., Metersky, M.L., Thaler, D.S. & Trexler, J.T. ( 1973). Herzberg's two factor theory consistency versus method dependency. Eersgnnelfisyghology, 26(3), 369- 374. Gersten, B. (1988). On finding and keeping those very important persons“ “Counsellors CampinRMaaazine, 69(4) ”-16 Hackrnan, J. R & Oldham, G. R (1975). Development of the job diagnostic survey. Journal Wen, 159-170 Henderson, K. (1982). Who are our counsellors? W, 54(2), 44-45. Henderson, K. (1988). Stress management and the camp director. Wm, 61(2), 15-17. Henderson, K. & Bialeschki, MD. (1982). Camping research: Mystique or meaning? mainstzine, 25(2), 1724. Henderson, K. & Bialeschki, MD. (1991). Research on camp stafi' experience. Camping Magazine, 64(2), 33-34. 54 55 Henderson, K. & Bialeschki, M. D (1993). Optimal work experiences as "Flow": Implications for seasonal stafi‘. IoumalnffiarkNRecteationAdministtation, 11(1), 37-48 Herzberg, F. (1966). Wan. Cleveland: World Publishing. Herdlerg, F., Mausner, B. & Snyderrnan, B. (1959). W. New York: Wiley. Hofl‘, A., Ellis, G. & Crossley, J. (1988). Employment motive of summer job seekers in recreation settings: A test of Herzberg' s motivation- hygiene theory W EatkNRectealionAdministtation, 6(1) 66-77 H0pkin8. AH- (1983). WNW Rowman & Allanheld: New Jersey. Howard, D. R. & Crompton, J. C. (1980). .2 ' . 811W. Dubuque, Iowa: erliam C. Brown. Knapp CE. (1984). Staff education: Balancing people and activity skills. Camping Magazine, 56%), 22-24- Litwin, G-H. & Stfinser, RA. Jr. (1968). WWW Boston: Harvard University Graduate School of Business Administration. Maidani, EA (1991). Comparative study ofHerzberg's two-factor theory of job satisfaction among public and private sectors. WW. 29(4), 441-448. Maslow, A. (1943). 1140111111110an Harper & Row Publishers, Inc. Moorhead, G. & Grifin, R.W. (1992). Won. Boston: Houghton Mimin Company. Neal, L. L. & Larsen, J. K (1989). Motivation discrepancy/congruency: Different findings from leisure service agencies and other work environments. Loisim WWW, 12(1) 207-215 Neal, L., Williams, J. & Beech, S. (1984). How managers perceive subordinates. him my, 1.1.19 138-140 Nogradi, G. S. (1982). Municipal recreation practitioner's perceptions of involvement, commitment, motivation and job characteristics. Recreation Wm, 2(2), 38-46- 56 Nogradi, G. S. (1983) Diagnosing the nature of the relationships between motivational force and job characteristics for municipal recreation employees. WWW, 19(4), 33-43 Nogradi, G. S. & Anthony, P. V. (1988). Perceived job characteristics, job involvement, and work motivation: An examination of the relationships for seasonal (summer) municipal recreation emPloyees LournalnffiatkNRecreationAdministration, 6(3), 1 13 Pavelka, J. (1991). Role conflict and role ambiguity in camp staff CampingMagajne, 64(2), 28-32. Potter, BA. (1980). W. Harbor Publishing, Inc: California. Reapsome, Jim (1986) The challenge of the last four weeks of summer. Immalgf managements. 6-7 Rollins, R (1989). Job satisfaction of aquatics professionals in Ontario. W Readers, 15(3), 27-30- Russell, G.W. & Conner, RD. (1972). Characteristics of student summer employment. The Ioumalnffisxehologx, 89(2), 213-222- Servedio, W. (1981). Prospective counsellors rank camp priorities. Camping Mullins, 23(5). 12-32. Soliman, H. M. (1970). Motivator-Hygiene theory of job attitudes: An empirical investigation and an attempt to reconcile both the one- and two-factor theories of job attitudes W 5.4, 452-461 Summers, D. J. (1986). Recreation and park management versus business management. A comparative job analysis. WWW 3(4) 8-22. Weir, M. (1976). Collins. MICHIGAN STATE UNIV. LIBRARIES 1NWWWI11111111111111"lllllllHlHlMHllHlI 31293017075296