ABSTRACT SOCIAL PSYCHOLOGICAL DETERMINANTS OF JOB SATISFACTION AMONG SOCIAL SCIENCE FACULTY AT TWO MID-WESTERN UNIVERSITIES by Edward Howard Borck The purpose of this research was to examine job satisfaction and leaving among social science college faculty. An exchange theory paradigm of rewards and investments was chosen as the appropriate theoretical conceptualization as it provided an opportunity to better understand those conditions which can lead to either satisfaction or dissatisfaction. Satisfaction was measured as a general response and in terms of the lack of discrepancy between desired and perceived work aspects. Data was collected at two Mid-western universities by means of a questionnaire. The two research sites were similar except that university Y was more advanced in professionalism than university X. Differences ex- isting between the colleges on professionalism were sig- nificant enough to merit the use of a wider theoretical perspective. The relationship between exchange category and dependent measures was viewed in terms of the partic- ular normative circumstances at each organization. Edward Howard Borck At the more professional university, high reward-high investment personnel reported highest satisfaction, while at university X, high reward-low investment staff depicted highest satisfaction on most measures. Low reward-low investment respondents expressed lowest satisfaction at both universities and low reward-high investment staff were not present during the survey, indicating that these workers had left their jobs. Leaving was found to be a consequence of both exchange specifications and extent of professionalism. At university Y, leaving was considered a necessary part of professional mobility; as a result, most respondents expressed some desire to leave, regard- less of reward-investment category. At the more local university, X, low reward-low investment staff reported significantly higher levels of leaving. Implications of this research for theories of satis- faction were discussed. SOCIAL PSYCHOLOGICAL DETERMINANTS OF JOB SATISFACTION AMONG SOCIAL SCIENCE FACULTY AT TWO MID-WESTERN UNIVERSITIES By Edward Howard Borck A THESIS Submitted to Michigan State UniverSity in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY Department of Sociology 1972 ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS I am indebted to many fine people for their help and support while I completed my dissertation. Although it is difficult to name all those who have made the years of graduate training a rewarding experience, I wish to acknowledge my debt to some of these individuals. Dr. John Gullahorn supervised my graduate work and thesis with patience, constructive criticism, and kind concern. Dr. Eugene Jacobsen, Dr. John Useem, and Dr. Fred Waisanen provided assistance and helpful criticism throughout the project. My colleagues and friends helped me by providing intellectual and social support. Dr. Vincent Salvo encouraged me through the preliminary stages of the thesis. Dr. Robert Vasoli, my undergraduate advisor at Notre Dame, commented on the thesis proposal. Dr. John Gardinar introduced me to the world of computers. Dr. Earle Snider, my close friend, helped me in anyway he could and willingly gave of his time and effort. Dr. Warren Ramshaw patiently waited for the comple- tion of the thesis while I taught at Colgate University, and ii helped critize my summary chapter. My wife, RuthAnn, was patient, loving, and always confident that the task would soon be completed. She gladly gave of her time and efforts and I appreciate her understanding and support throughout my graduate training. Without her, the task might never have been completed. I am indebted to my parents for their encouragment and concern for my education and well-being. Doris Vaughn was not only a delightful secretary at Colgate but did a fine job typing the thesis. For any errors of a technical or interpretive nature, the author assumes full responsibility. iii TABLE OF CONTENTS CHAPTER PAGE I. INTRODUCTION ................................... 1 Past Research...... .......................... 5 Outline of Dissertation ...................... 8 II. THEORY AND HYPOTHESES .......................... 9 Need Theory .................................. 9 Exchange Theory .............................. 19 Relationships between Rewards and Investments 28 High Reward-High Investment .................. 32 High Reward-Low Investment ................... 33 Low Reward-High Investment ................... 37 Low Reward-Low Investment .................... 38 Summary of Hypotheses ........................ 39 III. METHODOLOGY .................................... 41 Instrument ................................... 50 Population ................................... 52 Return Rate .................................. 56 Measurement of Variables ..................... 58 Dependent Variables .......................... 59 General Satisfaction and Leaving ............. 62 iv CHAPTER PAGE IV. ANALYSIS OF DATAoooooooooooooo000000000000000000000 63 StatiStical Procedure............................ 63 Summary Of HypOtheseSooooooo0.0000000000000000... 66 Category of Reward-Investment and General Satisfaction....................... 66 Category of Reward-Investment and Types of Discrepancies..................... 73 Self—Fulfillment Discrepancy..................... 74 Interpersonal Discrepancy........................ 77 Environmental Discrepancy........................ 82 Category of Reward-Investment and Leaving........ 86 Low Reward—High Investment Faculty............... 89 Summary of Analysis.............................. 90 V. SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS............................ 92 Positive Imbalance (HR—LI)....................... 96 Negative Imbalance (LR-HI)....................... 101 POSitj-ve Balance (HR—111).....‘O...’.............. 102 Negative Balance (LR-LI).......................... 103 Measurement of Satisfaction...................... 104 Leaving the Organization......................... 107 Future Research.................................. 111 00“. 0’0 PAGE BIBLIOGRAPHYooooooooooooococo-coco...ooooooooo 119 APPENDIX A. Intellectual Development of PFOblemCOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO...0.00.... 128 APPENDIX B. Questionnaire..................... 131 APPENDIX C. Follow—up Letter to Respondents... 140 APPENDIX D. Inter-Correlations of Indices for Rewards and Investments for 132 Social Science Faculty............ 141 vi TABLE II. III. IV. VI. VII. VIII. IX. XI. XII. XIII. LIST OF TABLES Perceptions of Teaching-Research Emphasis at Universities X and Y ...................... Department Presently or Recently Changing from Teaching Orientation to Professional Activities ................................... Funds Are Available For Research ............... University Affords Adequate Research Facilities ................................... Highest Degree Obtained ........................ Number of Articles Published in Journals in the Last Five Years ....................... Number of Books Written or Edited in the Last Five Years ....................... Research Grants Obtained in the Last Five Years .............................. Number of Research Grants Over 1000.00 ......... Respondents by Rank ............................ Respondents by Sex ............................. Respondents by Age ............................. Number of Respondents in Each Category of Reward-Investment ......................... vii PAGE 43 44 45 46 47 47 48 48 49 53 53 54 55 TABLE XIV. XV. XVI. XVII. XVIII. XIX. XX. XXI. XXII. XXIII. XXIV. XXV. Return Rate by University and Department ....... Category of Reward-Investment and General Satisfaction at Universities X and Y ......... Mann Whitney U Analysis of Category of Reward-Investment and General Satisfaction at Universities X and Y ....... . .............. Category of Reward-Investment and Self- Fulfillment at Universities X and Y .......... Mann Whiteny U Category of Reward-Investment and Self-Fulfillment at Universities X and Y. Perceptions of Ability to Influence Decisions on the Directions of the Department .......... Perceptions of Ability to Influence Decisions on the Selection of a Chairman ............... Perceptions of Ability to Influence Decisions on the Recruitment Policy .................... Category of Reward-Investment and Interpersonal Discrepancy at Universities X and Y .......... Mann Whitney U Category of Reward-Investment and Interpersonal Discrepancy at Universities X and Y ......................... Category of Reward-Investment and Environmental Discrepancy at Universities X and Y .......... Mann Whitney U Category of Reward-Investment and Environmental Discrepancy at Universities X and Y ......................... viii PAGE 57 68 68 75 75 78 79 80 81 81 84 84 TABLE PAGE XXVI. Category of Reward-Investment and Leaving at Universities X and Y ............... ....... 87 XXVII. Mann Whitney U Category or Reward-Investment and Leaving at Universities X and Y .......... 87 XXVIII. Category of Reward-Investment in Terms of Positive-Negative Balance or Imbalance and Satisfaction at Universities X and Y ..... 95 XXIX. Category of Reward-Investment in Terms of Positive-Negative Balance or Imbalance and Leaving at Universities X and Y .......... 108 ix CHAPTER I INTRODUCTION The major objective of this study is to understand the problem of job satisfaction for the faculty member. Work or job activity can affect a person's general pattern of life and the extent to which one is satisfied with his job influences his general life satisfaction. Also, since oc- cupational roles pattern a great deal of our social inter- action and are a source of personal identity, people expect to derive meaning from their occupation.1 When work ex- pectations are not fulfilled, dissatisfaction and varying degrees of neurosis can result. Kornhauser,2 for example, argues that job feelings are crucial intervening processes between a man's work and his level of mental health. Satis- faction with the job is associated with better mental health, dissatisfaction with poorer mental health. Since a person's work can either lead to fulfillment or personal strife, the study of job satisfaction is of humanistic concern and impor- tance. Perhaps by pointing to those conditions which lead 1Ronald M. Pavalko, Sociolo of Occupations and Professions (Itasca, Illin01s, PeacaEk—Publishers, Inc., I57ITT’ET‘3. 2Arthur Kornhauser, Mental Health of the Industrial Worker, A Detroit Study (New York, Wiley and Sons, 196ST, p. 79. 2 to satisfaction and dissatisfaction, organizational decision makers may implement policy to foster humanistic goals. The present study could focus on any one of a large number of occupations but we have selected the college faculty member as our subject. While faculty members do not reflect a large category of employment, the institu- tional surroundings of the university constitute an important reason for studying faculty as a type of worker. Today, challenges to the traditional goals of the univer- sity exist from both faculty and students. There exists, for example, a demand for relevance and the facing of social and humanistic issues by the university. It is argued that the university has defined its objectives in too narrow a conception of the scholarly, scientific method.3 As a result of these kinds of challenges to the uni- versity, the faculty member finds himself in an organiza- tion undergoing changes in goals and objectives. Within this changing organization, the faculty member attempts to fulfill his own personal needs and goals. Since the faculty member's satisfaction may be contingent on the organiza- tional climate, in particular the system of rewards and 3Edward H. Levi, "The University and the Modern Condition," 170 (December 1970), p. 1. 3 punishments, the study of the work role of faculty may point to the direction in which our educational institu- tions are heading. The professional work role itself is of curious character and little has been done in terms of under- standing the similarities or differences between pro— fessional and non-professional work satisfaction. Professions are usually characterized by high prestige, power, moderate to high income, and a degree of autonomy.4 Such job attributes are highly desirable to the average person and the professional is therefore assumed to be both satisfied and fulfilled at his work. It is also argued that the professional voluntarily includes working aspects in his leisure time to the degree that it is dif- ficult to say when he is not working.5 As a result of this assumed professional fulfillment, job satisfaction studies have generally included only non- professional occupations. But the assumptions of profes- sional satisfaction need to be explored. These assumptions are based primarily on the professional work per se, not the situational context in which the work is immersed. 4Edward Gross, "The Worker in Society," in Henry Borow (ed.), Man in a_World a£_Work (Boston, Houghton- Mifflin, Co., 1964T, p. 68. sPavalko, op} cit., p. 179. 4 Eckert and Stecklein6 note the importance of this distinc- tion between the professional career and the job situation. They argue that college teachers' disappointments or frus- trations derive chiefly from the circumstances under which they work, not from the nature of the job itself. When the situational environment of the professional is studied, a conflict sometimes appears between the needs of the 7 But the situational worker and his bureaucratic setting. context needs to be explored beyond its bureaucratic prop- erties. Instead of limiting our inquiry to professional- bureaucratic conflict, we will study the realm of satis- faction for the professional which includes bureaucratic as well as other situational working aspects. Studies on professional satisfaction have also been limited by measuring satisfaction in a limited and unso- phisticated way. Usually a general response is used to measure a person's level of job satisfaction but Wilensky argues that this type of measurement ignores some of the most significant aspects of work such as the occupational 6Ruth Eckert and John Stecklein, "Job Motivations and Satisfactions of College Teachers, A Study of Faculty Members in Minnesota Colleges," Cooperative Research Mono ra h N9. 1 (Washington, U.S. Department of Health, Education ans Welfare, 1961), p. 83. 7See for example Robert K. Merton, Social Theory and Social Structure (Illinois, Free Press, 1957), pp. 207-222, and PavaIko, op. cit., pp. 188-192. 5 environment, community, self-identity, and the worker's interpersonal relations.8 Past Research A vast amount of research has been conducted on job satisfaction. Locke reports that since 1930, approximately 4000 articles have been published on the subject.9 But despite a great deal of interest in the area of job satis- faction, the understanding of the phenomenon has not ad- vanced at a pace commensurate with research efforts. One possible reason for this lack of progress is the neglect by scholars to provide a theoretical basis for understand- ing satisfaction. Studies on job satisfaction have sub- stituted a policy of "correlation without explanation" for an adequate understanding.10 Instead of identifying in- dependent, "causal" factors, past research has generally only distinguished between important and not so important aspects of work which lead to satisfaction. This research can contribute to an understanding of career choice and mobility by conceptualizing and measuring 8Harold Wilensky, "Varieties of Work Experience," in Henry Borow (ed.), Man in a World at_Work (Boston, Houghton- Mifflin, Co., 1964), p._I3§. 9Edwin Locke, What is Job Satisfaction (Washington, D.C., Final Report, AmeriEan Institute for Research, Nov., 1968), p. l. 10 Edwin Locke, op, cit., pp. 2-6. 6 those factors which lead to job satisfaction and especially to dissatisfaction. Insight can also be furnished into the problems of how the organization motivates its member to stay and fulfill the duties of his office.11 Finally, this study may contribute to the literature aimed at explaining motivation to role performance by delineating the organiza— tional climate in terms of those facets of a professional role which provide rewards and punishment. The present study seeks to establish exchange catego- ries of reward and investment which lead to differing degrees of motivation which in turn affect a worker's satisfaction level and desire to leave his job.12 Although theorists suggest the possibility of explaining satis- faction in terms of exchange theory, little has been accomplished in this direction. In terms of exchange theory, we are concerned with what a worker "gives” in a situation, and what he "receives back." What the person gives are his investments and what he receives back are rewards. Investments are general kinds of attributes persons have which are viewed as valuable or potentially 11Chester Barnard stresses these problems in The Functions of the Executive (Massachusetts, Harvard University—Press, 1945), Ehapters 2 and 11. 12Our initial theoretical stance differs from this utilization of rewards and investments. A brief descrip- tion of the intellectual development of our problem is in Appendix A. 7 valuable by others. Rewards are systemic qualities issued for appropriate behavior. Investments lead to expectation for reward, and the higher one's investments, the higher is 13 presents a similar one's expectation for reward. Atkinson argument by predicting motivation and satisfaction from both expectation level and rewards. Ingeneral, our theory predicts that when investments and rewards are not com- mensurate, especially when the outcome is worse than ex- pected, dissatisfaction and leaving will occur. Our view of satisfaction is based on psychological need theory and we measure satisfaction as a general set of items and as three distinct types of need discrepancies. Discrepancy is used here to denote the difference existing between the importance of a specific aspect or attribute of one's job and the amount of that attribute or aspect which the person perceives to be present in the job. The greater the discrepancy between importance of the aspect and perception of aspect, the greater the dissatis- faction. Based on research which distinguishes between types of work needs, we arrive at three discrepancy meas- ures of satisfaction: environmental, self-fulfillment, and interpersonal.14 l . . . . 3John Atkinson, An Introduction to Motivation (New Jersey, Van Nostrafid Co., 1964) cfiapter 10. 14 Edwin Locke, op. cit., pp. 13-19. 8 In summary, we propose to show how propositions from exchange theory relate to need fulfillment theories with an attempt at integration. This theoretical design should enable a better understanding of job satisfaction and leaving, and the selection of faculty members as respon- dents will provide some important research on professional satisfaction. Outline of Dissertation In Chapter II there is a discussion of theory and hypotheses. In Chapter III there is an outline of the research design and methodological problems are discussed. In Chapter IV the analysis is presented. Chapter V presents a summary and discussion of the dissertation. CHAPTER II THEORY AND HYPOTHESES In this chapter we will discuss two main theoretical approaches to the problem of job satisfaction: need theory and exchange theory. We hope to integrate these theories into a schema which will enable us to better understand the kinds of conditions which lead to satisfaction and dissatisfaction for the faculty member. Need Theory Reviewing the literature on job satisfaction we find that most of the studies center on blue collar work and use need theory as the major approach to the problem. Researchers study the kinds of work aspects which satisfy the needs of the worker. Satisfaction is viewed as a positive valence force which occurs if the needs of the worker are being fulfilled.1 It is assumed that a satis- fied worker is also a highly motivated person. Because of this connection between satisfaction and motivation, studies identifying elements which lead to satisfaction 1Victor Vroom, Work and Motivation (New York, John Wiley and Sons, 1964), p. I7. 10 are deemed important.2 This importance rests on the idea that a motivated and satisfied worker will choose positively oriented behavior and an organization wants its members to fulfill their duties. Basic to this type of need theory is the relationship existing between the person and his environment. Marx viewed the work environment as alien to man. Labor, to Marx, is coerced, external to the person (as compared to an extension of the worker), and not voluntary (the person has to work to live). Since the person is under conditions of forced labor, the work is not satisfying a self need but merely a means to satisfy needs external to the person. Marx finds the roots of alienation in the estrangement of man from his work. Labor becomes an object, existing out- side the person, as something external and alien.3 Theorists have distinguished between two sets of needs for man. Maslow argues that there are higher order and 4 lower order needs. The higher order needs center on self actualization, while lower order needs are physiological 2Victor Vroom, op, cit., p. 9. For a summary of Marxist theory for the worker see Robert Freedman (ed. ), Marxist Social Thou ht (New York, Harcourt, Brace and World Inc. 69-78. 4Abraham Maslow, Eupsychian Management A_Journal (Illinois, Irwin and Dorsey Press, 1965), pp. 44-45 11 in nature. Herzberg's theory depicts these two kinds of 5 Intrinsic needs needs as intrinsic and extrinsic needs. are related to a person's psychological growth and develop- ment and include job aspects such as the nature of the task, creativity, and responsibility. Extrinsic needs are related to the hedonist theory of direction toward pleasure and avoidance of pain and include job aspects such as company policy, working conditions, salary, and inter- 6 Herzberg further argues that personal relationships. only the intrinsic or content factors can influence satis- faction, while extrinsic or contextual aspects influence 7 Later research and discussion shows dissatisfaction. little evidence for such a dual-dimensional argument. Instead, a uni-dimensional theory of satisfaction and dis- satisfaction is most appropriate with intrinsic elements of the job being more important in predicting both satis- faction and dissatisfaction than extrinsic aspects.8 SFrederick Herzberg, et al., Job Attitudes: Review of Research and Opinion (Pittsfiurgh, Psthological Serv1ce, I957), pp. 37781. 6Victor Vroom, op, cit., p. 9. 7For a comprehensive summary of the Herzberg contro- versy see George Labovitz, et al., "The Herzberg Contro- versy: A Critical Reappraisal-,—Tr Academy of_Management Journal (March, 1968), pp. 99-108. 8Ewen, et 31., "An Empirical Test of the Herzberg Two-Factor THEory," Journal of Applied Psychology, 50 (December, 1966), pp. 544-50. 12 So far in this chapter we have identified two types of worker needs: intrinsic, which we will call self- fulfillment needs, and extrinsic, which will be referred to as environmental needs.9 In our study of faculty, we expect self-fulfillment needs to be most important be- cause central to the notion of self-fulfillment is control and influence with one's job, and these attributes appear 10 and Vroom,11 to be crucial for the professional. Scott for example, argue that professionals desire a high degree of autonomy from organizational control and need to be free from confining regulations. Faculty express control and involvement in terms of being able to make decisions con- cerning the way their department is run and the way the system defines distribution of rewards and incentives. The literature clearly indicates that decision making is one of the key variables in determining satisfaction for 9These labels are more appropriate and more generally used than either Herzberg's distinction between intrinsic- extrinsic or Maslow's higher-lower order needs. 10Richard Scott in Amitai Etzioni (ed.), The Semi Professions and Their Organization (New York, Free Press, 1969), p. 89. 11Victor Vroom, op, cit., pp. 114-115. 13 l.12 Dykes13 and Kornhauser,14 for example, the professiona argue that a crucial determinant of faculty satisfaction is the relationship the worker perceives between his ideal conception of what his role in decision making should be and how he presently perceives his role. Environmental factors have also been shown to influ- 15 In this research, such factors ence satisfaction levels. include the physical features of the job such as research and teaching facilities, caliber of students, community effects, and secretarial help. Although Herzberg16 com- bines interpersonal and environmental aspects, interpersonal factors constitute a unique measure of satisfaction. Social psychologists have long argued that interpersonal factors 12The discussion on decision making centers on the concept of participation. Motivational theorists argue that in order to have optimal motivation, the worker must feel he is a part of the decision making process. See for example Rensis Likert, New Patterns of Management (New York, McGraw-Hill Co., 1961),FVictor Vroomj—loc. cit., and Harvey Hornstein, et al., "Influence and SatisfactIEH in Organiza- tions: A REpliEation," Sociology of Education, (Fall, 1968), pp. 380-389. '__ l3Archie Dykes, "Faculty Participation in Academic Decision Making," American Council op_Education (Washington, D.C., 1968), pp. lUFIIT 14William Kornhauser, Scientists ip_Industry, Conflict and Accommodation (Berkeley, CaliIOrnia, University of California Press, 1962) 15George Labovitz, op 31., 10c. cit. 6Frederick Herzberg, op o1., loc. cit. 14 exert a separate type of influence on persons.17 Danielson,18 for example, reports that professionals emphasize satisfaction derived from contact with col- leagues and superiors. Interpersonal factors in this study include relationships with chairman and colleagues. Most studies on job satisfaction have stopped at this point of identifying types of work factors and associating these aspects with a unitary conception of satisfaction.19 But arguments have been made for the further specification of satisfaction as a complex variable. Since workers can view different aspects of their jobs as satisfying or dis- satisfying, it is difficult to choose which one of these aspects represents the true measure of satisfaction.20 As a consequence, job satisfaction studies report divergent findings on what aspects lead to satisfaction and dissatis- faction. It seems we are faced with the fundamental question of what is satisfaction? 17See for example Theodore Newcomb in Otto Klineberg, et al., Perspectives 1p Social Psychology (New York, Holt, RinEHart, and Winston Inc., 1965), pp. 38-52. 18Lee Danielson, Characteristics of Engineers and Scientists Significant for ThEir Utilization and Motivation (University of Michigan, Bureau of Industrial Relations, 1960), p. 38. See Victor Vroom, loc. cit., and Bonnie Carroll, "Job Satisfaction a Review of EH? LifErature," N.Y.S. School of Industrial and Labor Relations, Cornell UniVErsity, Key Issues Series £3 (February, I969). ——_ 20Victor Vroom, op, cit., p. 101. 15 The most theoretically promising definition of satis- faction is the lack of discrepancy between factors desired and perceived. This definition allows us to view satisfac- tion as a type of motivational need. We can then measure satisfaction not only in terms of a general set of responses but also as three distinct types of needs: self-fulfillment, environmental, and interpersonal. Many of the previous studies were theoretically limited due to the procedure of associating types of job aspects with a general measure of satisfaction. Dykes,21 for example, predicts levels of satisfaction from disparities between idealized and per- ceived roles. He finds that satisfied workers have little discrepancy between the kind of decision making role they would like to play and how they perceive their present decision making Opportunities. As a result, if a faculty member's decision making need is fulfilled, he is likely to be satisfied at his job. But Dykes is only associating one measure of satisfaction (fulfillment in terms of decision making) with another (general satisfaction). The operation is redundant because fulfillment in terms of making decisions is a satisfaction. We avoid this kind of circular association by viewing both discrepancies on work factors and general satisfaction as dependent measures of satisfaction. 21Archie Dykes, loc. cit. 16 We have defined the lack of difference between a person's desired and perceived factors as a measure of satisfaction. Satisfaction can then be viewed as two main factors: 1) the strength of a person's desire for some positive factor in the work situation, and 2) the degree to which the desired factor is perceived to be present. The discrepancy between these two factors is a direct measure of job dissatisfaction. The more the discrepancy, the more dissatisfied the worker. Katzell22 argues that discrepancies will produce different levels of satisfaction according to the values of the particular aspect under consideration by the person. This argument raises the question of whether to treat satisfaction in a fixed needs fashion or consider how important each aspect is to the individual. In other words, we can assume that needs are fixed for all persons (e.g., self- fulfillment factors are most important for all workers) or we can ascertain the importance of each work factor for each individual. 22R. Katzell, in H. Borow (ed.), Man in o_World at Work (Boston, Massachusetts, Houghton Mifflin Co., l964), h pp. 341-363. 17 Many of the critiques of job satisfaction argue that workers are not seen as individuals.23 Instead, the worker is assigned a fixed set of needs which may or may not apply to him. Contrary to this fixed needs schema, we view each person as having a distinct set of needs which may or may not be in agreement with the needs of other persons. These needs are ranked in terms of importance and salience and motivate the person's behavior. Other persons may have different needs and may also rank them differently. Thus, in this study, the discrepancies between desired and per- ceived work aspects are determined on an individual level. We first ask the worker which factors are important to him, and then we ascertain if he perceives those factors in his work environment. This distinction between what a person desires and what he perceives in his occupation is relevant to role theory. Role theorists have distinguished between the personal or subjective role and the perceived role.24 The personal role definition refers to the person's wishes 23See for example Edwin Locke, loc. cit., Nancy Morse, "Satisfaction in the Work Job,” Surve ReEEErch Center (University of Michigan, 1953), and William Faunce, "Job Satisfaction and the Meaning of Work," U.S. Department of Labor Conference (unpublished paper, 19587I -_ 24Daniel Levinson, "Role, Personality, and Social Structure in the Organizational Setting," in Neil Smelser, et al., (eds.), Personalit and Social Systems, second Edition (New York, John Wiley and Sons Inc., 1970), pp. 471- 484. 18 for a desired behavior associated with his social status, while a perceived role refers to how a person views the expected behavior connected with his social status. The discrepancy between the personal and perceived roles can be viewed as a type of role conflict which leads to dis— satisfaction and/or leaving the organization. Kahn25 refers to this type of role situation as person-role conflict. So far we have distinguished between four measures of satisfaction: self-fulfillment, environmental, inter- personal discrepancies, and a general measure of satis- faction. We arrive at discrepancy indices by viewing the difference between how important a work aspect is and how the person perceives that aspect in his job. We are not concerned with finding out whether the worker's per— ceptions are objectively true or not. Job satisfaction is an attitude, and attitudes are subjective in nature. If the discrepancy is real for the worker, the consequences of such a discrepancy are also real.26 Even when our dependent variables have been adequately measured, we must inquire into the conditions which lead to 25Robert Kahn, et al., Organizational Stress (New York, Harcourt, Brace and WBrld Inc., 1964), pp. 6-15. 26W. 1. Thomas makes this point when he suggests that "if men define situations as real, they are real in their consequences." Quoted in Nicholas Timasheff, Sociological Theor Its Nature and Growth (New York, Random House, thiid edition, 1967), p._l53. 19 variations in our dependent measures. One of the major critiques of job satisfaction studies centers on the lack of theory.27 Although researchers have suggested that exchange theory might provide a theoretical base for under- standing satisfaction, little has been accomplished in this direction. We propose to use exchange theory as an explan- atory schema to understand satisfaction. By viewing satis- faction as our dependent variable, and depicting the relationship between rewards and investments as our in- dependent factor, we hope to arrive at a better under- standing of the problem of faculty satisfaction. Exchapge Theory Exchange theory has been traditionally viewed as an interpersonal process whereby people invest certain things of value with the expectation that they will receive some- thing commensurate in return. Ekeh28 argues that this exchange process is functional to group integration. Theorists link the exchange situation in terms of classical economics. A person has certain "costs" and "profits" in a given interchange. It is to the person's advantage to maximize his profits. These types of considerations are 27See for example Edwin Locke, loc. cit., and William Faunce, loc. cit. 28Peter Ekeh, "Issues in Exchange Theory," Berkele Journal of_Sociology (California, Vol. XIII, 1968), pp. 42-56 20 taken into account in Homan's theory of distributive justice.29 For justice to be realized, the profit of each man should be directly proportional to his invest- ments. Thus, justice is achieved if in comparison with others, a person's profit-investment ratio is proportional. Satisfaction, as viewed from exchange theory, is basically determined by how much a man expects from an interchange and how much that man gets from that exchange. Satisfaction is then contingent on both strength of ex- pectancy and the amount of incentive or reward. Atkinson30 argues that expectancy directs our attention to the asso- ciative link between performance of a particular task and attainment of rewards. Expectancy, then, is a key con- sideration in determining satisfaction. We are more concerned with expectation levels rather than wishes or desires. It seems that a person's expectations are formed more on legitimate, realistic criteria compared to ideals 31 or fantasies. As a consequence, expectation for reward is more relevant for the worker than his job desires or 29George Homans, Social Behavior: Its Elementarnyorms (New York, Harcourt, Brace and—World Inc., 1961), pp. 68-69, 232-274. 30John Atkinson, Ap_lntroduction 5o Motivation (New Jersey, Van Nostrand Co., 1964), chapter 10. 31John Atkinson, Motives in Fantas Action and Society (New Jersey, Van Nostrand Co.,—l9 , pp. 288-305. 21 wishes. A person may wish for many things he actually does not expect. If his wishes are not fulfilled, he is more likely to accept this outcome than if his expectations are not met. We have argued that the relationship between expectancy and reward leads to various degrees of satisfaction. There remains the important question of how to measure expectancy. To ascertain expectations we should find the antecedents of the expectancy that a particular behavior will lead to a certain degree of reward. The antecedent of expectancy is a person's investments. Persons expect differences in rewards to correspond to differences in investments. The more a person has invested in a situation (with such things as age, skills, etc.,) the more he expects in terms of rewards. In other words, it is viewed as fair that there should be a correlation between the inputs a person gives to his work and the amount of reward received by the person. Furthermore, experience has taught us that such a fair ex- change may not exist. Satisfaction then depends just as much on whether expectations are fulfilled as on the actual 32 quantity of rewards. Pepitone makes a similar point when he notes that there are determinants for reward other than 2 Albert Pepitone in Robert Abelson, et o1., Theories of Co nitive Consistency: A Sourcebook (Chicago, IllinOis, d ficNally REn Co., I968), ppT 324-326. 22 sheer quantity of labor. These other determinants are in- vestments such as training, sacrifice, and education. An example may simplify why a balance between rewards and investments leads to satisfaction. Suppose we view two faculty members. P1 receives $9500.00 as a salary, while P2 receives $11,000.00. One might argue that P2 is more satisfied since he is receiving the greater reward. Upon examination of the investments of both men, we find P1 does not have a Ph.D. nor has he published any articles or books; P2, on the other hand, has a Ph.D. and has published ex- tensively. Since P2 has invested more in the situation, his expectations for reward are higher than the expectations of P1. While P1 may be quite content with $9500.00, since that is all he expects, P2 expects more than $11,000.00 due to his high investments. P1 is therefore more satisfied than P2 even though P2 has greater rewards. Our treatment of satisfaction differs from distributive justice formulations in two major ways: 1) we do not con- sider the concept of "cost," and 2) we are not incorporating comparisons with others. The main reason for not consider- ing "cost" is that the variable is not really needed to determine satisfaction. Homans, for example, argues that "costs" have little to do with satisfaction.33 Circumstances of cost may require a person to remain in a social situation 33George Homans, loc. cit. 23 that he regards as unsatisfactory. While his costs may be low and his rewards high, it would be incorrect to infer that his satisfaction is also great. Another reason for excluding "cost" is to simplify the conceptual scheme.34 Thus, since the concept of "cost" is not essential in determining satisfaction, and it would be confusing to introduce the concept into our theory, we have not in- corporated the variable in our schema for satisfaction. We have also eliminated considering the person's rela- tive situation in terms of significant others. Some equity theorists include direct comparisons with others in order to determine "just" situations. Patchen,35 for example, argues that a person makes a cognitive relation of his own situation and background compared to others' situations and 36 also argues that distributive background factors. Homans justice is realized when features of investments and profits can be put into rank order in comparison with those of other men, and these features fall in the same place in all the different rank orders of men. Along with these conceptions 34See for example simplified schemas of Stacy Adams, in Leonard Berkowitz, Advances ip_Experimenta1 Social Ps cholo , Vol. 2 (New York, Academic Press, 1965) chapter 7, and Hans letterbefg in Joseph Berger, et al., Sociolo ical Theories io Pro ress (Massachusetts, HBEghion Mifflin Co., I966), pp. 139-l49. 35Martin Patchen in Herbert Hyman, et al., Readin 5 io Reference Group Theory and Research (New—Yofk, Free Press, I968), p. 169. 6George Homans, loc. cit. 24 of justice and satisfaction, Wieck37 contends that inequity exists for a person whenever he perceives that the ratio of his outcomes to inputs and the ratio of another's out- comes and inputs are unequal. A different conception of reference group is also evident in the literature. Instead of viewing the situa- tions of others in comparison with one's own circumstance, people refer to how norms define their present situation. 38 conceives of reference groups in this normative Sampson sense. He argues that equity circumstances are influenced by the social norms in the particular kind of situation 39 make a similar point under study. Alexander and Simpson by suspecting that situations are normatively defined in various ways to reduce or eliminate inequities. Reference groups are then the source of norms and values rather than standards of direct comparison.40 In this research we will 37Karl Wieck, "The Concept of Equity in the Perception of Pay," Administrative Science Quarterly (December 1966, Vol. II), pp. 414-439. 38Edward Sampson in Leonard Berkowitz (ed.), Advances in Ex erimental Social Psychology (New York, Academic Press, V61. EV, I969), p. 262. 39Norman Alexander and Richard Simpson, "Balance Theory and Distributive Justice," Sociological Inquiry (Spring, 1964, Vol. 34, No. 2), p. 190. 40Harold Kelley discusses these two functions of refer- ence groups in Herbert Hyman, op, pip., p. 169, see also William Gamson in Leonard Berkowitz, op, cit., Vol. 1, pp. 81-110 and Alvin Gouldner, "The Norm of Reciprocity: A Preliminary Statement," American Sociological Review (Vol. 25, 1960), pp. 161-178. 25 consider reference groups in terms of normative influences. We wish to understand how others define situations of reward-investment and how these normative influences affect the worker. This discussion of reference groups brings us to the question of how are ideas of justice or fairness formed in a person's mind. In other words, a person has certain expectations for reward which are a consequence of his investments. But what outside factor influences a person's sense of fairness? We have already hinted at the answer to this question by referring to reference groups as norma- tive influences. A person's sense of fairness develops as a function of expectations learned from prior experience and/or stems from normative conditions which define what outcomes to expect as "one's due." A person then evaluates the outcomes of a given relationship in terms of what he feels he deserves. Past experience and normative circum- stances usually define justice in terms of requiring com- mensurate reward for appropriate effort or commitment but various kinds of normative prescriptions may exist in a particular work situation.41 41Sampson makes an interesting distinction between equity and equality in justice. He suggests that equity refers to some fair but differential state while equality refers to a sort of socialist norm which defines everyone in the same situation in order to be fair. This research deals with equity states, where norms define justice in terms of differential reward-investment states, Edward Sampson, op, oip., pp. 259-264. 26 To talk in terms of investments and rewards seems to lend itself to the employment situation in which persons readily think in terms of inputs and outcomes. But despite the seeming easy adaptation of exchange theory to job circumstances, we still face problems of defining invest- 42 The definition of investment is a ments and rewards. particularly difficult problem. Blau, for example, argues that the loose term investment has included all kinds of background characteristics which have nothing to do with justice.43 He then suggests that to avoid confusion an investment must constitute time and effort on the part of the person. This consideration would eliminate sex as an investment because being of a particular sex does not represent time or effort. Another difficulty with de- fining investments and rewards is that an attribute could at one time be defined as an investment, and at another time, as a reward. An example of this is the variable of status. Higher status is earned as a reward but it is also an investment and commitment leading to higher expecta- tion for reward. It does not clarify matters to suggest that inputs and outputs are to be understood as a person 42 43Peter Blau, "Justice in Social Exchange," Sociological Inquiry (Spring, 1964, Vol. 34, No. 2), p. 195. Edward Sampson, op, cit., pp. 260-261. 27 defines them. Alexander and Simpson44 argue that this only confuses issues because people disagree about the nature of a characteristic as an investment and about how a particu- lar investment should count in terms of distribution of rewards. One way of overcoming this difficulty of defining investments is to specify the conditions under which an attribute is to be considered an investment. Zetterberg45 suggests that an investment must imply that a person has invested his ego in activities that are important and rele- vant to him. But these activities should also be viewed as valuable by others because this will lead us to logically assume that these investments should lead to expectations for reward. In agreement with this specification of in- vestments, we include the following factors as investments in this study: degree obtained, articles and books pub- lished, research grants obtained, age, and length of time at the university. Rewards are less difficult to define. Rewards are positive sanctions or attributes given to a person for per- forming a particular activity. In this study rewards in- clude salary, rank, respect from colleagues, faculty benefits, and a light teaching load. "Rank" could be 44Norman Alexander and Richard Simpson, loc. cit. 45Hans Zetterberg, loc. cit. 28 treated as either a reward or investment, depending on your point of view. Our argument is that rank is given for positively evaluated behavior, and that associated with rank is differential treatment which is a special occupa- tional reward. In regard to teaching load, most faculty view a "light" teaching load as a positive attribute. By having a light teaching responsibility, faculty are more able to devote themselves to the courses they are assigned and to allocate a larger pr0portion of their time to research and/or outside interests. Relationship Between Rewards and Investments Zetterberg46 suggests that the relation between rewards and investments may be viewed in four combinations:47 1) high reward-high investment, which leads to a neutral reaction, 2) high reward-low investment, which results in a positive effect, 3) low reward-high investment, which leads to a negative reaction, and 4) low reward-low investment, which results in a neutral circumstance. Zetterberg admits that the reactions he predicts from these four conditions are unclear and unverified. This thesis attempts to better understand such circumstances of reward-investment and specify the outcomes of such 46Hans Zetterberg, loc. cit. 47Actually, Zetterberg's categories are reward- commitment conditions but our definition of investment is similar to his usage of commitment. 29 conditions for the faculty worker. Each of the four conditions represents either a balanced or imbalanced state. Balance or consonance occurs when elements imply each other and "fit together."48 The greater the discrepancy between rewards and investments, the greater the imbalance. This imbalance is reasonable to assume since investments lead to expectation for reward, and if these expectations are not commensurate with received rewards, the situation is not equitable. The effect of an imbalanced reward-investment situation on the person is dissonance. Bramel,49 for example, states that dissonance is aroused when a person encounters information which dis- confirms an expectation. This unpleasant emotional state is the result of contraexpected information regardless of whether that information has implications of desirable or undesirable aspects. Since we can only infer dissonance and cannot really measure the variable, the question re- mains as to the specific consequences of these states of balance or imbalance.50 48Leon Festinger, in Jack Brehm and Arthur Cohen, Explorations in Cognitive Dissonance (New York, John Wiley and Son, 1962): pp. 3-10. Dana Bramel in Robert Abelson, op 31., op. cit., pp. 355-372. 0Festinger posits that dissonance is a drive state characterized by tension. We can only verify such a state by viewing consequences of tension and imbalance, Leon Festinger as reviewed by Brehm and Cohen, loo. cit. 30 51 argues that dissatisfaction and leaving are Jaques a function of the difference between the amount of reward that a person believes he should receive and the amount of reward which he does receive. Whenever a person's rewards deviate from his expectation level, regardless of the direction of the disparity, that person experiences imbalance and some form of tension.52 These considerations lead us to believe that workers whose rewards are com- mensurate with their investments should express greater satisfaction than persons whose rewards are disproportional to investments.53 The underlying principle for such bal- ance predictions is the notion of justice; an exchange situation is "fair" or "just" when rewards are proportional to investments. In comparison with the above predictions from con- sistency theory, we can discuss hypotheses from expectancy 54 or motivation theory. Atkinson views satisfaction as a result of expectancy and incentive and highest satisfaction 51Eliot Jaques, as reviewed by Victor Vroom, Work and Motivation (New York, Wiley and Sons, 1964), p. 168. 52Such imbalance may be a consequence of the worker making a wrong assessment of his situation or his accurate perception of an "unfair" work circumstance. 53Victor Vroom, op, cit., p. 169. 54John Atkinson, Ao Introduction po_Motivation (New Jersey, Van Nostrand Co., 1964) Chapter 10. 31 comes from conditions of high reward and medium expectation. In this circumstance the person is confident but not certain of achieving his reward and will try hardest at his task. If the person's expectations are high, then the person is almost sure he will receive the reward, and the situation can become boring. Finally, if a person's expectations are low and he receives a high reward, a somewhat negative effect will prevail because the surprise of receiving such an unexpected result will produce doubt or uneasiness. In terms of this series of predictions from motivation theory, pleasure or satisfaction is maximal when there is a moderate discrepancy, with the reward received being somewhat greater than that expected. An alternative motivation hypothesis is that the amount of satisfaction in achieving a high reward decreases as the expectation for that reward becomes more favorable. If a person expects little but receives a great deal, his un- expected good fortune leads to high satisfaction. But as a person expects a great deal, the achievement of high reward is not as satisfying. This hypothesis leads us to the conclusion that conditions of high reward and low in- vestment (where expectations are low) would produce maximal satisfaction. With this background in consistency and motivation theories, we will now turn to specific predictions of satisfaction and leaving for each of our investment- reward circumstances. 32 High Reward-High Investment (HR-HI) Conditions of HR-HI represent persons with high expec- tation for reward and high received rewards. Motivational theory might predict medium to low levels of satisfaction from such circumstances because if the person is almost sure he will receive a high reward, the achievement of such a goal may be boring. Zetterberg also predicts neutral or medium satisfaction. But other theorists find that high commitment and reward factors lead to high satisfaction.55 White,56 for example, argues that optimal working conditions are depicted by challenge, risk taking, and commitment; also important is positive response from the environment. Professionals, in particular, have been shown to need working specifications of high investment and reward.57 HR-HI incidence represents these optimal working factors because the person has invested highly in his job and is being highly rewarded. Thus, we predict that HR-HI faculty 55See for example Rensis Likert, loc. cit., and Victor Vroom, loc. cit. 56Robert White, "Motivation Reconsidered: The Concept of Competence," Psychological Review (Vol. 66, No. 5, 1959), pp. 297-333. 57See for Oexample Donald Pelz and Frank Andrews, Scientists in anizations (New York, John Wiley and Sons Inc. ,1967)—_Wa ter Hirsc Scientists in American Socie_y_ (New York, Random House, 1968)} and TheEHore Caplow and Reece McGee, The Academic Marke_place (New York, Anchor paperbacks, 1965). 33 will express highest satisfaction (as measured by our four indices)58 and lowest level of leaving.59 Previous research has not specifically tested equitable occurrences so our research steps into a new direction at this point. Hypothesis 1 a) Faculty under HR—HI condi- tions will express most satisfaction. b) Faculty under HR-HI condi- tions will express lowest tendency to leave. High Reward-Low Investment (HR-LI) Conditions of HR-LI are imbalanced and inequitable. A person's expectations for reward are low due to poor in- vestments but he is receiving high rewards. Researchers report divergent findings under such specifications of 60 overpayment. Adams and his associates report that dis- sonance is an outcome of overpayment, and this dissonance 58We do not expect differences between our measures of satisfaction except that we predict self-fulfillment discrepancy to be our most sensitive measure. 59Although we have been concerned with satisfaction, leaving is an important consequence of dissatisfaction. March and Simon, for example, argue that the greater the individual's satisfaction with the job, the less his de- sirability of movement, in James March and Herbert A. Simon, Organizations (New York, John Wiley and Sons, 1958), p. 94. 6OStacy Adams in Leonard Berkowitz, op. oi_p., Vol. 2, Chapter 7, and Stacy Adams and William Rosenbaum, "The Relationship of Worker Productivity to Cognitive Dissonance About Wage Inequities," Journal of_Applied Psyohology (Vol. 46, 1962), pp. 161-164. 34 leads to a tension state which the worker attempts to 61 also maintains that overpayment results eliminate. Homans in a negative emotional state which can be characterized as guilt. Other findings depict no significant differences 62 In contrast to between overpayment and equitable events. predictions of low satisfaction for over-rewarded persons, motivational hypotheses suggest that greatest satisfaction occurs when expectations for reward are low and the person receives high rewards, so long as the discrepancy is not so striking as to arouse feelings of guilt or anxiety. The rationale is that the person is pleasantly surprised by his good fortune. This type of argument advocates that the amount of satisfaction increases as the expectation for reward decreases.63 Other arguments concerning over-reward incidents state that the particular normative conditions affect the defini- tion and interpretation of what constitutes "justice." Thus, norms govern how a person reacts to conditions of 1George Homans, loc. cit. 62See A. Friedman and P. Goodman, "Wage Inequity and Productivity: A Replication," (Mimeographed paper, Graduate School of Business, University of Chicago), and Edwar anler,_“Effects of Hourly Overpayment on Productivity and Work Quality," Journal of Personality and Social Psychology (Vol. 10, 1968). _— 63John Atkinson, loc. cit. 3S overpayment. Anderson and Shelly,64 for example, conduct an experiment where university students are overpaid in a laboratory situation. These students define their situa- tion as "just" since they perceive that the money is pro- vided by the government and "they can afford it." It seems that most of the theories concerning over- payment conditions are either without empirical verifica- tion or with research conducted in the small group laboratory. The assertion that small group experimenta- tion does not pertain to "real life" events has been made 65 and it is not our intention to discuss this point before extensively here, but we do wish to point out that while overpayment might be easily induced under controlled in- stances, such specifications would be more involved in an actual work setting. Considering the degree to which faculty members are overpaid, it is not likely that any surplus rewards will produce a negative emotional state. To produce a negative evaluation, any additional increment would have to be great enough so that the person could not conceive of it as legitimate. 64 B0 Anderson and Robert Shelly, "Reactions to Inequity II: A Replication of the Adams Experiment and a Theoretical Reformulation," Michigan State University Technical Report (November 1969). 65 of laboratory studies to real life in Small GroupResearch, Joseph McGrath and Irwin Altman discuss the relevancy A Synthesis and Critique of the Field (New York,iH6lt, Rinehart, and Winston, 1966), pp. 70-72. 36 Not only are any negative effects of overreward un- likely for HR-LI staff, but these exchange conditions should lead to satisfaction. The highly rewarded person who has low investments can escape dissonance by reason- ing that he must possess other types of qualities that are not easily identified. This kind of reasoning can lead to a satisfactory self-image. We therefore view HR-LI inci- dences as generally favorable for the faculty member, but not as favorable as HR-HI factors. Thereason.for this second rank in terms of satisfaction is due to the nature of having low investments. Since the academic profession defines prestige primarily in terms of qualifications, particularly scholarly productivity, the low investment person may consider his situation somewhat limiting. Also, because of the low investments, there may be a threat of loss of reward in the future. Hypothesis 2 a) Faculty under HR-LI conditions will express less satisfaction than HR-HI persons, but more satisfaction than LR-HI or LR-LI respondents. b) Faculty under HR-LI circum- stances will express higher scores on leaving than HR-HI staff, but lower scores on leaving than LR-HI or LR-LI respondents. 37 Low Reward-High Investment (LR-HI) Although our propositions concerning LR-HI staff are not subject to test because of an inadequate sample, we predict that such respondents are least satisfied and most likely to leave their job. These people have high expecta- tion for reward but are receiving low rewards. Homans 66 and if this is true, maintains that such people are angry, we might expect them to leave the organization. Job re- location is especially likely since mobility would not be a problem for such faculty due to their high investments (degrees and/or publications). Such persons would have gained high visibility and high desirability as the result of their investments, especially their publications.67 Since LR-HI staff are not likely to be present during the survey due to high levels of leaving, we will analyze this category with the realization that only a small number of such respondents will be available. Hypothesis 3 a) Faculty under LR-HI circum— stances will express least satisfaction. b) Faculty under LR-HI condi- tions will express highest desire to leave. 66George Homans, op. cit., pp. 75-77. 67See the excellent discussion on the effects of visibility in James March and Herbert Simons, op, cit., p. 104. 38 Low Reward-Low Investment (LR-LI) LR-LI factors represent equitable specifications because the person expects low rewards due to his low investments, and he is receiving low rewards. Research has not specifically dealt with the consequences of such instances but usually a neutral response is predicted.68 We view such circumstances as unsatisfactory. This is particularly true for professionals who need a work en- vironment of high challenge and response. The LR-LI person also has difficulty in achieving an acceptable self-image because he is making a low investment in a high investment situation and his low self-image is verified by the low rewards he receives. In addition, this person's chances for escape are limited due to a lack of necessary qualifications. Even though LR-LI occurrences could be considered "just,” we predict that workers will express low satisfaction and a high score on leaving. Hypothesis 4 a) Faculty under conditions of LR-LI will express least satisfaction (compared to HR-HI or HR-LI staff). b) Faculty under conditions of LR-LI will express highest scores on leaving (compared to HR-HI or HR-LI staff). 68Hans Zetterberg, loc. cit. 39 Summary of Hypotheses 69 which predict We have stated eight hypotheses various levels of satisfaction and leaving according to specific reward-investment instances. HR-HI staff are predicted to express highest satisfaction and lowest scores on leaving. Conditions of high reward and investment represent involvement and positive response from one's work. HR-LI respondents will also express generally high satisfaction and low levels of leaving. These people are highly rewarded and may accept this evaluation of self (as suggested by receiving high rewards). We doubt whether significant levels of over-rewards exist for faculty, so we don't expect such respondents to express guilt or dis- satisfaction with their situation.70 On the other hand, there are some negative consequences of having low in- vestments even though one is highly rewarded. Some of these faculty may feel somewhat uneasy about not living up to the image of being a scholar (which consists of publishing and being involved with research). This factor 69Our hypotheses are rank order in nature because our data does not justify any attempt to predict absolute levels. 70Satiation could theoretically occur whereby a person receives more than he expects or wishes. We are not con- cerned with satiation in this study because we do not pre- dict that rewards will significantly exceed a faculty member's expectations. It might also be important to note that the rewards depicted in this research are positively viewed by most faculty; problems of a low-valued incentive should therefore not be a concern. 40 plus the generally undesirable situation of having low investments would not produce satisfaction levels equal to those of HR-HI staff. We do not expect to find many respondents under LR-HI specifications due to the negative aspects of such a situation, but those faculty present during our survey should express dissatisfaction and a high desire to leave. Finally, we predict that LR-LI respondents will also express low satisfaction and high scores on leaving. LR-LI factors reflect low commitment with little Opportunity to achieve high rewards. CHAPTER III METHODOLOGY Nath1 suggests that one of the crucial concerns for comparative researchers is the selection of social units. In this study we chose two universities undergoing changes from teaching to research emphasis. We felt that these changing conditions could be particularly important in a study of job satisfaction because when an organization changes, the personnel in that system may be faced with new role expectations.2 In such situations the changes may be of such a nature that those who found the old system rewarding would not be rewarded in the new organizational climate. As a result, dissatisfaction and possibly a desire to leave the setting could occur. The main reason for choosing two universities was to test the reliability of our questionnaire and add verifi- cation to our findings. Both universities are located in 1Raghu Nath, "A Methodological Review of Cross Cultural Management Research," International Social Science Journal (Vol. 20, January, 1968), pp. 35-62. 2For a discussion of this kind of role conflict see Daniel Levinson, loc. cit., and Norman Cameron notes that rigidity and confliEt 55; result if a person is faced with new role expectations, in "Role Conflict and Behavioral Pathology," American Journal of Sociology (Vol. 55, 1950), pp. 464-467. 41 42 the same geographical area, have the same kind of academic traditions, and the students attending the two universities are similar.3 Also, both colleges appeared to be undergoing changes toward professional, research activities. Although we expected two similar universities, an un- anticipated difference emerged between the two schools. One of the colleges, which we will refer to as Y, was more ad- vanced in professionalism. By professionalism we refer to factors such as research facilities, and number of faculty who have advanced degrees and/or have published. Tables I-IX represent evidence for this distinction in professionalism between the organizations. Table I, for example, shows that 30% of faculty at university X perceive their department as having a reward structure favoring teaching rather than re- search activities, while only 04% of the staff at university Y perceive this emphasis of reward for teaching. Table II illustrates that 60% of the respondents at university X per- ceive their departments as undergoing changes from teaching to research activities, while only 32% of the respondents at university Y perceive such changes. Tables III-IX cite com- parisons on research funds and facilities, degrees obtained, articles and books published, and number of research grants obtained, especially grants over $1000.00. From these nine 3Comparisons on room and board rates, average appro- priations per student, faculty salaries, date founded, and degree emphasis are also similar. The data is not reported to insure anonymity to the universities. 43 TABLE I Perceptions of Teaching-Research Emphasis at Universities X and Y University X University Y per cent per cent Rewards and incentives are exclusively on research 05 03 Rewards and incentives for research are stressed over teaching 29 39 Rewards and incentives are equal for research and teaching 25 51 Rewards and incentives for teaching are stressed over research 14 04 Rewards and incentives are mainly on teaching 16 00 Other 11 03 Totals 100 100 (N=56) (N=76) 44 TABLE II Department Presently or Recently Changing from Teaching Orientation to Professional Activities University X University Y per cent per cent Strongly agree 03 07 . Agree 34 07 . Agree but with reservation 29 17 Disagree 27 51 Strongly disagree 07 17 . Other 00 01 Totals 100 100 (N=56) (N=76) 45 TABLE III Funds Are Available For Research University X University Y per cent per cent 1. Strongly agree 02 04 2. Agree ll 18 3. Agree but with reservations 27 40 4. Disagree 43 22 5. Strongly disagree 16 15 6. Other 01 01 7. Totals 100 100 (N=56) (N=76) 46 TABLE IV University Affords Adequate Research Facilities University X University Y per cent per cent Strongly agree 00 04 . Agree 05 25 . Agree but with reservations 16 37 Disagree 48 24 Strongly disagree 29 10 . Other 02 00 Totals 100 100 (N=56) (N=76) 47 TABLE V Highest Degree Obtained University X University Y per cent per cent 1. B.A. or B.S. 07 01 2. M.A. 28 04 3. All but thesis 20 12 4. Ph.D. 45 83 5. Totals 100 100 (N=56) (N=76) TABLE VI Number of Articles Published in Journals in the Last Five Years University X University Y per cent per cent 1. 0 54 16 2. l-2 23 40 3. 3-5 16 29 4. 6-10 02 12 5. 11 or more 05 03 6. Totals 100 100 (N=56) (N=76) 48 TABLE VII Number of Books Written or Edited in the Last Ten Years University X University Y per cent per cent 0 79 68 1-2 19 22 3 or more 02 10 Totals 100 100 (N=56) (N=76) TABLE VIII Research Grants Obtained in the Last Five Years University X University Y per cent per cent 0 63 41 1-2 32 45 3 or more 05 14 Totals 100 100 (N=56) (N=76) 49 TABLE IX Number of Research Grants Over $1000.00 University X University Y per cent per cent 0 79 54 1 14 15 2 07 31 Totals 100 100 (N=56) (N=76) 50 tables the reader can see that university Y has greater percentages of research attributes than university X, thus indicating a greater degree of professionalism. Because of this unexpected difference on professional- ism, we have unintentionally incorporated environmental variation into our research design. Fortunately, environ- mental differences may increase the theoretical merit of this study by allowing us to view the organizational member as influenced by the type of normative system to which he belongs.4 In terms of our theory, we can compare how reward-investment categories determine satisfaction and leaving at two different systems. We will be interested in what effect professionalism has on the relationship be- tween our independent and dependent measures. Instrument A questionnaire was used in this study to provide ano- nymity and decrease the time factor for respondents.5 Since we are dealing with a possibly delicate area of job dissatisfaction, a respondent may feel uneasy and hesitant about expressing his views. If a person is dissatisfied 4For a discussion of environmental variation see Garlie Forehand, et. al., in L. L. Cummings, et. 31., Readin s 13 OrganizatiEHal—Behavior and Human PerfSFmance ( linois, Irwin and DOrsey’Press, I969), p. 3. 5A complete c0py of the questionnaire and follow-up letter to respondents are found in Appendices B and C. 51 with his job, he might not want this information circulated. Hochstim and Athanasopoulos6 argue that researchers can obtain as good or better responses in sensitive areas from mail questionnaires. Questionnaires, even with identifica- tion numbers, can provide the necessary anonymity needed by some faculty. The second reason for choosing a question- naire was related to the busy schedules of most respondents. During pre-tests, faculty expressed positive sentiment toward filling out a questionnaire rather than consenting to a lengthy interview. With a questionnaire, the subject can select a time when he is not busy. Pre-tests of the instrument were conducted at a third ‘university. At that time thirty respondents were asked to complete the instrument with this researcher present. The questionnaire was then discussed with each subject. After completion of revisions in the instrument, actual data col- lection began at two midwestern universities. At least three-fourths of the respondents were personally visited in regard to the study. The remaining subjects received a note explaining the purpose of this research and requesting the return of the questionnaire. Faculty were encouraged 6Joseph R. Hochstim and Demetrios A. Athanasopoulos, "Personal Follow-up in a Mail Survey: Its Contributions and Its Cost," Public 0 inion Quarterly (Vol. XXXIV, No. 1, Spring, 1970), pp. 69-8l. For other benefits of using a questionnaire see Claire Selltiz, et al., Research Methods in Social Relations (New York, Holt: Rinehart, and Winston, I959), p. 240. 52 to add written comments, and space was provided for such reactions at the end of each section of the instrument. No names appeared on the questionnaire and confidentiality was assured to all respondents. An identification number for each instrument made possible follow-ups to contact non-response subjects. Population The pOpulation consists of all teaching, social sci- ence faculty at two midwestern universities. Departments represented include Anthropology, Economics, Geography, Political Science, Psychology, and Sociology. We chose social scientists because we wished to maximize conditions of change. The social sciences appear to be presently undergoing changes toward professionalism, and these changes might result in conflicting work circumstances for faculty who prefer the older, teaching emphasis given to their discipline. Tables X-XII describe the respondents at each university by rank, age, and sex. The principal difference between our two populations is the larger percentage of younger, lower status faculty at university X. This finding is understandable when we consider that since university X is less advanced in pro- fessionalism than university Y, university X may be less able to recruit highly qualified faculty. As a result, positions at university X are likely to be filled by younger 53 TABLE X Respondents by Rank Rank University X University Y per cent per cent Professor Emeritus 07 05 Professor 12 28 Associate Professor ll 30 Assistant Professor 29 33 Instructor 41 04 Totals 100 100 (N=56) (N=76) TABLE XI Respondents by Sex University X University Y per cent per cent Males 84 93 Females 16 07 Totals 100 100 (N=56) (N=76) 54 TABLE XII Respondents by Age Age University X University Y per cent per cent Under 30 45 15 31-35 12 17 36-40 09 30 41-45 14 16 46-50 05 09 51-55 07 04 56-60 04 03 over 60 04 06 Totals 100 100 (N=56) (N=76) 55 faculty with less training and publications. Table XIII shows the distribution of faculty in terms of reward- investment category. It is interesting to note that if we compare high investment with low investment staff, we find 48% high investment faculty at university Y compared to 39% of high investment faculty at university X. This difference is in the expected direction as more qualified faculty are hired at university Y. TABLE XIII Number of Respondents in Each Category of Reward-Investment Category of University X University Y Reward-Investment per cent per cent High Reward 34 45 High Investment (n=19) (n=34) High Reward 16 18 Low Investment (n=09) (n=l4) Low Reward 05 03 High Investment (n=03) (n=02) Low Reward 45 34 Low Investment (n=25) (n=26) Totals 100 100 (n=56) (n=76) 56 Return Rate Including non-usuable returns, the percentage of returned questionnaires at university X is 80%, and at university Y, 82%. Table XIV depicts the return rate by departments at the universities. Departmental response appears representative. Two weeks after the questionnaires were left with each member of the sample, a follow-up letter was sent urging each non-respondent to complete and return the questionnaire.7 Approximately one-fifth of the respondents at each college did not return the questionnaire. Even though our response rates are considered high,8 we should be reasonably sure that the non-respondents do not appreciably differ from the respondents in any way that will affect theoreti- cal interpretation. After failure to reSpond to our follow- up letter, approximately three-fourths of the non- respondents were contacted by a personal visit to their faculty office. Half of these faculty indicated that they 9 would send back the questionnaire as soon as possible. The remaining non-respondents usually remarked that they 7See a copy of the letter in the Appendix. 8A good questionnaire return rate is 60%; our returns were approximately 80%. See C. A. Moser, Survey Methods in Social Investigation (London, Heinemann Publications,1958), p. 9There was no consistent difference between regular returns and those stimulated by a personal visit. 57 TABLE XIV Return Rate by University and Department Department N University X N University Y per cent per cent A 22 70 22 86 (n=15) (n=l9) B 12 59 21 76 (n=07) (IV-'16) C 13 70 22 77 (n=09) (n=17) D 10 70 14 50 (n=07) (n=07) E 21 86 12 82 (n=18) (n=10) F No department 07 100 (n=07) Non-usable 08 04 returns (n=06) (n=04) Totals 78 80 98 82 (n=6Z) (W80) 58 were too busy or could not be bothered answering question- naires. These reasons given for not returning the instru- ment do not appear consistently related to the variables of concern in the present study in such a way as to bias the 10 Thus, considering the nature of reasons for findings. non-response, and the sufficient distribution on important variables in our theory, it is unlikely that the non- respondents seriously distort our findings. Measurement of Variables Rewards and Investments are our two main independent variables.11 A reward score was determined from the follow- ing questionnaire items: 51, respect from colleagues, 80, rank, 85, salary, 87, faculty benefits, and 89, light teaching load. Numbers were assigned to each of these variables on a 1 to n basis, n determined by the number of categories of response per item. Summing scores on these reward items, there was a range from 09-31 at university X and from 14-30 at university Y. A median point was estab- lished for rewards at each university and respondents were categorized as either low or high reward, depending on whether their score was above or below the median point. The median point for high rewards at university X was 16, 10An example of a bias would be if non-respondents represented extreme bases of dissatisfaction. 11Inter-correlations for items used to determine our independent measures of rewards and investments are in Appendix D. 59 and at university Y, 18. An investment score was determined from the following questionnaire items: 72, age, 73, number of articles published, 74, number of books published or edited, 75, research grants obtained, 76, grants over $1000.00, 79, length of time at university, and 81, degree obtained. Numbers were assigned by the same procedure used for rewards and investment scores ranged from 07-32 at uni- versity X, and from 10-29 at university Y. The median point on investments at school X was 18, and it was 21 at school Y. Each respondent was classified as either low or high investment. Thus, since each subject then had a low or high categorization on both rewards and investments, each person was assigned a combination category on these two variables. As a result, all respondents were classi- fied in one of the four reward-investment categories. Dppendent Variables There are five main dependent variables: self- fulfillment discrepancy, environmental discrepancy, inter- personal discrepancy,general satisfaction, and leaving. Each of the discrepancy types is obtained by taking the difference between how important a job aspect is for a particular respondent and how that person perceives the aspect in his present work surroundings. Each of the dis- crepancy items has two parts and each section is scored on a l to 5 basis. The difference between the sections on a 60 particular aspect is the discrepancy on that item. If, for example, a person checks great importance to a partic- ular item (a score of 5) and then checks that he perceives this item in his job (also a score of 5 if he strongly agrees), then the difference between the desired and per- ceived sections on this item is 0. Discrepancies only result when a person feels a job aspect is important and disagrees that this aSpect is present in his job. If the respondent checks that an item is of little or no importance to him, his discrepancy score on that item is 0, regardless of the degree to which the aspect is perceived in the work environment.12 Since each discrepancy score is a measure of dissatisfaction, the higher the discrepancy, the more the dissatisfaction. Job aspects were classified as either self-fulfillment, environmental, or interpersonal discrepancies. The indices for each discrepancy type were summed and divisions were made on median points in terms of high or low discrepancy. Discrepancies for each person is Operationally defined as the sum of the remainders when the score for the second item in each of the following pairs is subtracted from the score 12One could argue that spending time on unimportant tasks is costly and therefore negative and should contribute to dissatisfaction, but our schema for understanding satis- faction has been simplified by not considering the effects of costs. 61 for the first item.13 Each respondent could then be classified as high or low discrepancy for each discrepancy type. The self-fulfillment items are the following 14 being able to teach questionnaire measures: 21 and 45, preferred courses, 22 and 46, having a voice in determin- ing the direction of the department, 23 and 47, having the opportunity to help select the dean and chairman, 24 and 48, having influence on recruitment of new faculty, and 25 and 49, having the desired emphasis of rewards for research-teaching duties. Environmental items include 1 and 27, reputation of college, 2 and 28, reputation of department, 3 and 29, adequacy of office space, 4 and 30, adequacy of secretarial help, 6 and 32, university location having agreeable weather, 7 and 33, caliber of undergraduates, 8 and 34, quality of graduate students, 9 and 35, class size, 10 and 36, availability of students for research, 11 and 37, ade- quate recreational and cultural opportunities, 12 and 38, opportunities for service to and participation in community affairs, l4 and 40, having enough leisure time, 15 and 41, 13This is true only on the condition of the first number being greater than the second since discrepancies only exist when expectation or desire is greater than perceived. 14Two questionnaire items reflect the same job aspect. One item indicates the importance of the aspect and the other taps the degree to which the respondent perceives the aspect in his work surroundings. 62 department supportive of respondent's philosophy of educa- tion, 18 and 42, adequate research facilities, 19 and 43, agreeable teaching load, and 20 and 44, funds available for research. Interpersonal discrepancies include 5 and 31, con- geniality with colleagues, and 13 and 39, being able to talk openly and effectively with the chairman of one's department. General Satisfaction and Leaving A general satisfaction scale was determined from the following questionnaire items: 60, whether the person has fulfilled his job expectations, 61, how happy and satisfied he is with his work, 62, how happy and satisfied he is with his department, 63, the amount of enthusiasm he expresses for his work, 64, the amount of enthusiasm he expresses in terms of his department, 66, the extent of annoying things done in his department, and 67, whether the respondent becomes angry at the way things are done in his department. Scores on these indices were summed and a median point divides re- spondents into high or low general satisfaction. Leaving questionnaire items include 68, recently considering other job offers, 69 planning to leave the job as soon as an ac- ceptable offer is available, and 70, definitely leaving the job. These leaving items are also summed and a median point at each school differentiates high or low leaving respondents. A discussion of the statistical techniques utilized in this research will be presented in Chapter IV, where the analysis of the data is also given. CHAPTER IV ANALYSIS OF DATA Our research compares faculty at two universities in terms of faculty satisfaction. Both organizations are similar except that university Y is more advanced in pro- fessionalism than university X. This normative difference will be an important factor in explaining some of our findings. Our analysis will focus on the relationship between category of reward-investment and our dependent variables of satisfaction and leaving. We test our hypotheses by examining percentage distributions and re- porting significant differences between independent and dependent indices. Statistical significance is determined by nonparametric methods. Statistical Procedure It is doubtful that our data meets parametric assump- 1 In particular, our questionnaire items are of tions. ordinal scale, that is we can assume that one response category is ranked either higher or lower than the others 1For a discussion of parametric assumptions see S. Siegal, Non-Parametric Statistics (New York, McGraw- Hill Book Company, 1956), pp. 19-341 63 64 in a set, but we cannot assume equal intervals between response items. Thus, for example, an expression of strongly agree is more positive than agree, disagree, or strongly disagree, but the attitudinal distance between a strongly agree and agree response may not be the same as the distance between disagree and strongly disagree.2 Not only can we effectively deal with ordinal data by using nonparametric statistics, but we can also handle small populations. Our theory dictates the division of respondents into categories of reward-investment and comparing these groups on dependent dimensions. Since our university populations are 56 and 76, cell distri- bution of n may be small after categorization. The effectiveness of nonparametric statistics is not affected by such distributions.3 zThis distinction is important because nonparametric methods describe central tendency in terms of a median point rather than using means and standard deviations as in para- metric techniques. When dealing with ordinal data, the median point is not affected by changes of any scores which are above or below it as long as the number of scores above and below remains the same. If we used parametric statistics with ordinal data, any decisions about hypotheses would be doubtful. See Siegal, 1oo. 313. 3s. Siegal, op. cit., pp. 116-127. 65 One of the most appropriate nonparametric methods for our analysis is Mann Whitney U.4 When at least ordinal measurement has been achieved, the Mann Whitney U test may be used to determine whether two independent groups have the same distribution on a particular variable. Because we wish to test the differences between our reward- investment groups in terms of satisfaction and leaving, this technique seems ideal for our purposes. Mann Whitney U statistically compares each of our categories with one another in terms of our dependent variables, and tests whether differences between categories result from chance. This method is also one of the most powerful of the non- parametric tests and allows the researcher to reject the null hypothesis (that the distribution on a variable be- tween our categories is the same) at a high level of probability. The alternative hypothesis, that one category is stochastically larger than another (a directional 4Since our data consists of frequencies in discrete categories, the chi square test could also be used. But the problems with chi square are its low power function and cell distribution requirements. The Mann Whitney U is a more powerful test as it allows the researcher to reject the null hypothesis at a higher level of probability. Also, some of the cells in our contingency tables are marginal in terms of cell distribution requirements of chi square which require no fewer than 20% of the cells to have an expected frequency of less than 5. Considering these two nonparametric tests, it seems that with the Mann Whitney U available, the chi square test might be wasteful and even produce doubtful information. See S. Siegal, op, 313,, pp. 42-47. 66 hypothesis) can then be accepted.5 The probability level set for significance will be .05. Summary of Hypotheses It might be helpful to summarize our hypotheses before we examine our findings. 1. High Reward-High Investment - highest in satisfaction and lowest in leaving. 2. High Reward-Low Investment - second highest in satisfaction and second lowest in leaving. 3. Low Reward-Low Investment - lowest in satisfaction and highest on leaving (not considering the special circum- stances of LR-HI staff). 4. Low Reward-High Investment - very low satisfaction and high levels of leav- ing resulting in lack of respondents. Category of Reward-Investment and General Satisfaction General satisfaction is the first of our four measures of satisfaction.6 This index consists of questions on enthusiasm, fulfillment of job expectations, satisfaction with changes in the work situation, and the lack of annoy- ing or hostile factors in one's job. We also distinguish 5S. Siegal, op. cit., pp. 116-127. 6We expect the same kinds of findings to hold for all indices of satisfaction but a particular measure may be more or less sensitive depending on the normative circumstances within an organization. As a result, we may find different indices being important at one university and not the other. 67 between departmental and career satisfaction with this indicator. This departmental distinction is important because a professional may report satisfaction with his work but be dissatisfied with his immediate working situation.7 Tables XV and XVI depict the relationship between category of reward-investment and general satisfaction at universities X and Y. Viewing results at university X first, we find 89 percent of the HR-LI subjects expressing high satisfaction compared to 53 percent of the HR-HI persons and 24 percent of the LR-LI respondents. Mann Whitney U analysis in Table XVI shows significant dif- ferences on satisfaction between both HR-HI and HR-LI conditions and LR-LI circumstances. Although these find- ings support our hypotheses, we predicted that HR-HI staff would express highest satisfaction, and instead, find highest satisfaction among HR-LI respondents. This finding is relevant to the theoretical controversy concerning the effect of overpayment.8 Our data indicates that over-reward does not lead to some tension state, but instead, results in high satisfaction. Perhaps the effects of overpayment depend on how such situations are defined. Most social 7Ruth Eckert, op_31,, loc. cit. 8See for example, Bo Anderson and Robert Shelly, loc. cit. 68 TABLE XV Category of Reward-Investment and General Satisfaction at Universities X and Y Category of Reward-Investment University X* University Y General Satisfaction LR-LI HR-HI HR-LI LR-LI HR-HI HR-LI Low Satisfaction 76% 47 ll 59 42 57 High Satisfaction 24 53 89 41 58 43 Totals 100% 100 100 100 100 100 n=25 n=19 n=09 n=27 n=33 n=l4 N-53 N=74 TABLE XVI Mann Whitney U Analysis of Reward-Investment and General Satisfaction at Universities X and Y General Satisfaction University X University Y High Low Prob. High Low Prob. Group Group (1 tail) Group Group (1 tail) HR-HI LR-LI less .01 HR-HI LR-LI less .05 HR-LI LR-LI less .01 *Chi square value at University X is 11.766 (n=53, df=2, prob. less than .01 level). 69 situations are defined by others who establish norms governing behavior. These norms include the definition of what it means to achieve success and satisfaction. When such norms are internalized by people in the system, these standards may serve as a reference point in deter- mining satisfaction.9 The norms at university X emphasis success and satisfaction in terms of rewards. If a person is receiving high rewards, that person is defined as successful in the organization, regardless of his in- vestment state. Although HR-HI staff at university X are also receiving high rewards, they are located in a local environment which may be lacking in research Opportunities. As a result, their high investments are wasted to some degree and they do not express as high a satisfaction as HR-LI staff. Let us now view findings at the more professional university, Y. We find 58 percent of the HR-HI subjects expressing high satisfaction compared to 43 percent of the HR-LI respondents and 41 percent of the LR-LI staff. Mann Whitney U analysis shows a significant difference between 9We view reference points in terms of normatively regulated patterns rather than as persons in similar or dissimilar status situations. Others, then, are the source of norms and values but not the direct referent point. The norms themselves take on the function of being a comparison point to which a person can refer in order to ascertain his own relative situation. 70 HR-HI and LR-LI specifications. It seems that norms at this more professional organization emphasize the impor- tance of both rewards and investments. Degrees and publications in such a system may be the key to further rewards, and as a result, the low investment personnel tend to express low satisfaction. It is interesting to note the relatively low per- centage of high satisfaction disclosed at university Y, regardless of reward-investment category. Perhaps our measure of general satisfaction is invalid for some of the respondents. Our measure assumes that a satisfying job is a conflict-free and harmonious experience. But some of the faculty at university Y remarked that being satisfied could lead to complacency, and that an ideal working situation might include some conflict and a great deal of challenge. With this type of attitude existing among some of the staff at university Y, we may be able to understand the lack of sensitivity of our index. While this measure was appropriate at the less professional organization, a more SOphisticated index may be needed for cosmopolitan workers. So far we have discovered that HR-HI staff express high satisfaction at both universities and HR-LI faculty express high satisfaction especially if the organization does not stress the importance of investments. LR-LI persons report low satisfaction at both universities. Even though these 71 respondents receive the amount of reward they expect from their investments, their situation is dissatisfying. This finding disagrees with research which suggests that an exchange situation where one's expectations are met with commensurate rewards will lead to a positive evaluation of the situation.10 LR-LI occurrences seem to represent a stagnant, unfulfilling situation where chances for escape are limited due to a lack of necessary investments or qualifications. There is a difference between LR-LI staff in terms of the extent of dissatisfaction. Seventy-six percent of LR-LI faculty at university X express dissatisfaction com- pared to 59 percent of similar staff at university Y. This difference can be explained by considering that at university X, a faculty member can achieve high rewards without a prerequisite of high investment. Consequently, the low investment person may see more of his colleagues with comparable qualifications receiving high rewards. Since this investment situation is parallel to these peOple, he may view his situation as unjust. Although LR-LI staff at university Y are also in a dissatisfying circumstance, at least others in the system with corresponding investments 10See for example Hans Zetterberg, loc. cit., Eliot Jaques, loc. cit., Edward Sampson, loc. c1t., and Norman Alexander, op_31., loc. cit. 72 are receiving low rewards.11 University Y may also be a more prestigious place to work, thus increasing the likli- hood of satisfaction. Finally, there may also be more of an opportunity for LR-LI personnel at university Y to in- crease their investments due to the better research facilities afforded by a professionally oriented college. In terms of our measure of general satisfaction, the following summary of findings may be helpful. HR-HI factors are most satisfying at university Y but only moderately satisfying at university X. This distinction may be a function of the relative importance of investments at the universities. At university Y, investments are crucial to advancement and future rewards, but at univer- sity X, a person can achieve high reward without invest- ments, and as a result, investments might even be wasteful. We also find over-reward circumstances (HR-LI) highly satisfying at university X but dissatisfying at university Y. This difference may also be a result of how a particular system regards the importance of investments. University X appears to reward personnel regardless of investments and HR-LI staff may feel fortunate to work in such an organiza- tion. An alternative explanation for highest satisfaction 11Merton and Kitt make a similar argument when explain- ing levels of satisfaction in Robert K. Merton and Paul Lazarsfeld, Continuities in Social Research, Studies 1p_the Sco e and Method of7"The American Soldier" (Glencoe, IllifiOis, The Free‘Press, 1960), pp. 42-797 73 among overrewarded staff at university X is our neglect to consider the kinds of investments these people may have. Social skills and community service, for example, are but two investments which might be important to people at a local university but which we have neglected to include in our index. HR-LI staff may have high investments if we include the above types of attributes. HR-LI faculty at university Y are faced with the realization that their organization stresses high investments as an integral part of professional achievement. Not only might these people feel they are misfits, but they might also anticipate a possible loss of rewards in the future. Finally, LR-LI staff express low satisfaction at both universities. Although these kinds of factors might be considered fair, people need stimulation and efficacy in their work, and LR-LI specifications depict low commitment and the possible reinforcement of a low self-image by receiving low rewards. Categopy of Reward-Investment and Types of Discrepancies So far we have explored the relationship between rewards- investments and a general measure of satisfaction. But we also measure satisfaction in a more SOphisticated way: as the lack of discrepancy between how important a particular need is for an individual worker and how that person perceives the fulfillment of that need in his present job. The litera- ture focuses on three types of motivating needs for the 74 worker: self-fulfillment, interpersonal, and environ- mental.12 Although it is unclear as to what precise work factors constitute each need type, we have divided job aspects into these three need typologies. Consequently, we can view the relationship between category of reward- investment and each discrepancy type. This procedure can allow a more specific focus on the kinds of needs a pro- fessional has at a university. Since need discrepancies are a measure of dissatisfaction, we expect our findings in terms of these indices to coincide with previous data concerning general satisfaction. But it could occur that our measures of satisfaction are more or less relevant according to the type of work environment being studied. Self-Fulfillment Discrepanoy Self-fulfillment needs basically include items on decision making and influence in the organization. Tables XVII-XVIII shows the relationship between reward- investment category and self-fulfillment discrepancy. HR-HI and HR-LI staff at both universities express low dis- crepancy (indicating high satisfaction). Mann Whitney U analysis depicts significant differences between LR-LI and both HR-HI and HR-LI faculty at university X, and between LR-LI and HR-HI staff at university Y. 12See for example Victor Vroom, loc. cit. 75 TABLE XVII Category of Reward-Investment and Self-Fulfillment at Universities X and Y Categopy of Reward-Investment University X* University Y Self- Fulfillment Discrepancy LR-LI HR-HI HR-LI Low 32% 68 78 High 68 32 22 Totals 100 100 100 n=25 n=19 n=09 N=S3 LR-LI HR-HI HR-LI 56 76 64 44 24 36 100 100 100 n=27 n=33 n=l4 N=74 TABLE XVIII Mann Whitney U Category of Reward-Investment and Self-Fulfillment at Universities X and Y University X University Y High Low Prob. Group Group (1 tail) LR-LI HR-HI less .05 LR-LI HR-LI less .05 High Low Prob. Group Group (1 tail) LR-LI HR-HI less .05 *Chi square value at University X is 8.400 (n=53, df=2, prob. less than .05 level). 76 Our general hypotheses are supported as we find significant differences between LR-LI and both HR-LI staff. Once again, however, we find HR-LI persons at university X expressing most satisfaction, while HR-HI respondents at university Y denote highest satisfaction. This difference has been explained when we discussed general satisfaction. One distinction from these tables which needs to be dis- cussed is the contrast in satisfaction between LR-LI respondents at the two universities. Sixty-eight percent of the LR-LI staff at university X report high discrepancy (low satisfaction) compared to only 44 percent of similar faculty at university Y. A possible explanation for the low percentage of LR-LI respondents at university Y who denote discrepancy on self-fulfillment might be that the kinds of needs exemplified by our self-fulfillment measure are generally satisfied at university Y regardless of reward- investment circumstance. Although there is a significant difference between extent of satisfaction according to category of reward-investment, it seems that all respondents report a high level of self-fulfillment. Thus, although HR-HI and HR-LI staff have the most influence and decision making, LR-LI persons also denote such attributes. In con- trast, HR-HI and HR-LI respondents at university X seem to monOpolize decision making and influence with only 32 percent of the LR-LI persons reporting high satisfaction on this dimension. If this line of reasoning is correct, we should 77 find over-all higher perceptions of decision making and influence at university Y, compared to university X. Tables XIX-XXI depict influence and decisions in terms of one's department, selection of chairman, and recruitment policy. The reader can readily see that there are higher percentages of these variables at university Y than at university X, thus supporting our contention that self- fulfillment is generally more satisfied at the more pro- fessional university. Interpersonal Discrepancy Interpersonal items basically include congeniality with colleagues and being able to talk effectively with one's chairman. Tables XXII-XXIII show the relationship between category of reward-investment and interpersonal discrepancy. Mann Whitney U analysis shows a significant difference be- tween LR-LI and HR-LI staff at university X, and although no other statistical significance is reported, approximately three-fourths of both HR-HI and HR-LI staff at both univer- sities report high satisfaction on this interpersonal dimen- sion. LR-LI persons generally report moderate to low satisfaction at both schools. In summary, these findings on interpersonal discrepancy closely resemble previous data on self-fulfillment discrepancy. This association between interpersonal and self- fulfillment dimensions is understandable when we consider that in order to influence your environment, you must be 78 TABLE XIX Perceptions of Ability to Influence Decisions on the Directions of the Department University X University Y per cent per cent Strongly Disagree 09 01 Disagree 13 07 . Agree but with reservations 21 14 . Agree 27 28 Strongly Agree 30 49 . Other 00 01 Totals 100 100 N=56 N-76 79 TABLE XX Perceptions of Ability to Influence Decisions on the Selection of a Chairman University X University Y per cent per cent 1. Strongly Disagree 20 08 2. Disagree 18 04 3. Agree but with reservations 16 22 4. Agree 19 36 5. Strongly Agree 27 26 6. Other 00 04 7. Totals 100 100 N=56 N=76 80 TABLE XXI Perceptions of Ability to Influence Decisions on the Recruitment Policy University X University Y per cent per cent Strongly Disagree 13 01 Disagree ll 11 . Agree but with reservations l4 l3 . Agree 32 34 Strongly Agree 30 41 . Other 00 00 . Totals 100 100 N=56 N=76 81 TABLE XXII Category of Reward-Investment and Interpersonal Discrepancy at Universities X and Y Category of Reward-Investment University X* University Y Interpersonal Discrepancy LR-LI HR-HI HR-LI LR-LI HR-HI HR-LI Low 48% 74 78 59 76 71 High 52 26 22 41 24 29 Totals 100 100 100 100 100 100 n=25 n=19 n=09 n=27 n=33 n=l4 N=53 N=74 TABLE XXIII Mann Whitney U Category of Reward-Investment and Interpersonal Discrepancy at Universities X and Y Interpersonal Discrepanoy University X University Y High Low Prob. High Low Prob. Group Group (1 tail) Group Group (1 tail) LR-LI HR-LI less .05 no significance *Chi square value at University X is 4.013 (n=53, df=2, prob. less than .10 level). 82 able to work with others, especially others in positions of power. In other words, if a person experiences satis- fying interpersonal relationships in a system, then his influence and decision making power (self-fulfillment) will be high. If, on the other hand, a person's inter- personal relations are negative, then his influence will also be low. An example of such a negative job situation would be when one's colleagues do not trust you and there- fore will not support your decisions or accept your in- fluence in determining aspects of your job. As a result of this close connection between interpersonal and self- fulfillment measures, it may pop be an advantage dis- criminating between these need types. Herzberg, then, may be correct when he includes interpersonal factors under the heading of self-fulfillment needs.13 Environmental Discrepancy Environmental aspects generally include the physical and research features of one's job. As a result, items such as weather, caliber of students, availability of students for research, availability of funds for research, and ade- quacy of secretarial help are part of this measure. If one were to choose a central theme for environmental aspects, it 13See Frederick Herzberg, loc. cit., and George Labovitz, op, 31,, loc. cit. 83 would probably be research opportunities. Tables XXIV-XXV depict the relationship between category of reward- investment and environmental discrepancy. Mann Whitney U analysis shows a significant difference between HR-HI staff and both HR-LI and LR-LI respondents at university Y. While there is no direct evidence to explain why only HR-HI faculty at university Y express environmental satis- faction, perhaps these persons monopolize research facili- ties and funds. This is a frustrating situation for any low investment person who needs research Opportunities to increase his qualifications and advance in the professional system. Although there is no reported statistical difference between categories at university X, the most dissatisfied staff are the over-rewarded respondents. Sixty-seven per- cent of such staff express dissatisfaction on environmental factors. This is a surprising finding since HR-LI persons at university X have expressed high satisfaction on previous measures of general satisfaction, self-fulfillment discrep- ancy, and interpersonal discrepancy. This unexpected result of low satisfaction indicates the importance of measuring satisfaction in a multi-dimensional way. If we had not in- cluded environmental discrepancy as a distinct type of dis- satisfaction, we might not have uncovered this unanticipated discovery. One explanation for such dissatisfaction may be 84 TABLE XXIV Category of Reward-Investment and Environmental Discrepancy at Universities X and Y Catogory_of Reward-Investment University X University Y* Environmental Discrepancy LR-LI HR-HI HR-LI LR-LI HR-HI HR-LI Low 58 33 37 76 43 High 42 67 63 24 57 Totals 100 100 100 100 100 n=19 n=09 n=27 n=33 n=l4 N=52 N=74 TABLE XXV Mann Whitney U Category of Reward-Investment and Environmental Discrepancy at Universities X and Y University X Environmental Discrepancy University Y High Group Low no significance Group Prob. (l tail) High Low Prob. Group Group (1 tail) LR-LI HR-HI less .01 HR-LI HR-HI less .05 *Chi square value at University Y is 10.354 (n=74, df=2, prob. less than .01 level). 85 the desire of HR-LI persons to increase their investments but at the same time their realization that university X affords little research Opportunity. The question arises as to why LR-LI faculty (usually the peOple who express least satisfaction) report higher satisfaction on environ- mental factors than HR-LI personnel. Perhaps LR-LI staff view their job situation as temporary and do not expect to increase their investments at this time. An example of such a respondent would be an advanced graduate student who has accepted the job in order to avoid the draft or save enough money for graduate school. This person plans to finish his degree work at a future date and would not be concerned with limited research opportunity at his present organization. HR-LI respondents, on the other hand, are more committed to their present organization and display unhappiness because university X does not offer enough opportunity to increase one's investments. These faculty might be aware of negative cosmopolitan evaluations of persons with low investments, and since there are limited facilities to increase investments at university X, they express dismay that they may never reach optimal cosmopoli- tan standards. They could also rationalize their situation by blaming others for their low investment circumstances. 86 Category of Reward-Investment and Leaving One of the reasonable consequences of dissatisfaction with one's job situation is to leave the organization. Levinson,14 for example, argues that when organizational conditions are not congruent with a worker's needs, we might expect such a person to reject "conditions of life" in the system and leave. March and Simon make a similar argument by stating that dissatisfaction arises from a disparity between reality and the ego ideal held by the individual. The greater the disparity, the more pronounced the desire to escape from the situation.15 Our measure of leaving consists of questions on considering other job offers and planning to leave the system as soon as a favorable opportunity becomes available. Tables XXVI-XXVII depict the relationship between reward-investment category and leaving. Findings at univer- sity X show that only 10 percent of HR-HI staff score high on leaving compared to 44 percent of HR-LI people and 64 percent of LR-LI respondents. Mann Whitney U analysis re- veals a significant difference between LR-LI and HR-HI personnel at university X. These findings directly support our hypotheses in that HR-HI staff seem to be working under 14Daniel Levinson, op, cit., p. 482. 15James G. March and Herbert Simon, Org3nizations (N.Y., John Wiley and Sons, 1958), p. 94. 87 TABLE XXVI Category of Reward-Investment and Leaving at Universities X and Y Categopy of Reward-Investment University X* University Y Leaving LR-LI HR-HI HR-LI LR-LI HR-HI HR-LI Low 36% 90 56 44 58 57 High 64 10 44 56 42 43 Totals 100 100 100 100 100 100 n=25 n=19 n=09 n=27 n=31 n=l4 N=53 N=72 TABLE XXVII Mann Whitney U Category of Reward-Investment and Leaving at Universities X and Y Leaving University X University Y High Low Prob. High Low Prob. Group Group (1 tail) Group Group (1 tail) LR-LI HR-HI less .001 no significance *Chi square value at University X is 12.746 (n=53, df=2, prob. less than .01 level). 88 optimal conditions and do not wish to leave, HR-LI also express low degrees of leaving, and LR-LI faculty display a high level of leaving, thus indicating their unsatis- fying working circumstance. There are no statistically significant differences between category or reward-investment and leaving at university Y. Although more LR-LI staff wish to leave their situation, percentages on leaving appear evenly dis- tributed. This finding can be explained if we refer to how a professional views job re-location. It has been shown that mobility and advancement for a professional are de- pendent on being receptive to new job prospects.16 As a result, we might expect an open attitude toward leaving among faculty at a cosmopolitan university such as college Y. Thus, regardless of one's reward-investment situation, faculty at university Y view leaving as a customary event and it is probably anticipated that personnel are going to 17 Since consider and possibly accept other job offers. this is the norm for all faculty, we can better understand why we find little difference on leaving at university Y. 16For a discussion of professional mobility patterns see Theodore Caplow and Reece McGee, The Academic Marketplace (New York, Doubleday Anchor Book, 1965). 17This importance of professionalism in determining leaving shows that the analytic possibilities of our ex- change categories are limited according to whether work situations are more or less "professional." 89 Low Reward-H1gh Investment Faculty We have discussed the relationship between three of the four categories of reward-investment and the dependent measures of satisfaction and leaving. Research suggests that highest dissatisfaction occurs when one expects a great deal but receives little.18 LR—HI factors are in- dicative of such circumstances because such specifications reveal that a person invests highly and receives low re- wards. Under such conditions we would expect a large percentage of workers to leave their job situation. This is especially true when we consider that these faculty have the necessary investments or qualifications to obtain jobs elsewhere. Since we only find 5 percent of persons under LR-HI circumstances at university X and 3 percent of similar faculty at university Y, we can reasonably conclude that when faculty perceive themselves as under-rewarded, they leave the situation. When we examine the small number of cases of LR-HI at the two universities, we find that these respondents are either planning to leave the organizarion or represent unique situations. One LR-HI subject, for example, wrote 18See for example Dana Bramel, loc. cit., George Homans, loc. cit., and Hans Zetterberg, loc. cit. 90 the following account of his job circumstances: I am teaching nine hours of subject A and four hours of subject B. I have a low amount of train- ing in A, yet teach nine hours of the same. I am 60 years old and can't live on the salary of a second year instructor, so I must continue my consulting practice. I feel my reputation and competence in my field should qualify me for a rank beyond instructor and a salary commensurate with my experience and ability, but I only have a Masters and no plus, and the chances for pro- motion look slim. The above case depicts a faculty member with the "wrong" kinds of investments at a university which emphasizes pro- fessional investments. Even though this person feels his situation is unfair, he is unable to leave the system due to his age and lack of qualifications. Aside from such rare instances of LR-HI staff, it appears that faculty under such specifications leave their jobs. Summary of Analysis Many of our findings are explained in terms of the extent of professionalism at the organization under study. We find over-rewarded peOple at university X displaying most satisfaction and lowest scores on leaving, while at university Y, HR-HI personnel express highest satisfaction. This difference may be due to the contrasting importance of high investments between the universities. Usually, LR-LI staff express lowest satisfaction and highest desire to leave, but leaving at university Y seems to be a general behavioral orientation. Job re-location in a professional climate appears to be an expected occurrence, and as a 91 result, persons at university Y display some desire to leave regardless of their reward-investment situation. Finally, we find very few LR-HI respondents; this seems to indicate that under-rewarded faculty tend to leave their work setting. Our findings indicate that university X is still at home in the local system; the system norm is that refer- ence groups are most appropriately constituted of locals. High organizational rewards at university X validate re- spect and high esteem for the person. Alternatively, at university Y, more progress has been made toward cosmo- politanism.19 Appropriate reference groups are generally found among the national association of one's own disci- pline.20 Different criteria for a positive self-image are formed here. A low investment person would have great difficulty in building a satisfying self-image since high academic qualifications are considered essential for success . 19For a discussion of cosmopolitans and locals see Alvin Gouldner, "Cosmopolitans and Locals: Toward an Analysis of Latent Social Roles,” Administrative Science Quarter1y (1957-1958), pp. 281-306, 444-480. 20March and Simon argue that the greater the degree of professionalism of the individual's job, the greater his identification with a professional group. This identifica- tion also increases the person's visibility and allows for easier job relocation. See James March and Herbert Simon, op, cit., p. 70. CHAPTER V SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS The purpose of this research is to understand better the nature of job satisfaction among faculty members. Many of the reviews of job satisfaction studies invariably de- spair of how little theoretical development has occurred.1 Yet few topics in social science have had more research. Locke argues that a policy of "correlation without explana- tion" has been substituted for an understanding of the problem of job satisfaction.2 This thesis attempts to remedy this lack of understanding and provide an explana- tion of satisfaction by building a theory of worker moti- vation based on social exchange. A helpful way of understanding satisfaction is to focus on the basic process of exchange between a social actor and his environment. We assume that people engage in activities as a means of obtaining goals and these people will only continue their activities if it "pays off." Exchange theory therefore applies when a person 1See for example William Faunce, "Job Satisfaction and the Meaning of Work," paper prepared for U.S. Department of Labor Conference, 1968, and Edwin Locke, "What is Job Satis- faction," Final Report, American Institute for Research, November, 1968, pp. 2-8. 2Edwin Locke, loc. cit. 92 93 attempts to gain some kind of reward from others by exchanging something with them.3 Basically, our theory suggests that if a person invests highly in his job, his expectations for rewards are also high. In order for the person to express satisfaction with his situation, he must be rewarded to the extent that he expects such rewards from his investments. If such a "fair" exchange does not emerge from his social interaction, the person will view his work role as unsatisfactory and may leave the situa- tion.4 Our analysis strongly resembles distributive justice theory in that both formulations predict levels of satis- faction from the extent of equity existing between a person's inputs and the outputs he receives from the system.5 In the job situation, the person's side of the 3Marvin Olson, The Process op Social Organization (N.Y., Holt, Rinehart and Winston, Inc., 1968), pp. 240-241. 4The social role is the linkage point between the per- son and social structure, and role enactment depends on the exchange of an individual's investments for rewards from the system, see Hans Gerth and C. W. Mills, Character and Social Structure, The Psychology of Social Institutions (N.Yl, Harbinger Book, Harcourt, Brace, and—WOrld, Inc., 1953), p. 32. 5For a discussion of distributive justice, see Stacy Adams, "Inequity in Social Exchange," in Leonard Berkowitz (ed.), Advances in Experimental Social Ps cholo , Vol. 3 (N.Y., Academic Press, Inc., I965), pp. 272-273. 94 exchange are his education, experience, training, skill, seniority, age, and effort he eXpends on the job.6 These attributes are what a person perceives as his contribu- tions to the exchange, for which he expects a just return. These factors are the same as Homan's investments.7 On the other side of an exchange are an individual's receipts. These outcomes include pay, status, respect, and work 8 A person relates his job situation in terms benefits. of what constitutes "fair" correlations between inputs and outputs. The worker learns criteria for justice from past experience and by reference group identification. When a person's expectations for a "fair" exchange are violated, he feels inequity exists. One of the major difficulties with exchange theory has been conceptualizing the relationship between inputs and outputs in a comprehensive way. Our solution to this dif- ficulty is based on a four-fold schema first introduced by Zetterberg.9 We predict levels of satisfaction and leaving 6Stacy Adams, loc. cit. 7George Homans, Social Behavior: Its Elementary Forms (N.Y., Harcourt, Brace, and World, Inc., 1961), pp. 74-75. 8 Stacy Adams, op, cit., pp. 273, 277-78. 9Hans Zetterberg, "On Motivation," in Joseph Berger, e 31. (eds.), Sociological Theories in Progress, Vol. I 1:. (Boston, Mass., Houghton Mifflin, Inc.T_1966), pp. 139-49. 95 from the following four reward-investment circumstances: High Reward-High Investment (HR-HI), High Reward-Low Investment (HR-LI), Low Reward-Low Investment (LR-LI), and Low Reward-High Investment (LR-HI). Table XXVIII summarizes our findings in terms of positive-negative balance or imbalance and satisfaction. TABLE XXVIII Category of Reward-Investment in Terms of Positive-Negative Balance or Imbalance and Satisfaction at Universities X and Y SATISFACTION High Moderate Low Positive Positive Negative imbalance X imbalance balance (LR-HI) (HR-LI) (HR-HI) Negative balance (LR-LI) Positive Positive Negative imbalance Y balance imbalance (LR-HI) (HR-HI) (HR-LI) Negative balance (LR-LI) 96 Positive Imbalance (HR-LI) We present our findings by first considering the im- balanced conditions of overreward (HR-LI) and underreward (LR-HI). Most research on equity deals with the situa- tion of overreward, where the person expects little but receives more than he deserves. There are two contrasting predictions from overreward. On the one hand theorists anticipate a tension state from such positive imbalance.10 When a person receives more than he expects he will be surprised at his good fortune and feel doubt, uneasiness, or guilt. Discrepancy theory also predicts such negative reactions from overreward because people have a "fear of the strange" and an overrewarded circumstance is both un- expected and unusual.11 Durkeim states a similar argument 12 He argues that when he examines the causes of anomie. peOple live in a system characterized by equilibrium and every disturbance of this balance, even if it provides comfort and reward, is stressful.13 A person is regulated to a particular life style and when this regulation is up- set by unexpected reward, the person is unable to COpe with ‘ 10See for example, Stacy Adams, op. cit., p. 281. 11John Atkinson, Motives in Fantas Action and Sociepy (New Jersey, Van Nostrand Co.,—I958), p. 309. 12Emile Durkeim, Suicide (Illinois, Free Press, 1951), pp. 246-48. 13Ibid. 97 the new opportunities afforded him.14 As a consequence, a state of confusion, stress, and anomie may result. Con- sistency theory also concurs with predictions of stress from imbalanced situations. Such theories predict a ten- sion state when "the logical obverse of one element follows from another."15 Since high reward is the logical obverse of low expectations for reward, overreward is an imbalanced circumstance and should lead to tension. In contrast to predictions of tension, incentive theorists anticipate high satisfaction from overreward. Atkinson argues that if a person expects little but re- ceives a great deal, his unexpected good fortune leads to high satisfaction.16 Our findings, as summarized in Table XXVIII, support incentive theory in that overrewarded staff express either high or moderate satisfaction at both universities. Thus, if the outcome of one's job situation is better than expected, it is a satisfying experience. Our explanation of overreward is not complete unless we realize that the extent of overreward needs to reach extreme proportions before a negative reaction will result. A person's tolerance for positive imbalance (overreward) is greater than his tolerance for negative imbalance 14Emile Durkeim, op. cit., pp. 15, 252-54. 15Leon Festinger in Brehm and Cohen, Explorations 13 Cognitive Dissonance (N.Y., John Wiley and Sons, 1958), p. 3. 16John Atkinson, op, cit., pp. 279-82, 300-304. 98 (underreward). Adams presents a similar argument when he states that an overrewarded person is less likely to ex- press discomfort than an underrewarded individual.17 It is more likely that an overrewarded person could convince himself that he actually deserves high rewards than is that an underrewarded individual could accept the legiti- macy of low rewards. ‘Our findings suggest that extreme degrees of positive imbalance are necessary before negative reactions occur. Overreward factors for faculty do not exceed proportions great enough to significantly distort their perceptions of justice. We also find that HR-LI staff at university X express greater satisfaction than similar faculty at university Y. This difference in satisfaction can be explained by com- paring the universities in terms of professionalism. Although we did not expect our research sites to differ on professionalism, it appears that university Y is further advanced with respect to professional attributes than university X. Since the universities differ on profes- sionalism, it is reasonable to assume that faculty at these 17Stacy Adams, op. cit., p. 274. 99 colleges will also vary in terms of professional identifi- cation.18 Gouldner distinguishes between professional and organizational orientations among academic men and refers to these two type of loyalties as cosmopolitan and local.19 Cosmopolitans are people who feel little loyalty to their immediate organization. These faculty are devoted to a professional career transcending organizational boundaries and relying extensively on research efforts. Competition for status and recognition depends on academic credentials and publications.20 Locals, on the other hand, are devoted to an organizational career. Kornhauser argues that since cosmopolitans depend more on research and advanced degrees for advancement, investments are a more crucial aspect for 18William Goode refers to "poles of professionalism" within a single career in "Community Within a Community," American Sociological Review (April, 1957, Vol. 22), pp. I94-200; see also William Snizek's analysis of one's extent of professionalism in "Hall's Professionalism Scale: An Empirical Reassessment,” American Sociological Review (February, 1972, Vol. 37), pp. I99-I14. 19Alvin Gouldner, "CosmOpolitans and Locals: Toward an Analysis of Latent Social Roles," Administrative Science Quarterly (1957-1958), pp. 281-306, 444-480. 20For a discussion of competition and recognition among professionals see Warren Hagstrom, The Scientific Community (New York, Basic Books, 1965), Chdpter III, and Bernard Barber and Walter Hirsch (eds.), Sociology of Science (Illinois, Free Press, 1962), p. 110. '_— 100 21 Since university Y is any cosmopolitan faculty member. more cosmOpolitan than university X, there is a greater stress on the importance of investments at university Y. As a consequence of this stress on investments, even if a person is overrewarded at university Y, he is still faced with the limitations resulting from low professional qualifications. In addition, the overrewarded person at university Y is apt to contemplate future problems. Future rewards equal to those presently experienced are dubious because the organization stresses the importance of professional credentials and a low investment person cannot present such attributes. The overrewarded person at university X expresses more satisfaction than his counterpart at university Y because his low investments are not as serious a detriment at his local university. Job advancement at the local college depends more on, immediate organizational success. Since investments of credentials and publications are not a prerequisite of rewards at university X, a person with low investments can anticipate rewards in his future academic life. 21William Kornhauser, Scientists 13 Industry, Conflict and Accommodation (University of California ress, I962), pp. 118-23; see also Peter Rossi, "Researchers, Scholars, and Policy Makers," Daedalus: The Contemporary University USA (Fall, 1964), pp. 1142-1161, and Bernard Barber, "Some Problems in the Sociology of the Professions," Daedalus: The Professions (Fall, 1963), pp. 669-88. 101 Negotive Imbalance (LR-HI) The second instance of imbalanced exchange is under- reward. Almost all theorists predict dissatisfaction from underreward and common sense would lead us to the same conclusion. Homans maintains that underrewarded persons are upset about their unjust situation and express anger.22 The only positive evaluation of LR-HI factors is Patchen's contention that underrewarded persons may realize that their efforts are not appreciated and do themselves a favor by leaving their present jobs.23 Although our data is limited concerning LR-HI staff due to a small number of such respondents, we can assume that such faculty leave the university due to their unsatisfactory circumstances. The few LR-HI respondents present when this research was conducted invariably express dismay concerning their occu- pational situation. Negative imbalance therefore presents workers with the choice of either adjusting to low evalua- tions or leaving the system. Our findings indicate that LR-HI staff choose to leave the organization rather than realign their self conception and expectations with the low rewards they are receiving. Those who remain do so for other overriding reasons--e.g., family involvement in the community. 22George Homans, op, cit., p. 76. 23 p. 275. Martin Patchen as quoted in Stacy Adams, op, cit., 102 Positive Balance (HR-HI) The first of our balanced circumstances is high reward- high investment. Some theorists predict low levels of satisfaction from high expectation-reward factors because if a person's expectations are high, then he is almost certain that he will receive the reward, and the actual achievement may only lead to indifference or boredom.24 But the professional work role is diverse enough so that a person would never be sure of either the reception or nature of expected positive rewards. A classroom situa- tion, for example, can be a new experience each time a course is taught. Regardless of past rewards, a faculty member is not certain that his students will always re- spond favorably or in the same ways. Thus, even though a person may be confident concerning high expectations, he would not be indifferent or bored about his work situa- tion. HR-HI staff are strongly committed and highly re- warded for their activities. White argues that these work factors lead to Optimal motivation.25 When a person is both challenged and highly invests in a situation, there is a strong sense of efficacy. When this same person is 24John Atkinson, op, cit., pp. 298-300, Zetterberg also anticipates a neutral or indifferent reaction from high reward-investment factors, see Hans Zetterberg, loc. cit. 25Robert White, "Motivation Reconsidered: The Concept of Competence," in Edward Sampson, Approaches, Contexts, and Problems in Social Psycholo (New Jersey, Prentice HdIl, Inc., I964), pp. I26-28, I39. 103 highly rewarded, he experiences competence or the mastering of one's environment.26 These factors of efficacy and competence are most likely for the HR-HI staff member, and as a result, we find HR-HI faculty at both universities expressing high or moderate satisfaction. Negative Balance (LR-LI) Theorists usually predict neutral or moderately satis- fying reactions from negative balance.27 Durkeim suggests that when a person expects little reward and receives low reward, he easily adjusts to his situation and will not be tempted to extend the range of his needs indefinitely as does a person who receives increasing increments of reward but is never satisfied.28 But White argues that high com- 29 and mitment and reward are optimal working conditions, since LR-LI factors represent the adverse of such circum- stances, we would predict low motivation and satisfaction for LR-LI staff. Our findings support White's theory in that we find LR-LI staff expressing low satisfaction at both universities. Not only are efficacy and competence lacking for such persons, but the LR-LI situation can be 26Ibid. 27See for example, Hans Zetterberg, loc. cit. 28Emile Durkeim, op. cit., p. 254. 29Robert White, loc. cit. 104 viewed as a static and restrictive exchange dilemma. LR-LI faculty have difficulty achieving an acceptable self image due to the negative reinforcement they receive. Also, chances for escape are limited for LR-LI personnel as they lack the necessary academic credentials. Such persons may remain in their jobs, even if dissatisfied, because they have no alternatives. In conclusion, our data suggest a refutation of consistency theory in that although LR-LI factors are balanced (low expectations are returned by low rewards), such circumstances are dis- satisfying for the faculty member. It appears that con- sistency theory must account for the nature of the balanced situation before viable predictions can be made. In our case, professionals working under balanced, LR-LI factors, express dissatisfaction because such conditions represent the opposite of the professionals' needs for efficacy and competence. Measurement of Satisfaction When we refer to "satisfaction" in this research, we are examining the variable in a multi-dimensional way. One of the shortcomings of previous research on satisfaction is the limited, general index used to measure satisfaction. Our measures of satisfaction include three discrepancy scores of self-fulfillment, environmental, and interpersonal job factors, and a general index which includes a series of general questions about one's work. The discrepancy indices 105 are based on the theory that satisfaction is a type of response a person makes when those motivational needs activated by the occupational situation are fulfilled; that is, with respect to the specific needs there is a small difference between his desired and achieved job factors.30 Even though our general measure of satisfaction in- cludes both work and situational qualities of the job, this index does not discriminate among respondents as well as discrepancy measures do. It seems that such a general set of questions concerning one's work is inter- preted by faculty as referring to a complacent or conflict- free work environment. The professional needs a job in which he is challenged and frustrated to some degree in 31 Since order to have optimal occupational conditions. our general satisfaction measure may imply a lack of chal- lenge for professionals, the index loses its discriminatory power because fulfilled staff do not view their situation as complacent and thus report low scores on general satis- faction. This lack of discrimination in our measure of general satisfaction is especially evident among the more professional staff at university X (HR-HI) and among all staff at university Y. This finding makes sense since 30Edwin Locke, op, cit., pp. 8-50. 31Robert White, loc. cit. 106 professionals would be more likely to view their situation in terms of challenge and react negatively to a question depicting complacency in their job. We also find varying degrees of reported satisfaction according to the type of discrepancy measure we use. HR-HI staff, for example, are the only respondents who express high satisfaction on the factor of environmental aspects. This finding may appear because HR-HI persons are able to monopolize research facilities and funds. Persons with low investments, on the other hand, express dissatisfaction because of their limited means to in- crease their professional credentials. This dissatis- faction of low investment personnel is understandable when we consider that both administrators and outside funding agencies are less likely to allocate scarce resources to persons with low investments, fearing that they will not lead to productivity. Not only do low investment persons lack the visibility that publications give, but they pres- ently lack sufficient facilities and other resources to help them overcome limited past productivity. Finally, we discover a strong association between self-fulfillment and interpersonal dimensions of satisfaction. This finding indicates that faculty who have positive interpersonal re- lationships also have high influence in decision making. Thus, our data suggest that it is useful to view satisfac- tion from a multi-dimensional standpoint. Perhaps future I .In "‘1 (6 n1bld,! .DG'. up... 107 studies will find our satisfaction indices helpful. Leaving the Organization Usually exchange theory only predicts levels of satis- faction but it is important to also consider other conse- quences of equitable or unjust conditions. Men usually do not only become unsatisfied with unjust circumstances; they also try to do something about them.32 In this study we predict the possible consequence of leaving the organi- zation. Table XXIX summarizes our findings in terms of the relationship between category of reward-investment and leaving at universities X and Y. Our results on leaving closely resemble our findings on satisfaction. Those exchange factors which lead to dis- satisfaction also lead to moderate or high levels of wish- ing to leave. This correlation between dissatisfaction and leaving has been suggested by many theorists. Patchen, for example, finds that workers who are dissatisfied with their pay have more absences and tend to leave their jobs as com- pared to men who say their pay is fair.33 Levinson also suggests that one likely alternative for persons who do not 32Stacy Adams, op, cit., p. 276. 33Martin Patchen, "Study of Work and Life Satisfaction, Absences and Attitudes Toward Work Experience," Institute for Social Research (Ann Arbor, Michigan, Report No. 11, I959). 108 TABLE XXIX Category of Reward-Investment in Terms of Positive-Negative Balance or Imbalance and Leaving at Universities X and Y Extent of Intention to Leave the University High Moderate Low Negative Positive Positive imbalance imbalance balance (LR-HI) (HR-LI) (HR-HI) Negative balance (LR-LI) Negative Positive imbalance imbalance (LR-HI) (HR-LI) Negative balance (LR-LI) Positive balance (HR-HI) 109 "fit" into their organization is to leave.34 Our data confirm a positive relationship between dissatisfaction and leaving, and those exchange factors which lead to dissatisfaction (LR-LI and LR-HI) also contribute to leaving, while satisfying exchange conditions (HR-HI and HR-LI) lead to low levels of leaving. We also find that contemplation of leaving is likely for all faculty at university Y, regardless of exchange circumstances. This discovery can be explained by recog- nizing that staff at university Y are cosmOpolitans. This more professional orientation includes viewing leaving as a natural part of job and career mobility. Achievement in one's profession may depend on relocating to a better setting, and as a result, faculty at university Y have an open attitude toward relocating. It is also probable that individuals at a cosmopolitan organization have greater visibility than faculty at a local college due to more contact with outside sources and exposure to the job market.35 It seems that there is a positive association between one's professional and cosmopolitan identification 34Daniel Levinson, ”Role, Personality, and Social Structure in the Organizational Setting," in Neil Smelser, et al (eds.), Personalipy and Social Systems (New York, thfi—Wiley and Sons, Inc., 2nd Edition, 1970), pp. 482-484. 35 March and Simon, op, cit., pp. 70, 104. 110 and a desire to leave one's present organization and com- munity. This importance of professionalism in determining leaving shows that the analytic possibilities of our ex- change categories are limited. Professionalism is more important with respect to moving than the particular cir- cumstances of reward-investment. Thus, the predictive powers of our analytic schema may be limited in some ways when it is applied in different work situations which may be more or less "professional." An apparent contradiction to the above reasoning is our finding that only ten percent of HR-HI staff at univer- sity X express a desire to leave their school. Why do such staff express low levels of leaving when they are the most professional people due to high investments? From our previous argument we stated that professionals are more likely to view leaving the organization as a natural event. Why then are HR-HI faculty at university X least likely to leave? Perhaps these persons feel that they have progressed as far in their career as they are capable or want to go. Since these faculty have chosen to work at a local univer- sity despite their high academic credentials, they may be contented in being high in the status hierarchy at a less competitive school. This contentment is indicated by their low level of leaving. It is also possible that HR-HI indi- viduals may be highly professional-cosmopolitan with respect to occupational aspects of their life but may give priority 111 to other role obligations--e.g., family, community, etc. Such a hierarchy of values may lead to a lowering of aspirations thereby enabling the reSpondent to achieve a feeling of high satisfaction in a less demanding setting. Finally, some HR-HI staff may not recognize their high investments nor acquire strong enough drives toward in- creasing investments or moving to institutions of greater prestige and/or research facilities. Overrewarded staff at university X express moderate levels of leaving. Such persons may reason that they have received high rewards with low investments, so they might do better with higher investments. Their aspirations are higher than HR-HI staff, and as a consequence, express higher scores on leaving. Future Research This thesis has sought to add to our understanding of problems of satisfaction and job turnover by reassessing them for a professional occupation in terms of theories of social exchange and reference groups, and our analysis of satisfaction leads to important implications for future studies. Although our exchange schema was helpful in pre- dicting levels of satisfaction and leaving, our theory could be further deveIOped if rewards and investments were examined in greater depth. Our measures of these attributes only include some of the more tangible and objective aspects of the inputs and outputs associated with social exchange. 112 We measure investment, for example, in terms of a person's academic qualifications, age, and length of time at the university, but less tangible investments such as commit- ment to training and helping students, perhaps measured by the amount of time spent with students, might also be an important index of a person's commitment to his job. By including such subjective aspects of social exchange we start to include elements which could be defined as "costs." Scott, following Homans and the economists, defines the cost of an activity as the value of other activities that had to be forgone in order for it to be d.36 performe The operationalization of cost would be in terms of each person's subjective vieWpoint of what con- 37 stitutes forgone activities. The inclusion of costs as well as further detail in measuring investments may be 36John Scott, Internalization of Norms, A Sociological Theor o1_Moral Commitment (New Jersdy, PrenticeHall, I97I), p. 118. 37The Operationalization of costs is a complex problem. One approach to the problem is to view cost in terms of alternate costs, as a ratio of forgone activities. This ratio indicates some form of price. Simon argues that the individual is faced with numerous and diverse behavioral alternatives and he must weigh and choose among them. The individual's choices among competing values may be described by a set of indifference curves. These curves reflect which sets of possible consequences are equivalent to each other or mutually "indifferent" to choice. For a further discus- sion of values and utility of cost see Herbert Simon, Administrative Behavior (New York, MacMillan Company, 2nd Edition, 196l), pp. 73975. 113 necessary future steps if exchange theory is to be fully utilized. Each of our four exchange conditions might also be examined in more detail. Perhaps there are social cor- relates or descriptions of persons which are more asso- ciated with one of our balanced or imbalanced exchanges. Although we did not find such associations, it seems reasonable that there are social characteristics related to persons in one reward-investment category and not others. Possibly categories of exchange are differentiated by attitudes toward students or the importance of family life. Such findings might Open new theoretical directions for exchange theory. Along with this type of analysis of each exchange category, one might specifically inspect the flow of underrewarded staff. Our findings indicate that often LR-HI persons have inappropriate investment clusters which limit their mobility. But why do such peOple come to the organization? How long does it take before such faculty leave? One possible explanation for the occurrence of LR- HI staff is that these persons shift careers due to marginal credentials and/or interests. Their mixed type of qualifi- cations may not fit any one occupational position, and as a result, such workers are not rewarded enough to remain in the organization. Their marginal qualifications and con- cerns may be so varied and unpatterned that organizations are not prepared to deal effectively or "justly" with such peOple. 114 Our exchange schema can be applied to future studies of occupational satisfaction, as well as other areas where the measurement of satisfaction is appropriate. Marital satisfaction, for example, is also dependent on the re- lationship between a person's inputs and outputs. Invest- ments and rewards could be defined according to the par- ticular area of satisfaction under investigation. While salary is an important reward in one's work, romance and/or children might be crucial incentives for marital satisfaction. Our findings also show the importance of differen- tiating between work environments which may be more or less professional. Despite our analysis of exchange cir- cumstances, the category of professionalism or non- professionalism was more powerful and overcame the analytic possibilities of our exchange conditions when predicting leaving. Our data decidedly support Gouldner's argument that local and cosmopolitan standards or the latent roles persons identify with have important behavioral implica- 38 Locals in our study appear to have a tions for workers. keen sense of loyalty to their immediate organization and view leaving as a remote possibility. The extent and nature of this loyalty needs careful scrutiny. Perhaps locals have a high level of concern for job security and 38Loc. cit. 115 fear risking job relocation. These faculty may be con- vinced that job opportunities are scarce and that it would be foolish to consider moving from their present circum- stance, even if their present working conditions are not optimal. This need for security has obvious implications for a worker's extent of job rationalization. The local would tend to increase the salience of positive elements in his work and decrease the importance of negative aspects.39 Another interesting effect of local identification is how leaving is handled by the individual and the system when a situation of job relocation does occur. Just how strong is the "umbilical cord" which develops at a local organization? We suggest that persons leaving such an organization would be expected to stay in contact and perhaps even to come back for a visit or work for short periods of time. It is necessary to examine such instances of leaving with reference to whether the person is fired or chooses to leave. We might assume that pressures to maintain contact with the organization vary according to the type of reasons connected with leaving. It might also be important to study how a person reacts to expectations to keep in contact with the organization. A person might 3 . . . 9This is only one of many ways to decrease dissonance, see Stacy Adams, op. cit., pp. 283-91. 116 fulfill such expectations because of the possible future need for good recommendations. These local attributes concerning loyalty could be compared with the effects of a cosmopolitan situation. In this research we view satisfaction as our main dependent variable but it appears that satisfaction might be better conceived as an intervening response that the human being makes to his (reward-investment) situation, and this response indicates certain behavioral conse- quences. Our instrument measures satisfaction as a response which is derived from the relationship between desired and perceived work factors. All of the self- fulfillment, interpersonal, and environmental aspects are then types of responses to one's working conditions. Future studies might view satisfaction as an intervening reaction to a person's exchange situation. Thus, instead of viewing satisfaction as the dependent variable, we suggest predicting other behavioral consequences as a result of the kind of relation between a person's invest- ments and rewards. Stressing behavioral consequences of exchange and satisfaction might lead to a variety of predictions con- cerning worker behavior. We have discussed a few of these outcomes in terms of leaving and how a person might distort cognitively his work situation in order to make his job more agreeable. But many other important behavioral 117 consequences need to be considered. Workers, for example, could increase or decrease their inputs depending on whether they perceived their job situation as over or underrewarded. Such a person could do more than is expected or only perform the minimal duties associated with his position. An individual could also change his reference group and identify with standards which make his own situation more comfortable. A faculty member in this instance, who is underrewarded at a local college, might stress cosmopolitan standards and devote his time and energy to research and publications. These profes— sional activities would simultaneously increase his opportunity for an acceptable alternative position be- cause he would be more visible to and desired by organi- zations stressing high investments. Another way of re- acting to an "unjust" situation is to convince others that one deserves greater rewards. Finally, people can com- partmentalize or segmentalize the negative conditions of their work and stress activities outside of their occupa- tion.40 We suggest that future research emphasize the be- havioral outcomes of working conditions instead of pre- dicting satisfaction. Satisfaction can be conceived of as 40For a summary of possible behavioral outcomes for people in unjust situations, see Stacy Adams, loc. cit. 118 an intervening response which has important consequences when viewed in relation with the person's exchange cir- cumstances. Along with this analysis of worker behavior, our thesis shows the importance of determining the effect of latent social roles or reference group identification for workers. The analysis of the extent of professional- ism in different types of organizations appears to be an important direction for future research. BIBLIOGRAPHY BIBLIOGRAPHY A. Books Adams, Stacy. "Inequity in Social Exchange," in Leonard Berkowitz (ed.), Advances in Experimental Social Psychology, Vol. 2. New York: Academic Press Inc., 1965. Atkinson, John. An Introduction to Motivation. New Jersey: Van Nostrafid Co., Inc., 1964, pp. 269-314. Atkinson, John (ed.). Motives in Fantas Action and Society. New Jersey: Van Nostrand—Co., Inc., I958, pp. 288- 305. Barber, Bernard and Hirsch, Walter (eds.). Sociology o1 Science. New York: The Free Press, 1962. Barnard, Chester. The Functions of the Executive. Massachusetts: HarvardUniVersity Press, 1945, Chapters 2 and 11. Becker, Howard. "The Career of the Schoolteacher," in William Form and Sigmund Nosow (eds.), Man, Work and Society. New York: Basic Books, 1667, 1962, pp. 321-328. Blau, Peter. Exchange and Power 1p_Social Life. New York: John Wiley and Sons, Inc., 1964, p. 156. Blauner, Robert. "Work Satisfaction and Industrial Trends," in Amitai Etzioni (ed.), 3 Sociologjcal Reader 1p Complex Organizations. New York: Holt, Rinehart and Winston, Inc., 1961, pp. 223-249. Bramel, Dana. "Dissonance, Expectation, and the Self," in Robert Abelson, Elliot Aronson, William McGuire, Theodore Newcomb, Milton Rosenberg, Percy Tannenbaum (eds.), Theories of Cognitive Consistency: 3 Sourcebook. Illifidis: RandiMcNally and—Co., 1968, pp. 355-372. , Caplow, Theodore and Reece, McGee. The Academic Marketplace. New York: Doubleday Anchor Book, 1965. 119 120 Durkeim, Emile. Suicide. Illinois: The Free Press, 1951, pp. 246-254. Festinger, Leon, as cited by Brehm, Jack and Cohen, Arthur. Explorations in Cognitive Dissonance. New York: thn Wiley and—Sons, 1962, pp. 3-10. Forehand, Garlie and Gilmer, B. Von Haller. "Environmental Variation in Studies of Organizational Behavior," in L. L. Cummings (ed.), Readin s in Organizational Behavior and Human Performance.—_Illinois: Ifwin and Dorsey Press, 1969, p. 3. Freedman, Robert (ed.). Marxist Social Thou ht. New York: Harvest Book, Harcourt, Brace and World, Inc., 1968, pp. 69-78. Gamson, William. "Experimental Studies of Coalition Formation," in Leonard Berkowitz (ed.), Advances in Experimental Social Ps cholo , Vol. . Ndindrk: Academic Press, I965. Gerth, Hans and Mills, C. W. Character and Social Structure, The P5 cholo of Social Institutions. New York: Harbinger oo ,—Harcourt, Brace and World, Inc., 1953, p. 32. Glaser, Barney. Or anizational Careers, 3_Sourcebook for Theory. Chicago, Illinois: Aldine Puhliéhing Co., Greenwood, Ernest. "Attributes of a Profession," in William Form and Sigmund Nosow (eds.), Man, Work, and Societ . New York: Basic Books, Inc., 1962, pp. 207-218. Gross, Edward. "The Worker in Society," in Henry Borow (ed.), Man in a World at Work. Boston, Massachusetts: Houghton Mifflin Co., I964, p. 68. Hagstrom, Warren. The Scientific Community. New York: Basic Books, Inc., 1965. Herzberg, Frederick. Work and the Nature o1_Man. Cleveland, Ohio: Word Publishing Co., I966. . Hirsch, Walter. Scientists 13_American Society. New York: Random House, 1968, Homans, George. Social Behavior: Its Elementapprorms. New York: ’Harcourt, Brace and—World, Inc., I96I, pp. 68-69, 232-274. 121 Homans, George. "Social Behavior as Exchange," in Paul Hare, Edgar Borgatta, and Robert Bales (eds.), Small Groups. New York: Alfred Knopf Inc. 1966, pp. 17 - . ’ Jaques, Eliot, as cited by Vroom, Victor. Work and Motivation. New York: John Wiley and Sons, 1964, p.6I68. Kahn, Robert, et a1. Or anizational Stress. New York: John Wiley and ons, 19647 Katzell, R. A. "Personal Values, Job Satisfaction, and Job Behavior," in Henry Borow (ed.), Man in a World at Work. Boston, Massachusetts: HoughtOh—Mifflin 66,, I964, pp. 341-363. Kelly, Harold. "Two Functions of Reference Groups," in Herbert Hyman and Eleanor Singer, Readin s in Reference Group Theory and Researc . ew dik: The Free Press, 1968, pp.‘80-81. Kornhauser, Arthur. Mental Health of the Industrial Worker, A Detroit Study. Neinork: _UOhn Wiley and Sons, Inc., I965, p. 79. Kornhauser, William. Scientists 13 Industry, Conflict and Accommodation. Berkeley, CalifOrnia: University of California Press, 1962. Lazarsfeld, Paul and Thielens, Wagner. The Academic Mind. New York: The Free Press, 1958. Levinson, Daniel. "Role Personality, and Social Structure in the Organizational Setting," in Neil Smelser and William Smelser (eds.), Personality and Social S stems. New York: John Wiley and Sons, 2nd Edition, I970, pp. 471-484. Likert, Rensis. New Patterns of Managoment. New York: McGraw-HilI’Book Co., 1961. March, James and Simon, Herbert. Or anizations. New York: John Wiley and Sons, Inc., 1958, pp. 70, 93-106. Maslow, Abraham. Eupsychian Management, 3_Journal. Illinois: Irwin and Dorsey Press, 1965, pp. 44-45. McGrath, Joseph and Altman, Irwin. Small Grou Research, A Synthesis and Criti ue of the Field. New York: Rinehart and Winston, I966: pp. 70-72. 122 McQuire, William. "The Current Status of Cognitive Theories," in Shel Feldman (ed.) Co nitive Consistency: Motivational Antecedents and BehavioraIiConsequences. New York: Academic Press, 1966, pp. 1-22. Merton, Robert. "Role of the Intellectual in Public Bureaucracy," in Social Theor and Social Structure. Illinois: The Free Press, I957, pp. 207-222: 225-280. Merton, Robert and Lazarsfeld, Paul. Continuities in Social Research, Studies in the Scope andfiMethOd of "The American Soldier."- GIdncoe, IllinOis: The Free Press, 1950, pp. 42-70. Morse, Nancy C. Satisfactions in the White-Collar Job. Ann Arbor: Survey Research Center, Institute for Social Research, University of Michigan, 1953. Moser, C. A. Survey Methods in Social Investigotion. London: W. Heinemann delications, 1958, p. 127. Newcomb, Theodore. "Interpersonal Constancies: Psychological and Sociological Approaches," in Otto Klineberg and Richard Christie, Perspectives in Social Psychology. New York: Holt, Rinehart dhd Winston, Inc., I965, pp. 38-52. Olson, Marvin. The Process of Social Organization. New York: Holt, Rinehdrt and’WihSton, Inc., 1968, pp. 240-241. Patchen, Martin. "A Conceptual Framework and Some Empirical Data Regarding Comparisons of Social Rewards," in Herbert Hyman, et al., Readin s in Reference Group Theory and Research. New Yor : _The Free Press, I968, p. 169. Pavalko, Ronald. Sociology of Occupations and Professions. Illinois: eacoc Puhlishers, Inc., 1971, p. 3. Peatman, John. Introduction po_Applied Statistics. New York: Harper and Row, 1963, pp. 2-12, 246-258. Pelz, Donald and Andrews, Frank. Scientists in Or anizations. New York: John Wiley and Sons, Inc., I96 . Pepitone, Albert. ”The Problem of Motivation in Consistency Models," in Robert Abelson, et al. (eds.), Theories of Co nitive Consistency: A Sourcebook. Illin01s: Rdnd WcNally and Co., 1968,—pp. 324-326. 123 Sampson, Edward. "Studies of Status Congruence," in Leonard Berkowitz (ed.), Advances in Experimental Social Psychology, Vol. IV. New Ydrk: Academic Press, 1969, p. 262. Sarbin, Theodore. "Role Theory," in Gardner Lindzey (ed.), Handbook op Social Psychology, Vol. 1. Mass.: Addison-Wesley Pub. Co., Inc., I954, pp. 223-258. Scott, John. Internalization o1_Norms, 3 Sociological Theory o1 Moral Commitment. New Jersey: Prentice- a , Inc., I971, p. 1I8. Scott, Richard. "Professional Employees in a Bureaucratic Structure: Social Work," in Amitai Etzioni (ed.), The Semi Professions and Their nganization. New York: The Free Press, 1969, p. 89. Sellitz, Claire, et a1. Research Methods 13 Social Relations. New York: Holt, Rinehart and Winston, Ihc., I959, p. 240. Siegal, S. Non arametric Statistics. New York: McGraw- Hill Book Co., I956, pp. I9-34, 42-47, 116-127. Simon, Herbert. Administrative Behavior. New York: MacMillan Co., 2ndiEdition,7196l, pp. 73-75. Taylor, Lee. "Occupational Sociology," in Theodore Caplow, The Sociology o1_Work. Minnesota: University of Minnesota Press, I954, p. 317. Thomas, W. I. in Timasheff, Nicholas. Sociological Theory, Its Nature and Growth. New York: Random House, 3rd Edition, 1967, p. 153. Vroom, Victor. Work and Motivation. New York: John Wiley and Sons, Inc., I964. Vroom, Victor. Some Personality Determinants of the Effects o1_Participation.iN. J.: Prentice-Hall: Inc., I960. Wilensky, Harold. Intellectuals in Labor Unions. Glencoe, Illinois: The Free Press,_I956. Wilensky, Harold. "Varieties of Work Experience," in H. Borow (ed.), Man in 3 World at Work. Boston, Mass.: Houghton Mifflin Co., 1964, p. 135. Zaleznik, A., et al., in Vroom, Victor. Work and Motivation. New York: John Wiley and Sons, Inc., 1964, p. 169. 124 Zetterberg, Hans. ”On Motivation," in Joseph Berger, Morris Zelditch, Jr., and Bo Anderson, Sociological Theories in Pro ress. Boston Massachusetts: HOughton MIffI'L—in Co., 1966, pp. 139-140. B. PUBLICATIONS OF THE GOVERNMENT, LEARNED SOCIETIES, AND OTHER ORGANIZATIONS Alciatore, Robert and Eckert, Ruth. Minnesota Ph.D.'s Evaluate Their Training. University of Minnesota, Octoher, I968. Anderson, Bo and Shelly, Robert. Reaction to Ine uity II: A Replication of the Adams Experiment—and 3 '__ Theoretical Refdrmulation. Michigan State University TechnicaliReport, Novemhdr, 1969. Carroll, Bonnie. Job Satisfaction: A Review of the Literature.'iNew Y6rk State SchOol of Ihdudtiial and Labor Relations, Cornell University, Key Issues Series - No. 3, February, 1969. Danielson, Lee. Characteristics of Engineers and Scientists Significant fOr Their Utiliiation and Motivation. Bureau of Industrial RelatiOns, UniVerEity of Michigan, 1960. Dykes, Archie. Faculty Participation 13_Academic Decision Makin . American Council on Education, Washington, D C., 1968. Eckert, Ruth and Stecklein, John. Job Motivations and Satisfactions of Colle e TeaEhers: A Study of Facult Members in MihhdSota Colleges. Coopdrative RdSearch MonographiNo. 7, 0.8, Department of Health, Education and Welfare, OE-53009, Washington, D. C., 1961. Herzberg, Frederick, Mausner, Bernard, Peterson, Richard, and Capwell, Dora. Job Attitudes: Review o1_ Research and O inion. PsychOlOgical SerV1ce of Pitt§burgh, 1957. Locke, Edwin. What is Job Satisfaction. Final Report, American Institute for Research, November, 1968. Patchen, Martin. Stud o1_Work and Life Satisfaction, Absences and Attitudes Toward Work Experience. Ihstitute for Social Researdh, Ann Arbor, Michigan, Report No. 11, 1959. 125 C. PERIODICALS Adams, Stacey and Rosenbaum, William. "The Relationship of Worker Productivity to Cognitive Dissonance About Wage Iniquities," Journal of Applied Psychology. 46, March, 1962, pp. I6l-l64. Alexander, Norman and Simpson, Richard. ”Balance Theory and Distributive Justice," Sociological Inquiry. 34, Spring, 1964, p. 190. Andrews, Kenneth R. "Toward Professionalism in Business Management," Harvard Business Review. 47, March, 1962, pp. 161-164. Anonymous. "Values and Purposes of Harvard," Harvard University Gazetter. January 15, 1971. Barker, Bernard. "Some Problems in the Society of the Professions," Daedalus. 92, Fall, 1963, pp. 669-688. Behling, Orlando, Labovitz, George, and Kosmo, Richard. "The Herzberg Controversy: A Critical Reappraisal," Academy of Management Journal. 11, March, 1968, pp. 98-1681 Blau, Peter. "Justice in Social Exchange," Sociological Inouiry. 34, Spring, 1964, pp. 193-2061 Cameron, Norman. "Role Conflict and Behavioral Pathology," American Journal o1 Sociology. 55, 1950, pp. 464-467. Ekeh, Peter P. "Issues in Exchange Theory," Berkeley Journal op Sociology. 13, 1968, pp. 42-56. Ewen, R., Smith, P., Hulin, C., and Locke, E. ”An Empirical Test of the Herzberg Two-Factor Theory," Journal op Applied Psychology. 50, December, 1966, pp. 544-550. Goode, William J. "Community Within a Community," American Sociological Review. 22, April, 1957, pp. 1 - Gouldner, Alvin. "Cosmopolitans and Locals: Toward An Analysis of Latent Social Roles," Administrative Science Quarterly. 2, 1957-8, pp. 281-306, 444-481. Graen, George, Rene, Davis, and Weiss, David. "Need Type and Job Satisfaction Among Industrial Scientists," Journal of Applied Psychology. 52, August, 1969, p. 263. __ 126 Hochstim, Joseph and Demetrios, Athanasopoulos. "Personal Follow-up in a Mail Survey: Its Contributions and Its Cost," Public Opinion Quarterly. 34, No. 1, Spring, 1970, pp. 69-8l. Holton, Gerald. "Scientific Research and Scholarship, Notes Toward the Design of Proper Scales,” Daedalus. 92, Spring, 1962, pp. 362-399. Hornstein, Harvey, Callahan, D., Fisch, E., and Benedict, B. "Influence and Satisfaction in Organizations: A Replication " Sociolo of Education. 41 Fall 1968, pp. séo-m—‘fix. — ’ ’ Lawler, Edward. "Effects of Hourly Overpayment on Productivity and Work Quality," Journal of Personality and Social Psychology. 10, I968. Levi, Edward. "The University and the Modern Condition," Science. 170, December, 1970, p. l. Levine, Edward, and Weitz, Joseph. "Job Satisfaction Among Graduate Students: Intrinsic Versus Extrinsic Variables," Journal of Applied Psychology, 52, August, 1969, p. 263T—' Nath, Raghu. ”A Methodological Review of Cross Cultural Management Research," International Social Science Journal. 20, January,‘1968, pp. 35-62. Porter, L. W. "Job Attitudes in Management: I, Perceived Deficiencies in Need Fulfillment as a Function of Job Level," Journal of A lied Psychology. 46, December, 1962, pp. 375-384. Rossi, Peter. "Researchers, Scholars, and Policy Makers," Daedalus. 93, Fall, 1964, pp. 1142-1161. Schaffer, R. H. "Job Satisfaction as Related to Need Satisfaction in Work," Psychological Monographs. Vol. 67, 1953. Snizek, William. "Hall's Professionalism Scale: An Empirical Reassessment," American Sociological Review. February, 1972, Vol. 37, pp. 109-114. White, Robert. "Motivation Reconsidered: The Concept of Competence," Psychological Review. 66, 1959. Also in Sampson, Edfiard, Approachcs, Contexts, and Problems in Social PsyEHOlo . New Jersey, Prentice- Hall, Incl: 1964, pp. 126-I 8. 127 Wieck, Karl. "The Concept of Equity in the Perception of Pay," Administrative Science Quarter1y. 11, December, 1966, pp. 4I4¥439. D. UNPUBLISHED MATERIALS Faunce, William. "Job Satisfaction and the Meaning of Work." Prepared for U. S. Department of Labor Conference, 1968. Friedman, A., and Goodman, P. "Wage Inequity and Pro- ductivity: A Replication." Graduate School of Business, University of Chicago. (Mimeographed) Shank, Paul. "An Exploratory Investigation of the Inter- relationships Among the Primary Elements Within the Rewards System, Position Requirements, Position Satisfactions for Faculty in Six Colleges of Education in Michigan." Unpublished Doctoral Thesis, Michigan State University, East Lansing, 1968. Solomon, Warren. "On a Social Exchange Classification of Dyadic Relations." Paper given at American Sociological Meetings, 1970. APPENDICES APPENDIX A. INTELLECTUAL DEVELOPMENT OF THE PROBLEM The purpose of this section is to briefly describe the intellectual development of our research problem. Most report- ed studies neglect to state the modifications in theory or design which are often made between the initial conception of the problem and completed study. But it might be benefi— cial to other scholars to know the theoretical and opera- tional changes that may take place during the process of social inquiry. In this thesis, we initially proposed to study the relationship between role consistency and job satisfaction. We predicted that a lack of discrepancy between desired and perceived work factors leads to satisfaction and a low level of leaving. As our investigation progressed, we noted that the lack of discrepancy between what a person desires (personal role definition) and perceives ( perceived role) could be conceived as a form of satisfaction. Instead of associating one satisfaction index (lack of discrepancy) with another (a general measure of satisfaction), we searched the litera- ture for a theory which could explain both discrepancy and general indices of satisfaction. Exchange theory seemed to provide a powerful explanation for variance in our dependent measures of satisfaction and leaving. Specifically, we 128 129 conceptualized exchange theory in terms of the relation— ship between rewards and investments, and how these factors lead to favorable or unfavorable working conditions. This theoretical reformulation from role to exchange theory was accompanied by the chance finding that our two university sites differed significantly in terms of professionalization. Originally, we proposed to compare two similar universities changing from teaching to research concerns, but this difference in professionalization between our two colleges became a focal point in our theoretical interpretations. Our rationale for reformulating our problem is that a researcher should be open to modification of old inquiry directions if new insights might lead to a better understanding of his problem. This rationale for a flexible research design is not without possible risks. These risks include the post hoc fallacy where one explains the relationship among variables without adequate controls. This procedure may lead to forced interpretations of the data to suit a selected theory. Our thesis may also suffer because the universities in our anal- ysis were not originally chosen as representative of distinct poles of professionalism. Thus, conclusions in this study which are based on differences in professionalism may be a result of chance rather than fact. 130 Although we admit the dangers of post hoc analysis and basing our analysis on an unexpected difference between colleges, our revised theoretical emphasis appears to provide a more meaningful explanation of the area of professional satisfaction than if we had relied on our initial theory. APPENDIX B . _ 0290 QUES TI ONNAI RE JOB SATISFACTION AMONG FACULTY MEMBERS This questionnaire attempts to explore some of the im- portant aspects of being a faculty member. We are interested in the type of work aspects a person desires, how this per- son perceives his work situation, and what types of job con- ditions lead to satisfaction. To save you time, most questions have been arranged so that all you have to do is make a check in answering. Please answer every question, selecting the response that comes closest to representing your feelings, (even if it doesn't do so exactly). The questionnaire is arranged so that there is room for any ccmments at the end of each section; feel free to write on the back of any page. No name need appear on any part of this instrument but each instrument is identified by a number. This is necessary so that we have a record of those persons who do not answer the questionnaire. These people will be contacted again later. ALL OF YOUR RESPONSES WILL BE HELD IN STRICTEST CONFIDENCE. Realizing that many of you are pressed for time, this questionnaire should take no more than 15-20 minutes to com- plete. This is an honest estimate, based on pre-tests. The data will be used for purposes of my Ph.D. dissertation and ensuing publications. Your effort to answer and return this questionnaire is greatly appreciated. I do ask that you return the question- naire in the self-addressed envelope enclosed before ( ) or 10 days after receipt so that this researcher can meet his deadlines. Thank you, Howard Borck Dept. of Sociology Michigan State University 131 \\\I (3,) LP. CA 0 11. H (.6 Gool reputation of 29.113931.“ .1. 1_ ed the opportunity Little Import. .Imoort. Imoo 1.11.11.11.11_ ‘ - 0 . I I L Good reputation of 1 A...‘ _l 3.313.317 uL-l‘3nc ‘43-. “Ma A A— #4 —-—- ~— 1 Adequacy of Olfice soace u... .. Aiequecy 01 secre- Congeniality wits colleagues Location hering 3— greeaole Leather :0 3: 13323 “A. ‘A‘ —-— r'-'~-'-* o Calioer of unier- .3 .‘. 1°. 1) n W aw QH' eponfg; I 0“ l I E r L) E. in W H H ' O H 5) (a) (I) (n r. LII > I" (0 < :3 (+0 0) :3 ( f9 I I H- 132(1) reationel, cul- al opportunities communit '10 'J. .. .. .-‘—-o‘. .A -— rtunities 'O O 'U (0 O in {j S O o I :3 H. I") D ,9. ~ ~AA . ‘ . W'Tf— ‘ I z 11 I I 5 1 I I. of elucetion Exit I k I .-, ‘~*WA s .-' ~ ‘ ~ 55".1llJ 133 -3- .;"'-y Consid- No Little erable Great Im ort. Import. Import. Import. Import. l7. Opportunity for con- sulting 13. Having adequate re- search facilities 19 Having an acceptable teaching loal 20. Having availability of funds for research 21. Being able to teach the particular courses I ppcfer 22 Having a voice in deter- mining direction and goals of department 23. Having opportunity to participate in selec- tion of dean, chairman 24. Having opportunity to in- fluence decisions con—l cerning recruitment of new faculty 25. The type of work environment where I would be most happy is: a v where the rewards and incentives are almost exclusively for research( ) b) wnere the rewards and incentives for research are stressed over teaching ( ) c) where rewards and incentives are equal for research and teaching ( ) d) where rewards and incentives for teaching are stressad over research ( e) where rewards and incentives are mainly for teaching ( ) ”6. 3 there are other aspects of your work which are important to you, and UJiCh we have neglected, please specify: Other Comments: w In this section we are interested in your present working conditions. Please objectively evaluate the extent to which you would agree the following factors are present in your current job situation. Keep in mind we are only interested as to the extent to which you would agree thse factors are present, pop as to how satisfied you are regarding these factors. ‘ 134 YOUR ANSWERS WILL BE HELQ IN STRICTEST CONFIDENCE. 30. 31. 32. 33. 34. 35. 36. 37. 33. 39. Present Job Aspects Strongly Disagree Agree, Agree Strong- Disagree but 1y a- with gree reser- vation Good reputation of oollege . Good reputation of de- portment . Adequacy of office 3 pace Adequacy of secre- _33rial he1piy__ Generally high con- geniality with col- leagues Location having a- greeable weather for me High caliber of un- 13ergraduates High caliber of gra-‘ duate students Relatively small class §1ces Availability of stu- dents for either teach- ing or research as- sistance Adquate recreational, cultural opportuni- pies in community Enough opportunity for service to, and parti- c1pation in community I am able to talk openly and effectively with chairman This job doesn't inter- fere with my leisurely octivities This department is suppoi tive of the type of phild osophy of education I pgrsonal1y agree with '1' University affords ade- quate research facili- pies 33.5 Strongly: Disagree Agree, 'Agree Strong- Disagree 1 but 1y a- with gree reser- vation 43. I have an accepta- ble teaching load 44. Funds are available . for research XLLLA" 45. I am able to teach . the courses I pre- ‘ fer ) 46. I have a voice in de- 1 termining direction . j and goals of depart- ‘ 1 W moot 4 47. I have the opportunity 4 to participate in se- ‘ lection of dean, chairr » man 1 J “A 4’ 43. I have opportunity to ‘ ' < influence decisions concerning recruitmenq of new facultyp 49. In this department: a) the rewards and incentives are exclusively on research ( ) b) the rewards and incentives for research are stressed over teaching ( ) c) the rewards and incentives are equal for teaching and research ( ) d) the rewards and incentives for teaching are stressed over research e) the rewards and incentives are mainly on teaching AA VV 50. If there are any other aspects of your work which we have neglected, and you feel are important in determining satis- faction, please comment: 51. How would you characterize the degree of respect as a scholar that you receive from colleagues in your department? excellent ( ) good ( ) adequate ( ) less than satisfactory ( ) Any comments: 196 ECTION III In this section we are interested in changes that have re- cently or are presently happening in your department and uni- versity. Please answer the questions to the best of your knowledge; we are more interested in your perceptions than objective truth. Types of possible Strong- Agree Agree, Disagree Strongly changes 1y a- but gree with reser- vation 52. Department present- ly or recently chan- ging from teaching- orientation to pro- fessional activities 53. Drastic changes in undergraduate curri- gplum 54. Drastic changes in graduate curriculum 55. Recruitment policy opanges 56. High degree of fa- oplty turnover 57. High increase in re- 1 search grants for faculty and graduate 1 students 53. High increase in number of fellowships aw- orded to students 59. Heated debate as to i the direction and ideology of depart- ment SECTION IV In this section we are interested in job satisfaction. No- tice we are differentiating between satisfaction with the work you do or are committed to, and the type of work en- vironment you are presently in. .XOUR ANSPERS WILL BE HELD IN STRICTEST CONFIDENCE. 137 Stongly I Agree Dis- Strung'ly .ffiflfifiti agree disagroo_. 60. I have fulfilled, or feel I will fulfill, the expectations I had for myself when I first oome to this job 61. I am happy and satisfied with my work itself, aside from de-1 partmental expecp3t1opomflyywmvih 62. I am happy and satisfied with . _r_n_y work IN THIS DEPARTMENT I 1 ‘ 63. Most days I am enthusiastic ‘ about doing the type of work i 1 1_think is appropriate . . i 64. Most days I am enthusiastic ‘ about coming to work IN THIS DEPARTMENT . 65. I am satisfied with the 2 types of changes ozcuring in ’ this department's goals and objectives 66. Quite a number of things 1 { about the work expectations 4 1 1 IN THIS DEPARTMENT annoy me 67. I sometimes become angry at g the way things are done 1H, 1 4 THIS DEPARTMENT -_—...1 ,O.._C_ o.“ —-_’__‘.. A) 68. I have recently considered other job offers , 69. I plan to leave this job as ‘ soon as an acceptable oppor- ponityypresents itself 70. I am definitely leaving this Aposition .1-1_11_1-1_11-1-11.j_._n_1 Aux -9 91mm: SECTION V (.0 (0 71. x: male ( ) female ( ) 72. 730 74. '75 O 76. 77. 73. 79. 80. 81. m e 85. 138 -7- How old were you on your last birthday? 30 or under (.); 31-35 ( ); 36-40 ( ); 41-45 ( ); 46-50 ( ); 51-55 ( ); 56—60 ( ) over 60 ( ). Number of articles published in journals in the last five years: 0 ( ); 1-2 ( ); 3—5 ( ); 6-10 ( ); 11 or more ( ). Number of books written or edited in the last 10 years: 0 ( ); 1-2 ( ); 3 or more ( ). Number of research grants obtained in the last five years: 0 ( ); 1-2 ( ); 3 or more ( ). Number of above grants over $1000.00: 0 ( );l ( ); 2 ( ). Married? Yes ( ); No ( ) Number of children in elementary school or high school: 0 ( ); 1 ( ); 2 ( ); 3 ( ); 4 or more ( ). How long have you worked at this university? less than one year ( ); 1-3 years ( ); 4-6 years ( ); 7-10 years ( ); 11-15 years ( ); 16-20 years ( ); 21-25 years ( ); 26—30 years ( ); 31 and more years ( ). Faculty rank within your department: Asst. Instructor ( ); Instructor ( ); Asst. Prof. ( ); Assoc. Prof. ( ); Prof. ( ); Prof. Emeritus ( ); Lecturer ( ); Chairman (Dept.) ( ); Other admin. position ( ). Highest degree obtained: B.A. or B.S. ( ); M.A. or M.S. ( ); All work except dissertation ( ); Ph.D. or other doctorate ( ); other: Have you been offered another job in the last five years? Yes ( ); no ( ). . Have you achieved tenure? Yes ( ); No ( ). . Check the discipline you now work in: Sociology ( ); Psy- chology ( ); Pol. Science ( ); Economics ( ); Anthropology ( ); If other, please specify: Before taxes, your gross salary from your faculty position in your department for 1963-69 (excluding extension teaching, teaching at another university, consultation, and books and royalties) will be: less than 7000.00 ( ); 7000-7900 ( ); 8000-8999 ( ); 9000-9999 ( ); l0,000-lO,999 ( ); 11,000- ll,999 ( ); 12,000-12,999 ( ); 13,000-13,999 ( ); 14,000- l4,999 ( ); 15,000-17,999 ( ); 13,000-19,999 ( ); 20,000- 24,999 ( ); 25,000-29,999 ( ); 30,000 and over ( ). 139 -3- 86. This is a nine- or ten-month salary ( ); twelve-month salary ( ). 87. How do you judge faculty benefits (health insurance, life in- surance, retirement benefits, etc.) at your university and department? excellent ( ); good ( ); adequate ( ); poor ( ); very bad ( ). 83. How long have you held your present faculty rank? less than one year ( ); 1-3 years ( ); 4-6 years ( ); 7-10 years ( ); 10-14 years ( ); 15 years or more ( ). 89. What is your usual teaching load per term or semester? 3 hours ( ); 6 hours ( ); 9 hours ( ); 12 hours ( ); more than 12 hours ( ). 90. Please specify the university where you finally obtained your highest degree: 91. If you are working on a degree, please specify the degree- granting institutign: 92. Which universities are persons you studied with in graduate school presently at? List a few of the universities you know for sure: ' . 93. Relative to your own situation, how would you characterize the present positions of persons who went to school with you? (Those persons now in faculty positions): a) doing about the same as me ( ) b) doing better than I am, considering we have nearly the same qualifications ( ) ) doing poorer than I am 1 ) ) doing better than me, but they have better qualifications ( ) CLO Any_comments: APPENDIX C. Dear Faculty Member, Approximately two weeks ago I left a questionnaire on iob satisfaction with you. i have not had any response from you as of this date. Today I stapped by to see you and answer any questions you might have concerning the questionnaire. Since I didn't catch you in, l hape this note will suffice. if not, feel free to call me at 5l7-353-5lh3 If the reason you didn't fill out the questionnaire is because of the identification number on the instrument. lust rip off the front page. The identifcation number is iust for follow-up purposes and all responses are confidential. If you haven't returned the questionnaire because of lack of time, the instrument only takes from ten to fifteen minutes to fill out. In any case, I know that you realize the struggle involved in obtaining the necessary response rate for a research project. Therefore I would very much appreciate you filling out and returning the attached questionnaire ( or the one you already have). Please do this at your earliest convenience. 1:snk Em Howar E. §orck Department of Sociology Michigan State University 140 beckon Lo H®>®H mo. one an QCMOHMHcmfim ohm A**v N 1 ex am. I ox km.i*ee. - me MN. as. ow. . ex **ma. mm.**ee.**ee. - mx oe.**ao. em. mm. Hm. . ax me. as. aw. um. mm. mm. I ex ex ex mx ex mx ax ax I mx km. - ex **om. km. u mx *ema. me. we. : ax om.**ma. mm. nu. u fix me we mx ax ax pdooxo mCOflQMHOLsoo ALV HHM$ conflueno oopmoa zpflmso>flcs pm mafia mo names; 00.000H ao>o mpsmnw mpcmam sonoomom coppflaz mxoom moaoapsm mo Lonesz om< nouomu ecospmo>cH ence mcaeomoo named maflmocon %9H=omm zaoamm xcmm mosmmoaaoo Eonm pooamom hopomm bemzom *%HADUZH Qz< mmm<3mm mom mmUHQZH mo WZOHB