llllllulu l This is to certify that the dissertation entitled JOB SATISFACTION 0F HISPANIC FACULTY AND ADMINISTRATORS IN THE BIG TEN UNIVERSITIES presented by Sohed T. Rodriguez has been accepted towards fulfillment of the requirements for Ph.D. degree“, Teacher Education : A Major pr r Date Max 21, 1990 MSU is an Affirmative Action/Equal Opportunity Institution 0- 12771 l' W LIBRARY Hickman State ‘ University + PLACE IN RETURN BOX to remove this checkout from your record. TO AVOID FINES return on or before date due. = ‘7 4 DATE DUE DATE DUE DATE DUE fl MSU Is An Affirmative ActioNEqual Opportunity Institution chS—o. 1 JOB SATISFACTION OF HISPANIC FACULTY AND ADMINISTRATORS IN THE BIG TEN UNIVERSITIES By Sohed T. Rodriguez A DISSERTATION Submitted to Michigan State University in partial fulfillment Of the requirements for the degree Of DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY Department of Teacher Education 1990 Cl 9/ /’"- 7/ 77/ ABSTRACT JOB SATISFACTION OF HISPANIC FACULTY AND ADMINISTRATORS IN THE BIG TEN UNIVERSITIES By Sohed T. Rodriguez The primary purpose of this study was to examine the conditions and factors contributing to job satisfaction and dissatisfaction among Hispanic faculty members and administrators in the Big Ten universities, as perceived by those individuals. Herzberg’s concepts of extrinsic and intrinsic factors were used in examining data collected from study participants. A secondary purpose was to examine the extent to which Hispanic faculty and administrators perceived themselves as participating in decision-making processes in their units as part of their academic and administrative responsibilities. A further purpose was to examine the effects that institutional policies and practices were perceived to have on Hispanic faculty and administrators in the Big Ten universities. The study group included all 185 Hispanic faculty and adminis— trators identified in the Big Ten universities who met the criteria for selection. A survey questionnaire developed by Abreu (l980) to test Herzberg’s Two-Factor Theory was adapted and revised for this study. The survey included Open- and closed-ended questions Sohed T. Rodriguez designed to measure Hispanic faculty and administrators’ attitudes regarding job satisfaction and dissatisfaction. Demographic data were also sought. Twelve research questions were addressed. The study was primarily descriptive. Data-analysis procedures included calculation of frequencies and percentages. Whenever possible and appropriate, a chi-square test was used to determine whether a statistically significant relationship existed between certain variables. Qualitative data were gathered to supplement the quantitative data. Responses to the open-ended questions were coded for quantification. Interview results were evaluated using content analysis. The study findings indicated that, individually, the motivators Hork Itself, Responsibility, and Achievement contributed significantly to job satisfaction. The lowest levels of satisfaction were indicated for Recognition and Possibility for Growth. Individually, the extrinsic factors of Company Policy and Administration, Supervision (Administrative Leadership), Interper- sonal Relationships with Superiors, and working Conditions were the significant sources of dissatisfaction in this study. A statistically significant relationship was found between gender and tenure status. Participants’ perception of participation in decision-making processes was minimal (3.2%). ifirfings through implementation of affirmative action programs were also minimal (8.1%). Copyright by SOHED T. RODRIGUEZ l990 In memoriam to Leopoldo. iv This study is dedicated to my children, Gustavo, Carmina, and Maria Fernanda, with all my love. May they continue to believe in themselves and never stop learning and being proud of their Spanish heritage. The study is also dedicated to all my brothers and sisters, who have been an integral part of my life, even though we have lived far apart for so many years. ACKNOWLEDGMENTS I would not have been able to complete this work without the cooperation and forbearance of an exceptional group of teachers and friends. I wish to express my sincere appreciation to my academic advisor and chairperson, Dr. Kenneth L. Neff, for his patience and assistance. My appreciation and thanks are also extended to the other members of my committee: Dr. Ben A. Bohnhorst, who provided the guiding hand in the development Of the dissertation proposal; Dr. Lois A. Bader, for her encouragement and sense Of humor; Dr. Arthur M. Vener, whose intense curiosity and enthusiasm Often turned frustrations into challenges and disappointments into insights; and Dr. Linda Nelson, who graciously and effectively replaced Dr. Beatrice A. Paolucci. Her encouragement, assistance, and critical analysis of this dissertation are greatly appreciated. I am deeply grateful to Dr. Frederick Herzberg for granting me permission to use the concepts of his Two-Factor Theory. I appreciate the cooperation of Dr. Larry Hembroff Of the Social Science Research Institute at Michigan State University; the Sage Foundation; the Martin Luther King Chavez Parks Fellowship Program and its administrator, Dr. Herman D. Hughes, Assistant Dean of the Graduate School; Dr. Donald Nickerson, Assistant Dean of the College of Education, for his vote of confidence; Dr. Sheldon vi Cherney, my former academic advisor, for his continuing concern and assistance; and the Directors of Affirmative Action Programs in the Big Ten universities, especially Dr. Robert Bayless of Purdue University, fOr their cooperation in providing the initial report data to start my research. I am also indebted to Sue Cooley for her expert editorial and word-processing assistance and to Joshua Bagakas for his professionalism and sound advice in analyzing the data. Finally, I wish to thank some special friends for their encouragement, moral support, and continuing belief that I was doing something worthwhile. They are Vicky Rutherford, Michigan State University; Dr. Maria E. Torres-Guzman, Columbia University; Dr. Diana 1. Marinez, Michigan State University; and Dr. Gumecindo Salas, Michigan State University, an outstanding role model and a credit to the Hispanic community. vii TABLE OF CONTENTS LIST OF TABLES ....................... INTRODUCTION TO THE STUDY .............. Statement of the Problem ............. Purposes Of the Study ............... Research Questions ................ Need for the Study ................ Importance of the Study .............. Theoretical Background for the Study ....... Definition of Terms ................ Delimitations ................... Limitations .................... Overview ..................... REVIEH OF THE LITERATURE .............. Introduction ................... Theoretical Background of the Study ........ The Herzberg Model ............... The Motivation-Hygiene Theory .......... Measurement Of Attitudes ............ Motivation Theory ................ Job Satisfaction ................. Difficulties in Defining Job Satisfaction . . . . The General Factor Theory ............ The Two-Factor Theory .............. Job Satisfaction in Industry ........... The Hawthorne Studies .............. The Herzberg Study ............... The Vroom Study ................. Studies of Job Satisfaction in Education ..... The Abreu Study ................. The Reagan Study ................ The Swierenga Study ............... The Borland Study ................ The Leon Study ................. viii Page III. IV. V. The Velez Study ................ The Lopez Study ................ Summary ..................... RESEARCH DESIGN AND PROCEDURES Introduction .................. Background on Hispanics in the United States Identification of the Study Population ..... The Study Group ................. Research Questions ............... The Instrument ................. Distribution of the Questionnaires ....... Personal In-depth Interviews .......... Data-Analysis Procedures ............ Summary ..................... PRESENTATION OF THE DATA Introduction .................. Demographic Information About the Respondents . . . Findings Pertaining to the Research Questions . . . Research Question 1 .............. Research Question 2 .............. Research Question 3 .............. Research Question 4 .............. Research Question 5 .............. Research Question 6 .............. Research Question 7 .............. Research Question 8 .............. Research Question 9 .............. Research Question 10 ............. Research Question ll ............. Research Question l2 ............. Summary ..................... RESULTS OF THE IN-DEPTH INTERVIEWS Introduction .................. Background on the Respondents .......... Early Beginnings ............... Academic Credentials and Qualifications . . . . The Respondents as Educators .......... Mentors ..................... Alienation and Assimilation ........... Minority Status ................. Institutional Policies ............. ix Page 53 53 55 59 59 59 6T 62 63 64 65 66 68 68 Participation in Hispanic Affairs ......... Conclusions .................... VI. SUMMARY, CONCLUSIONS, RECOMMENDATIONS, AND REFLECTIONS .................... Summary ...................... and Conclusions ........ Summary of Findings Research Question Research Question Research Question Research Question Research Question Research Question Research Question Research Question Research Question Research Question Research Question Research Question 12 000000000000000 00000000000000 OOOOOOOOOOOOOO Overall Summary and Conclusions .......... Recommendations .................. Recommendations for Practice .......... Recommendations for Further Research ...... Reflections .................... APPENDICES A. NUMERICAL INFORMATION ON HISPANICS AS A PROPOR- TION OF FACULTY AND ADMINISTRATORS AT THE BIG TEN UNIVERSITIES AND CHARACTERISTICS OF BIG TEN UNIVERSITIES B. COVER LETTER, QUESTIONNAIRE, AND LETTER OF SUPPORT C. INTERVIEH QUESTIONS ................. D. LETTER OF CONSENT .................. BIBLIOGRAPHY Page 138 142 143 143 144 145 147 150 151 152 153 153 154 155 156 156 157 159 160 160 162 163 167 169 178 179 180 LIST OF TABLES Table Page 3.1 Rate of Return Of Usable Questionnaires, by University ..................... 66 4.1 Distribution Of Respondents by University and Gender . 72 4.2 Distribution of Respondents by University and Track Category ................... 73 4.3 Distribution of Respondents by University and Academic Title ................... 75 4.4 Distribution of Respondents by Academic Title and Gender ..................... 76 4.5 Distribution of Respondents by Ethnic Background and Gender ..................... 76 4.6 Distribution of Respondents by Track Category and Gender ..................... 77 4.7 Distribution Of Respondents by University and Individual Annual Income .............. 78 4.8 Number and Percentage of Responses of Satisfaction Hith the Six Motivators/Satisfiers, by Gender . . . 80 4.9 Number and Percentage of Responses Of Satisfaction Hith the Six Motivators/Satisfiers, by Track Category ...................... 81 4.10 Number and Percentage Of Responses of Satisfaction Hith the Six Motivators/Satisfiers, by Income . . . 82 4.11 Number and Percentage of Responses of Satisfaction Hit? the Six Motivators/Satisfiers, by Academic it e ....................... 83 4.12 Number, Percentage, and Rank of Satisfaction Responses on the Six Motivators/Satisfiers, by University ................... 85 xi 4.26 Number and Percentage Of Dissatisfaction Responses on the Six Maintenance/Dissatisfiers, by Gender Number and Percentage of Dissatisfaction Responses on the Six Maintenance/Dissatisfiers, by Track Category ................... Number and Percentage of Dissatisfaction Responses on the Six Maintenance/Dissatisfiers, by Income Number and Percentage of Dissatisfaction Responses on the Six Maintenance/Dissatisfiers, by Academic Title ................... Number, Percentage, and Rank of Dissatisfaction Responses on the Six Maintenance/Dissatisfiers, by University ................... Reasons Why Job Had or Had Not Affected Respondents’ Personal Lives ................... Reasons for Participating or Not Participating in Hispanic Affairs and the Hispanic Community Participation in Hispanic Affairs and the Hispanic Community, by Academic Title ............ Participation in Hispanic Affairs and the Hispanic Community, by Ethnic Background .......... Reasons for Dissatisfaction or NO Dissatisfaction Hith the Institution’s Promotional System ..... Responses Concerning Whether or Not Recruits Had Been Assigned to a Mentor, by Method of Recruitment .................... Results of the Chi-Square Test Of the Relationship Between General Satisfaction and Herzberg’s Six Intrinsic Factors ............... Results of the Chi-Square Test Of the Relationship Between General Dissatisfaction and Herzberg’s Six Extrinsic Factors ............... Results Of the Chi-Square Test Of the Relationship Between Participation in Hispanic Affairs and the Hispanic Community and Satisfaction Hith Herzberg’s Six Intrinsic Factors ..... . . . . xii Page 87 89 90 91 93 95 96 97 98 99 100 102 103 104 4.27 4.29 4.30 4.31 A.1 Reasons Participants Thought They Here (or Here Not) Role Models for Hispanic Students on Campus . . Reasons Why Respondents Planned to Leave (or Stay at) the University Within the Next Three Years . . . Results of the Chi-Square Test of the Relationship Between Gender and Track Category ......... Reasons Why Respondents Foresaw a Chance (or No Chance) for Advancement in Their Institutions Reasons th Respondents Foresaw a Chance (or NO Chance) for an Administrative Position in Their Institutions ................... Reasons Why Respondents Thought They Had (or Had Not) Obtained Adequate Recognition for Their Achievements ................... Number and Percentage of Hispanics as Compared to Total Faculty and Administrators at the Big Ten Universities, According to the 1987 EEOC Report xiii Page 106 107 108 110 111 113 167 CHAPTER I INTRODUCTION TO THE STUDY 513W Work satisfaction has long been a major concern in business and industry; academe is no exception. There is general consensus that job satisfaction affects institutional effectiveness, as well as workers’ productivity, absenteeism, and turnover. It is also widely believed that job satisfaction/dissatisfaction may have serious consequences for the well-being of the individual, in terms of mental and physical health and satisfaction with life in general (Mottaz, 1985, pp. 365-66). Hence, the problems that led the writer to conduct this study can be summarized as follows: 1. Hispanic faculty members and administrators represent a vulnerable minority, whose status may expose them to an undue degree of constraint, discrimination, and frustration. 2. Some evidence indicates that Hispanics’ experiences in decision making in their positions often lead to low satisfaction. 3. Relatively few Hispanics hold positions that fbster personal and professional growth, a condition that frustrates intrinsic satisfaction. 4. There are few Hispanics in leadership positions who can serve as mentors and role models to Hispanic youths who may want to consider a profession in education. 5. Certain institutional policies and practices might contribute to the aforementioned conditions. W The primary purpose of this study was to examine the conditions and factors contributing to job satisfaction and dissatisfaction among Hispanic faculty members and administrators in the Big Ten universities, as perceived by those individuals. Herzberg’s (1983) concept of extrinsic and intrinsic factors was used in examining data collected from study participants. A secondary purpose was to examine the extent to which Hispanic faculty and administrators perceived themselves as participating in decision-making processes in their units as part of their academic and administrative responsibilities. A further purpose was to examine the effects that institutional policies and practices were perceived to have on Hispanic faculty and administrators in the Big Ten universities. W To address the major purposes of the study, the following research questions were posed. 1. To what extent do Hispanic faculty and administrators perceive Herzberg’s intrinsic factors as contributing to job satisfaction within their organizations? 2. To what extent do Hispanic faculty and administrators perceive Herzberg’s extrinsic factors as contributing to job dissatisfaction within their organizations? 3. TO what extent do Hispanic faculty and administrators participate in Hispanic affairs and the Hispanic community? 4. To what extent do Hispanic faculty and administrators perceive institutional policies as contributing to their Job dissatisfaction within the organization? 5. Is there a statistically significant relationship between respondents’ general satisfaction and Herzberg’s intrinsic factors? 6. Is there a statistically significant relationship between respondents’ general dissatisfaction and various components of Herzberg’s extrinsic factors? 7. Is there a statistically significant relationship between respondents’ participation or nonparticipation in Hispanic affairs and the Hispanic community and Herzberg’s intrinsic factors? 8. Is there a statistically significant relationship between respondents’ involvement in Hispanic affairs on campus and their being a role model for Hispanic students? 9. What reasons do respondents give for wanting to leave or stay at the universities during the next three years? 10. Is there a statistically significant relationship between respondents’ gender and their tenure status? 11. Do Hispanic faculty and administrators foresee a chance for advancement or an administrative leadership position in their institutions? 12. Have Hispanic faculty and administrators obtained adequate recognition for their achievements in their institutions? W Although studies have been conducted on Job satisfaction and dissatisfaction of school teachers and of faculty members in institutions of higher education, none has been done with Hispanic academicians and administrators in the Big Ten universities as subjects for study. Hispanics are beginning to enter leadership positions in higher education in the United States (Diaz, 1984, p. 5). Hence, this study is needed for the following three reasons: 1. To identify perceived intrinsic and extrinsic factors leading to job satisfaction and dissatisfaction of Hispanic faculty and administrators. 2. To identify institutional policies and practices perceived as helping maintain an Open and dynamic interaction between Hispanic faculty and administrators and other faculty groups. 3. To establish a data base to continue conducting research on Hispanic faculty and administrators in the Midwest. W This study is timely and important for several reasons: 1. Empirical data on Hispanic academicians and administrators in institutions of higher education in the United States are virtually nonexistent, especially in the Big Ten universities. 2. It is important to gather data based on research on Hispanic academicians and administrators, to learn about variables they perceive to contribute to their success or failure in academe. 3. It is important to identify the factors that contribute to the perceived job satisfaction and dissatisfaction of Hispanic academicians and administrators, to help academic administrators initiate institutional policies to maximize Hispanics’ professional development. W The concepts discussed in this section were used in developing the study. Herzberg (1983) maintained that, in addition to economic needs, human beings have psychological needs for autonomy, responsibility, and development that need to be satisfied in their work. He advocated "enriching” employees’ jobs through additional responsibility, participation, and authority in order to promote improved performance and increased mental health (p. 214). In the preface to york and the Nature pf nan, Herzberg (1966) stated that the "primary functions of any organization whether religious, political or industrial should be to implement the needs for man to enjoy a meaningful existence" (p. ix). According to Haslow, humans’ primary goal is to work toward achieving their full potential. Herzberg based his research on Maslow’s theory and believed that people’s animal and human needs coexist. He asserted that self- realization is one of the most important and least fulfilled needs of man (p. 56). Herzberg (1966) based his work on the premise that man has two dimensions. This duality is paradoxical. 0n the one hand, man’s overriding goal as an animal is to avoid the pain that is inevitable in relating to the environment. This avoidance nature is determined by' man’s biological inheritance. 0n the other hand, Herzberg contended that, in addition to the avoidance nature, there exists a human-~one who seems impelled to determine, discover, achieve, actualize, progress, and add to his/her existence. Herzberg’s essential finding is not only the fact that man exists as a duality but also that the two aspects of man are essentially independent; furthermore, each aspect has a system of needs that Operate in Opposing directions. Meeting the needs of one facet of the individual has little effect on the needs Of the other facet (pp. 168-69). Herzberg isolated two sets of needs: (a) The hygiene/maintenance needs are recurrent and center mostly on the dissatisfier factors. When these needs are not met, the individual is dissatisfied. The events leading to dissatisfaction occur because the individual needs to avoid unpleasantness. However, the effect of improved hygiene lasts for only a short time. (b) The motivator needs center primarily on the satisfier factors. These exist because of the individual’s needs for growth and self- actualization. When these needs are met, the individual is satisfied and motivated to excel (p. 75). Herzberg summarized the failure of the workplace to recognize the dual nature Of the individual, as well as the need to meet both the hygienic/maintenance and the motivator needs Of the individual that lead to Job satisfaction and dissatisfaction as follows: Perhaps the greatest single Obstacle to action lies in the inability to conceptualize and to recognize that man lives at two separate levels and is motivated by two Opposite needs. Obviously, we walk around with our hygiene and motivator needs wrapped in one package. Obviously, we do not separate what we do from the situation in which we do it. Obviously, we feel pain concurrently with happiness. Therefore, it becomes linguistically as well as experientially difficult, if not impossible, for people to conceive of their experiences as being made up of two diverging parts. (pp. 188-89) Herzberg based his Two-Factor Theory on the belief that man’s animal needs are related to his environment and his need to avoid pain. He stated that man’s human needs are related to tasks with which he is involved to develop psychologically. The three needs of Maslow’s theory are considered equivalent in their psychological meaning to Herzberg’s maintenance/dissatisfier factors. Herzberg’s three needs categories, adapted from Maslow’s theory, represented the motivators (p. 141). Herzberg, a clinical psychologist, developed his Two-Factor Theory of satisfaction/dissatisfaction throughout many years and published his findings in three books: WW Beeeereh egg ijnien (Herzberg, Mausner, Peterson, a Captwell, 1957), Me Mgtivatjon te ngk (Herzberg, Mausner, & Snyderman, 1959), and Neck and the Netgre ef Man (Herzberg, 1966). Herzberg started his studies on people’s attitudes toward their work as a sequence of events and refined them until he developed 16 extrinsic and intrinsic factors leading to job satisfaction/dissatisfaction. He categorized these 16 first-level factors into six motivators/ satisfiers and ten dissatisfiers or maintenance factors. The motivators/satisfiers are (pp. 44-49): 1. Responsibility 2 Work Itself 3. Achievement 4 Advancement 5 Recognition for Achievement 6. Possibility of Growth The dissatisfiers/maintenance factors are: 1. Salary 2. Job Security 3. Company Policy and Administration 4. Working Conditions 5. Supervision 6. Interpersonal Relations Hith Peers 7. Interpersonal Relations Hith Superiors 8. Interpersonal Relations with Subordinates 9. Status 10. Personal Life For the purpose Of this study, all six motivators/satisfiers (Responsibility, Hork Itself, Achievement, Advancement, Recognition for Achievement, and Possibility Of Growth) were included. Seven dissatisfiers/maintenance factors (Job Security, Company Policy and Administration, Horking Conditions, Supervision, Interpersonal Relations Hith Peers, Interpersonal Relations Hith Superiors, and Personal Life) were included. These 13 factors were used as the theoretical concepts and units Of analysis to determine whether Hispanic faculty and administrators in the Big Ten universities had positive or negative attitudes or feelings toward these concepts, which may or may not have contributed to their job satisfaction/ dissatisfaction. Factors excluded from the study were Interpersonal Relations With Subordinates, Salary, and Status. Instead, the variables Of annual university income and academic rank were included in the demographic data. ni i The following definitions, some of which were adapted from Herzberg and other authors, were used in this study. T ' rsi s. This term is more commonly used than the Official title Western Intercollegiate Conference Of Faculty Representatives (Big_leQ_Menlg_fieeere_§eek, 1987, pp. 7-25). This conference, which was started in 1896, includes the University of Illinois, Indiana University, University of Iowa, University of Michigan, University of Minnesota, Michigan State University, Northwestern University, Ohio State University, Purdue University, and the University of Wisconsin. (See Appendix A for numerical information on Hispanics as a proportion of faculty and administra- tors at the universities.) Demegreeh1e_ye11eele§. Demographic variables denote personal characteristics peculiar to the population being surveyed (Abreu, 1980, p. 20). In the present study, demographic variables included annual university salary, age, ethnic background, number of dependents, marital status, gender, tenure, academic status, years of academic experience, highest degree Obtained, and institution. 10 m v 1. This category included: . . all persons whose assignments require primary responsibility for management Of the institution, or a customarily recognized department or subdivision thereof. Assignments are directly related to management policies or general business Operations of the institution department or subdivision. Assignments required to exercise discretion and independent judgement, and to direct the work of others. Officers include President, Vice President, Assistant Vice President, Dean, Director, Associate Dean, Assistant Dean, Executive Officer of academic departments (department heads, Chairpersons), supervisors or their equivalent ii’ their principal activity is administrative. (EEOC, 1989, p. 7) Egeglty. The Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC, 1989) report to institutions of higher education defined faculty as: All persons whose specific assignments customarily are made for the purpose of conducting instruction, research or public service as a principal activity, and who hold academic-rank titles of professor, associate professor, assistant professor, instructor, or the equivalent Of any of these academic ranks. Chairpersons, Deans, Associate Deans, Assistant Deans and executive Officers are also included if their principal activity is instructional. (p. 6) General setisfectien. ”An attitude toward all features Of . . work and toward all of the people with whom [one] works" (Likert & Willits, 1940, p. 27). This definition of general satisfaction is not part of Herzberg’s theory. Hispanie. ”A person of Mexican, Puerto Rican, Cuban, Central Or South American or other Spanish culture or origin, regardless of race” (EEOC, 1989, p. 6). Some Of the respondents in this study preferred the term "Latino.” Wm Using the preceding criteria. the Hispanic faculty and administrators were defined as Mexican 11 Americans, Mexicans, Cubans, Puerto Ricans, Spaniards, and Central and/or South Americans who were employed full time at the Big Ten universities, and who had teaching and/or administrative positions and held the rank, of professor, associate professor, assistant professor, instructor, vice-president, assistant vice-president, dean, assistant dean, director, chairperson, supervisor, or manager. Jee_d1§§eti§feetien. Job dissatisfaction is the feeling pro- duced by factors pertaining essentia11y to the environment of the workplace (Reagan, 1985). Herzberg identified the factors leading to job dissatisfaction as Salary, Job Security, Company Policy and Administration, Working Conditions, Supervision, Interpersonal Relations With Peers, Interpersonal Relations With Superiors, Interpersonal Relations With Subordinates, Status, and Personal Life. These factors tend to give people a negative feeling about their jobs. They are factors extrinsic to the work situation, also called maintenance factors (p. 32). The job dissatisfaction (extrinsic) factors included in this study were: Company Policy and Administration. This factor describes the sequence of events in which some overall aspect of the organization is a part. Herzberg identified two overall aspects of company policy and administration. One is the adequacy or inadequacy of the institution’s organization and management. The other concerns not inadequacy, but the harmful or beneficial effects of the organization’s policies (pp. 196- 97). 12 Interpersonal Relations. This factor denotes the relationships that arise when people interact in performing their jobs. (Two of Herzberg’s three categories of interpersonal relations were included in this study: Interpersonal Relations With Superiors and Interpersonal Relations With Peers (p. 195). Job Security. This factor denotes Objective signs of the presence or absence of job security. Included are tenure and the organization’s stability or instability, which reflect in some objective way on a person’s job protection (p. 198). Personal LIfe. This factor includes all those situations in which aspects of the job affect one’s private life in such a way that they influence a person’s feelings about his/her job (p. 197). Supervision. This factor denotes the characteristics of interpersonal relationships with supervisors--their competence or incompetence, fairness or unfairness, and willingness or unwillingness to teach and delegate responsibility (p. 196). Working Conditions. This factor includes the physical conditions of work, the amount of work, and the facilities available for doing the work. It also includes adequacy of ventilation, lighting, tools, space, and other environmental characteristics (p. 197). We. Job satisfaction is the feeling produced by those factors that make work itself more attractive to people. Herzberg identified the factors leading to job satisfaction as l3 Responsibility, Work Itself, Achievement, Advancement, Recognition, and Possibility of Growth. These factors are effective in motivating people to superior performance and effort. They are factors intrinsic to the work situation (p. 32). The job satisfaction (intrinsic) factors included in this study were: Achievement. Achievement means successful completion of a job, solutions to problems, vindication, and seeing the results of one’s work. Herzberg said that the definition of achievement should include failure and/or absence of achievement (p. 194). Possibility of Growth. This factor involves the possibil- ity of moving upward or onward within the organization; it also refers to people’s ability to advance in their own skills or in their profession (p. 194). Recognition. This factor includes feelings produced by an expression of recognition, praise, or blame (p. 193). Responsibility. This factor refers to a feeling of satis- faction gained from being responsible for one’s own work or the work of others. It also includes a loss Of satisfaction or a negative attitude toward one’s job due to a lack of responsi- bility (p. 196). Work Itself. This factor pertains to the good or bad feelings produced by the actual doing of the job or the tasks of the job (p. 197). 14 W. Collins (1983) made the following distinction between mentors and role models: . . [a] trusted counselor or guide, a tutor or coach. A mentor is also one who can provide upward mobility to a professional career, he/she is higher up on the organizational ladder, an authority in his/her field, influential, interested in your growth and development, and willing to commit time and emotion to the relationship. Role models, on the other hand, are impressive and important figures in the distance. You can admire, emulate, respect, and almost worship that person, but the role model doesn’t necessarily have to know that you exist. (pp. 6-7) li a n The scope of this study was delimited as follows: 1. The investigation was confined to all full-time tenured, on track but not yet tenured, and not on track Hispanic faculty and administrators in executive, administrative, and managerial positions in the Big Ten universities. 2. The investigation was supported by responses to a survey questionnaire and taped interviews, as well as a review of materials from the Michigan State University library, ERIC documents, and dissertation abstracts. Data from the Human Relations Office, the Provost’s Office, and the Big Ten universities’ affirmative action officials and personnel administrators were included. A literature search was also undertaken in Washington, D.C., California, Texas, and New York to locate data from studies on Hispanics because such material is scarce in the Midwest. 15 Limitatim l. The respondents for the study were not randomly selected. Officials of the Big Ten universities declined to release the names of Hispanic faculty and administrators. Instead, potential numbers for the population were identified through 1987 Equal Employment Opportunity Report data supplied to this researcher by the Offices of the Directors of Affirmative Action at the Big Ten universities. As a result, some faculty members of Philippine, Portuguese, and Italian backgrounds who had Spanish surnames received the survey questionnaire. They were subsequently excluded from the study. 2. The data were gathered by means of self-report measures of perception. Hence, the possibility of bias may not be ruled out entirely. 3. Generalization of the study findings beyond the Big Ten universities is limited by the focus Of the survey instrument and the respondent-selection process. Overview This descriptive study is divided into six chapters. Chapter I included a statement of the problem, the study purposes and research questions, need for and importance of the research, and a theoretical background for the study. Also, key terms were defined and limitations and delimitations were set forth. Chapter II is a review of literature concerning Herzberg’s Two-Factor Theory and other theories of job satisfaction. The research design, data- collection procedures, and methodology used to analyze the data are 16 described in Chapter III. The results of the data analyses are reported in Chapter IV. Results of a content analysis of in-depth interviews with selected participants are included in Chapter V. Chapter VI contains a summary Of the study, conclusions drawn from the study findings, and recommendations for future research. CHAPTER I I REVIEW OF THE LITERATURE mm The study of humans and their work can be examined from various perspectives: historical, psychological needs, economic needs, personal growth, and self-realization. In modern times, it is necessary to study individuals and their needs to fulfill their aspirations and professional development, in intimate relationship to their places of work, in order to understand the many factors that contribute to meeting individuals’ needs and their contributions to meeting the needs of the organization. A successful partnership between the individual and the organization produces mutual satisfaction. To understand how all these factors interact to produce satisfaction and dissatisfaction in the employee, several theories of satisfaction in industry and educational settings, as well as other literature pertinent to this study, were reviewed. Wilensky (1976) defined attitudes toward work in historical terms: To the ancient Greeks, who had slaves, work was a curse. The Hebrews saw work as punishment. The early Christians saw work for profit Offensive, but by the time of St. Thomas Aquinas, work was being praised as a natural right and a duty--a sort of grace along with learning and contemplation. During the Reformation, work became the only way of serVing God. Luther l7 18 pronounced that conscientious performance of one’s labor was man’s highest duty. Later interpretations of Calvinistic doc- trines gave religious sanction to worldly wealth and achieve- ment. This belief, when wedded to social Darwinism and laissez-faire liberalism, became the foundation for what we call the Protestant ethic. Marx, however, took the concept of work and put it in an even more central position in life: freed from capitalist exploitation, work would become a joy as workers improved the material environment around them. (pp. 1- Herzberg’s Two-Factor Theory has been influential in business, industry, and education. Herzberg, Mausner, and Snyderman’s (1959) theoretical conceptualization Of extrinsic and intrinsic factors leading to job satisfaction/dissatisfaction was tested six times with faculty in higher education between 1966 and 1985. However, an examination of Di r ti n b tr and ERIC document resources at the Michigan State University library did not disclose any study using the concepts Of Herzberg’s Two-Factor Theory, the Dual-Factor Theory, or job satisfaction/dissatisfaction related to Hispanic faculty in higher education in the United States. Therefore, the present study is a pioneering work on that topic. This chapter is divided into three major parts. The theoretical background of“ the study is the focus of ‘the first section; included are numerous theories of job satisfaction. Various studies on job satisfaction in industry are discussed in the second part.. Job satisfaction in education is the subject of part three. 19 WW Iheflerzbemmsiel Herzberg (1966) stated that the six points of psychological growth are: . . . knowing more, seeing more relationships in what we know, being creative, being effective in ambiguous situations, maintaining individuality in the face of the pressures of the group ,and attaining real psychological growth. All these factors can be recognized as the Abraham view of man, that is, the necessity to realize the human potential for perfection. This is contrary to the Adams view of man, which sees the human being as characterized by the need to avoid physical deprivation. (p. 70) T 'v - i e o This theory, reported in The hgtiygtjeh tg Kerk (Herzberg, 1959), was develOped as a consequence of’ a study conducted by Herzberg, Mausner, and Snyderman (1959) in a cross-section of Pittsburgh industry. The study was designed tO test the concept that man has two sets of needs: his need as an animal to avoid pain and his need as a human to grow psychologically (p. 71). Two essential findings emerged from this study. First, the factors involved in producing job satisfaction are separate and distinct from those that lead to job dissatisfaction. Since separate factors need to be considered, depending on whether job satisfaction or job dissatisfaction is involved, it follows that these two feelings are not the obverse Of each other (p. 75). Thus, the opposite of job satisfaction is not job dissatisfaction, but rather no job satisfaction; similarly, the opposite of job dissatisfaction is no Job dissatisfaction, instead Of satisfaction with one’s job. The 20 fact that job satisfaction comprises two unipolar traits is not unique, but it remains a difficult concept to grasp (p. 76). The factors that lead to satisfaction--achievement, recognition, work itself, responsibility, and advancement—-are mainly unipolar; that is, they contribute very little to job dissatisfaction. Conversely, the dissatisfiers-~company policy and administration, supervision, interpersonal relations, working conditions, and salary--contribute very little to job satisfaction. Herzberg reported that because humans are capable Of such a variety of behaviors and still can survive, it is little wonder that so many ways of acting can be declared normal, depending on their cultural acceptance (p. 77). W Kiesler, Collins, and Miller (1969) defined attitudes in sociological or psychological terms: Although attitudes are defined with words referring to conscious experience, their primary theoretical function is to explain individual differences in reaction to socially significant objects such as out-group persons, legislation, countries, and institutions. (p. 6). They distinguished between sociological and psychological analyses: Attitudes may be related to sociological variables such as size of community, or psychological variables such as personality traits (p. 7)- Kiesler et a1. (1969) distinguished five general categories of attitude measures: (a) measures in which inferences are drawn from self-reports of beliefs, behaviors, and so on; (b) measures in which 21 inferences are drawn from the observation of on-going behavior in a natural setting; (c) measures in which inferences are drawn from the individual’s reaction to, or interpretation of, partially structured stimuli; (d) measures in which inferences are drawn from performance of objective tasks; and (e) measures in which inferences are drawn from physiological reactions to the attitudinal Object or represen- tations of it (pp. 9-10). With self-report measures, subjects are divided into a number of subgroups, which are rank ordered with respect to the attitudinal dimension. The models most widely used in self-report measures are the psychophysical model (Thurstone), the method of summated ratings (Likert), the scalogram analysis (Guttman) applied to dichotomous data, the unfolding technique (Coombs), and self-report techniques not dependent on opinion statements (Kiesler et al., 1969, p. 11). For the purpose Of this study, content analysis and self-report measures using summated ratings were used. This method was first described by Likert in 1932. It received the greatest attention among psychologists who wished to score participants’ attitudes directly from their attitudinal responses, without recourse to a panel of judges. 'v 'on h Ihe_s1assical_the9xx_o£_§£i§flLiIiS—AQDEQEMEBL- This theory was postulated by Frederick Taylor in 1919 in a paper entitled “The Principles of Scientific Management" (Taylor, 19471- The classical or traditional theory makes the fellowing assumptions about human 22 nature: (a) work is inherently distasteful to most people, (b) what workers do is less important than what they earn for doing it, and (c) few want to do or can handle work that requires creativity, self-direction, and/or self-control. These assumptions generate the following expectations: (a) people can tolerate work if the pay is decent and the boss is fair, and (b) if tasks are simple enough and people are closely controlled, they will produce up to standard (Miles, 1975, p. 35). Nee he . In contrast to Taylor’s view of financial rewards as a primary motivator, need theory holds that working people are motivated by the desire to satisfy a hierarchy of needs and that financial reward can satisfy only a few of those needs. This theory was originally advanced in 1954 by Maslow, who postulated that the satisfaction of earlier, more basic physiological needs triggers the emergence of later, more abstract needs (Miles, 1975, p. 41). Maslow developed a framework for sorting and categorizing such basic human needs as air, water, food, protection, love, sex, respect, success, and influence into a five-level taxonomy arranged in hierarchical order of prepotency. The prepotency feature is of particular importance to the taxonomy because it specifies that needs at lower levels of the hierarchy must be reasonably satisfied before one is interested in needs at the next higher level. The five need levels, according to Maslow, are physiological, safety or security, social, esteem (ego), and self-actualization or fulfillment (Sergiovanni a Elliott, 1975, p. 141). McGregor (1960) summarized Maslow’s five levels of needs as follows: 23 Physiological needs. Man is a wanting animal; as soon as one of his needs is satisfied, another appears in its place. This process continues from birth to death. Man continuously puts forth .effort--works, that is--to satisfy his needs. Physiological needs are at the lowest level of Maslow’s hierarchy Of importance but remain pre-eminent in importance when they are thwarted. Man lives by bread alone, when there is no bread. Unless the circumstances are unusual, needs for love, status, and recognition are inoperative when the stomach has been empty for a while. But when one eats regularly and adequately, hunger ceases tO be an important need. The same is true of people’s other physiological needs--the need for rest, exercise, shelter, and protection from the elements. A satis- fied need does not motivate behavior. Yet this important fact is ignored in the conventional approach to the management of people (McGregor, 1960, p. 36). Safety needs. When physiological needs are reasonably satisfied, needs at the next higher level begin to dominate man’s behavior--to motivate him. These are the safety needs: protection against danger, threat, and deprivation. Some people mistakenly refer to these items as needs for security. However, unless a person is in a dependent relationship in which he fears arbitrary deprivation, he does not demand security. The need is for the fairest possible break. When the individual is confident of this, he is more than willing to take risks. But when he feels threatened or dependent, his greatest need is for protection and security (McGregor, 1960, p. 37). 24 Because every industrial employee is in some way in a partially dependent relationship, safety needs assume considerable importance. Arbitrary management actions, behavior that arouses uncertainty with respect to continued employment or that reflects favoritism or discrimination, and unpredictable administration of policy can arouse safety needs as motivators in the employment relationship at every level, from worker to vice-president. In addition, the safety needs of managers are often aroused by their dependence downward or laterally. This is a major reason for emphasis on management prerogatives and the need for clear assignment of authority (McGregor, 1960, p. 37). Social needs. When a person’s physiological needs are satisfied and he is no longer fearful about his physical welfare, his social needs become important motivators of behavior. These needs are for belonging, for association, for acceptance by one’s fellows, and for giving and receiving friendship and love. Management knows of the existence of social needs. However, it has Often assumed (quite wrongly) that social needs represent a threat to the organization. Many researchers have demonstrated that the tightly knit, cohesive work group may, under proper conditions, be far more effective than an equal number of separate individuals in achieving organizational goals (McGregor, 1960, p. 37). Yet management, fearing group hostility toward its own objectives, Often goes to considerable lengths to control and direct human efforts in ways that are contrary to the natural 'groupness” Of human beings. 25 When man’s social needs-~and perhaps safety needs, as well-~are thwarted, he behaves in ways that tend to defeat organizational Objectives. He becomes resistant, antagonistic, and/or uncoopera- tive; however, this behavior is a consequence, not a cause (McGregor, 1960, p. 38). Ego needs. Above the social needs--in the sense that they do not become motivators until lower needs are reasonably satisfied-- lie needs that are of greater importance to management and to man himself. They are the ego needs, which are of two kinds: (a) those that relate to one’s self—esteem--needs for self-respect and self- confidence, autonomy, achievement, competence, and knowledge; and (b) those that relate to one’s reputatione-needs for status, recognition, appreciation, and the deserved respect of one’s fellows. Unlike the lower-order needs, the ego needs are rarely satisfied; man seeks infinitely more satisfaction of these needs once they have become important to him. However, they do not usually appear in any meaningful way until physiological, safety, and social needs are reasonably satisfied. Exceptions to this generalization are Observed, particularly under circumstances where, in addition to severe deprivation of physiological needs, human dignity is trampled on. Political revolutions Often arise from thwarted social, ego, and physiological needs (McGregor, 1960, p. 38). The typical industrial organization offers only limited Opportunities for the satisfaction of ego needs to people who are at 26 lower levels in the hierarchy. The conventional methods of organizing work, particularly in mass-production industries, give little heed to these aspects of human motivation. If scientific management practices were deliberately calculated to thwart these needs, which, of course, they are not, they could hardly accomplish this purpose better than they do (McGregor, 1960, p. 39). Self-fulfillment needs. Finally, as a capstone to the hierarchy, is the need for self-fulfillment, which includes the need for realizing one’s own potential, for continued self-development, and for being creative in the broadest sense of the term. The conditions of modern industrial life give only a limited Opportunity for these relatively dormant human needs to find expression. The deprivation most people experience with respect to the other lower- level needs diverts their energies into the struggle to satisfy those needs, and the needs for self-fulfillment remain below the level of consciousness (McGregor, 1960, p. 39). ’ T r T . McGregor (1960) presented two Opposite assumptions about human nature and motivation: Theory X and Theory Y. The assumptions basic to Theory X are as follows: 1. The average human being has an inherent dislike Of work and will avoid it if he can. 2. Because of this human characteristic of dislike of work, most people must be coerced, controlled, directed and/or threatened with punishment to get them to put forth adequate effort toward the achievement of organizational objectives. 3. The average human being prefers to be directed, wishes to avoid responsibility, has relatively little ambition, and wants security above all. 27 4. In sum, the average person is inherently self-centered, indifferent to organizational needs and resistant to change by nature. (Sergiovanni & Elliott, 1975, p. 91) Two types of management approaches--hard and soft--can be used in dealing with the behavior typically manifested by Theory X assumptions. The hard or nO-nonsense approach is characterized by strong leadership, tight controls, and close supervision. The soft approach relies heavily on buying, persuading, or winning people through good (albeit, superficial) human relations and benevolent paternalism to Obtain compliance and acceptance Of direction from superiors. The emphasis of both soft and hard versions is on manipulating, controlling, and managing people (Sergiovanni 8 Elliott, 1975, p. 91). Basic to Theory Y is emphasis on building identification and commitment to worthwhile Objectives in the work context and on building mutual trust and respect in the interpersonal context. Success in the work and interpersonal context is assumed to depend on individuals’ achieving meaningful satisfaction through accomplishing important work, as well as on authentic relationships and the exchange of valid information. More trust, concern for feelings, and internal commitment, more Openness to, and experimenting with, new ideas and feelings in such a way that others could do the same, were recommended if valid infbrmation was to be produced and internal commitment to decisions generated. (Sergiovanni & Elliott, 1975, p. 92) The central principle of Theory X is direction and control through the exercise of authority--what has been called the "scalar principle.” The central principle of Theory Y is integration: the 28 creation of conditions that allow members of the organization to achieve their own goals beet by directing their effort toward the success of the enterprise. These two principles have profoundly different implications with respect to the task of managing human resources; but the scalar principle is so firmly built into managerial attitudes that the implications of the principle of integration are not easy to perceive. The differences between Theory X assumptions of the hard or tough variety and Theory Y assumptions can readily be Observed and understood. However, Theory X assumptions of the soft version and Theory Y assumptions are deceptively similar. Theory X (soft version) is often referred to as the human-relations model, whereas Theory Y is called the human-resources model (Mcgregor, 1960). For purposes of this study, only the human-resources theory will be discussed. - so . Human-resources models view human beings as being motivated by a complex set of interrelated factors, such as money, need for affiliation, need for achievement, and desire for meaningful work. It is assumed that different employees Often seek quite different goals in a job and have a diversity of talents to Offer; Under this conceptualization, employees are viewed as reservoirs of potential talent, and management’s responsibility is to learn how best to tap these resources (Sergiovanni a Elliott, 1975, p. 93). It is assumed that an increase of self-control and direction on the job, as well as the completion of more meaningful tasks, can in 29 large measure determine the level of satisfaction on the job. In other' words, it is generally assumed that good and meaningful performance leads to job satisfaction and not the reverse, as is assumed in the human-relations model (Steers a Porter, 1975, p. 19). Two important expectations inherent in human-resources theory are that (a) expanding subordinates’ influence, self-direction, and self-control will lead to direct improvements in Operating efficiency and (b) work satisfaction may improve as a by-product of subordinates’ making full use of their resources (Steers & Porter, 1975, p. 17). In his Interaction-Influence System, Likert (1961) defined an organization as a human enterprise whose success depends on the coordinated efforts of its members. He pointed out several important characteristics and processes of any organization: 1. It has a structure. 2. It has observational and measurement processes through which information is collected about the internal state of the organization, the environment in which the organization is functioning, and the relationShip of the organization to this environment. 3. It has communication processes through which information flows. 4. It has decision-making processes. 5. It has action resources to carry out decisions, such as the personnel of the organization (skilled and unskilled) and the machinery, equipment, and energy they use. 30 6. It has influence processes. 7. It has attitudinal dimensions and motivational characteristics, such as the basic motivational forces it seeks to draw upon in using the efforts of its members and the degree of favorability or unfavorability of attitudes and loyalties toward the organization, its component parts, and its members. According to Likert (1961), these processes are interrelated and interdependent. Their nature is determined by the organizational theory used and the kinds of motivational forces harnessed by the organization. If the motivations used are largely punitive and rely on fear, unfavorable and hostile attitudes are produced. Such an organization must have communication and decision-making processes that allow it to cope with hostility, suSpicion, and resentment. If, on the other hand, the organizational theory and motivational forces are such that they lend themselves to favorable attitudes and a cooperative orientation on the part of organization members, the communication, decision- making, and control processes can be quite different (p. 178). The various processes of an organization, its management theory, and the motivations it taps are highly interdependent and must be consistent and compatible if the organization is to function reasonably well. These interdependent motivators and powers constitute an overall system that coordinates, integrates, and guides the activities of the organization and all its members (Likert, 1961, p. 179). 31 W. Equity theory has been the subject of many studies and helps in understanding the complexities of job satisfaction/dissatisfaction. In the last two decades, several writers have emphasized that people prefer to have interactions they perceive to be equitable. This notion leads to a special formulation of the discrepancy theory, which postulates that workers will be satisfied with their job when there is no discrepancy between its outcome and their belief about what is an equitable outcome if there is a discrepancy. Whenever outcomes are higher or lower than what is perceived to be equitable, people will be dissatisfied (Gilmer a Deci, 1977, pp. 233-34). Adams (cited in Deci, 1975) proposed that when one person is in an exchange relationship with another, the person will be concerned about what he puts into (inputs) and gets out of (outcomes) the relationship. Outcomes are all of the compensations a person receives from the relationship-~for example, money, comfort, independence, friendship, and personal satisfaction. Inputs are all of the things one brings to the situation, which he believes to be relevant; they include training, efforts, and material expenditures (p. 189). Adams argued that a person will evaluate his own ratio of outcomes to inputs and compare this to another person’s ratio. If the two ratios are unequal, the person will feel the inequity and will be motivated to reduce this lack of equality. Inequity will exist for a person both when he is overcompensated (e.g., when his ratio of outcomes to inputs is greater than the other’s) and when he 32 is undercompensated (e.g., when his ratio is less than the other’s) (Deci, 1975, p. 189). People will be satisfied when they think their own ratio of outcomes to inputs is the same as those of their employer and their fellow workers. None of the literature has referred to the employer as the one with whom a person compares his ratio of outcomes to inputs, but, of course, it is the employer who gives the compensation. Some writers have asserted that the heart of the equity matter is not a comparison Of one’s own ratio with that of others, but rather it is a comparison of one’s own outcomes to one’s own inputs. If peOple think they are getting as much out of the situation as they have put into it, in the form of effort and training, they will feel equitably compensated and thereby be satisfied with their jobs (Deci, 1975, p. 190). To avoid confusion, Deci (1975) used the term "other" to refer to the individual with whom the person is in a direct exchange interaction and the colleague, whether real or hypothetical, whom the person thinks is a suitable comparison. Hence, in a typical situation, a person believes his exchange with the other is either equitable or inequitable, depending in part on the comparison of his outcomes/inputs ratio with that of some other colleague (either real or imaginary). Adams (cited in Deci, 1975) mentioned that the person may also use an external standard as his comparison other. Pritchard (cited in Deci, 1975) elaborated on this point by defining an internal 33 standard as the amount of outcome the person perceives as being commensurate with his own inputs, without regard to any comparison person. He suggested that feelings Of inequity arise first and foremost from the correspondence between the person’s own inputs and outcomes. If one’s inputs are greater than his outcomes, he will experience inequity, which will lead to feelings of dissatisfaction. Similarly, if the individual’s outcomes are substantially greater than his inputs, he will experience inequity (Deci, 1975, pp. 190— 91). According to Adams (cited in Deci, 1975), when a state of inequity exists for a person, he will be motivated to bring about psychological equity (which may or’ may not coincide with some objective equity) in one or more of the following ways: (a) by changing his inputs, (b) by changing his outcomes, (c) by cognitively distorting his inputs or outcomes, (d) by leaving the field, (e) by acting on the other party, or (f) by using a different comparison other (i.e., a different other or different colleague). Further, the person will seek to reduce the inequity in such a way as to maximize his own outcomes (p. 191). mum ifi ' ' fi new Vroom (1967) stated that since Hoppock’s monograph on job satisfaction was published in 1935, a substantial amount of research has been conducted on this topic. Variables like job satisfaction, 34 employee attitudes, and morale have acquired an important place in the literature of industrial, vocational, and social psychology. The terms "job satisfaction" and “job attitudes” are used interchangeably. Both refer to individuals’ affective orientations toward work roles they are presently occupying. Positive attitudes toward the job are conceptually equivalent to job satisfaction, and negative attitudes toward the job are equivalent to job dissatisfac- tion. Job satisfaction, job attitudes, and morale are typically measured by means of interviews or questionnaires, in which workers are asked to state the degree to which they like or dislike various aspects of their work roles. The degree to which a person is satisfied with his job is inferred from his responses to one or more questions about how he feels about the job. Other more indirect methods have been developed, but they have not had very wide use (Vroom, 1967, pp. 99-100). The close association among the terms "job satisfaction,” ”job attitudes,” and ”morale" has made it difficult to find a standardized definition Of these terms in the pertinent literature. The difficulty in defining job satisfaction is related to the theoretical framework researchers have used when working on this tOpic. Some authors have worked on the basis of a general factor theory, whereas others have worked under the assumptions of the two- factor theory. 35 W Vroom (1967) reported that one way to make conceptual distinctions among various dimensions of attitudes toward or satisfaction with the work situation is to determine the amount of association among measures of these dimensions. Measures of people’s attitudes toward a large number of aspects of their work situation can be obtained and interrelated (p. 102). Vroom pointed out four possible explanations of the positive interrelations among different measures of satisfaction: 1. It is possible that certain individuals condition their reactions to different aspects of the work situation. One possibility' is that persons have developed different adaptation levels or standards of judgment as a result of the differences in their work situations. As a result of these differences, some people might be easily satisfied, reporting satisfaction if the work situation meets certain minimal requirements, whereas others have much higher expectations. 2. It is also possible that the positive interrelationships among measures of satisfaction are a result of response sets. On many satisfaction measures, a tendency to choose the first alternative, or to choose the ”yes" or "agree” response, results in higher scores, which indicate a higher level Of satisfaction. 3. A third possibility is that work situations providing one type of reward tend also to provide other types of rewards. For example, jobs for which workers are highly paid also tend to Offer a greater variety of stimulation, higher status, and many other 36 frequently mentioned sources of rewards. The positive correlations between a person’s satisfaction with different aspects of the work role may stem from the fact that the situational conditions determining these attitudes are associated with one another. 4. Finally, it is possible that measures of satisfaction with different aspects of the work role are associated because they are functionally interdependent. Changes in satisfaction with one aspect, e.g., supervision, may result in changed satisfaction with another aspect, e.g., the content of the work, and vice-versa. The research necessary to determine which of these explanations is correct has not yet been carried out. Since all of the explanations are plausible, it is possible that each is contributing to some of the variance among measures of satisfaction (Vroom, 1967, pp. 103-104). The Twe-Feetgr Thegry The Two-Factor Theory suggests that factors contributing to job satisfaction and those contributing to job dissatisfaction are not arranged on a conceptual continuum but are mutually exclusive. Herzberg hypothesized that some factors are satisfiers when present, but are not dissatisfiers when absent. Other factors are dissatisfiers; however, when they are eliminated as dissatisfiers, the result is not positive motivation. Herzberg’s research with accountants and engineers tended to confirm the existence of the satisfier/dissatisfier* phenomenon. He found that five factors (achievement, recognition, work itself, responsibility, and 37 advancement) tended to affect job attitudes in a positive direction. However, the absence of these factors did not necessarily result in job dissatisfaction. The absence of the 11 remaining factors led to employee dissatisfaction; however, the presence of these factors did not tend to lead to employee satisfaction. Herzberg (cited in Sergiovanni, 1969) observed that job factors that resulted in satisfaction were directly related to the work itself. Job factors that resulted in dissatisfaction tended to be related to the work environment (p. 249). In a review of industrial motivation studies, Herzberg (cited in Sergiovanni, 1969) observed that a difference in the primacy of work factors appeared, depending on whether the investigator was searching for factors leading to job satisfaction or factors leading to job dissatisfaction. This observation led to the notion that some factors in the work situation were satisfiers, whereas others were dissatisfiers (p. 249). Herzberg identified two levels of needs for his subjects: (a) hygienic needs (which tend to focus on the dissatisfaction factors identified in his study) and (b) satisfaction needs (which tend tO focus on the satisfaction factors identified). If hygienic needs are not met, the individual is unhappy. Provision for hygienic needs, however, does not insure increased motivation. The satisfaction needs have motivational potential, but they depend on reasonable satiation Of hygienic needs before they become operative (Sergiovanni, 1969, p. 250)- 38 Wm Herzberg et a1. (1959) reported that the economy is so variable that it would be foolish to predict its state when any study within industry is completed. The nation can be enjoying full employment, with nearly 100% use of plants and facilities, or it can be facing significant unemployment, underuse of industrial plants, and a shift of concern with problems of boredom and interest in material things to a concern about the serious social problems of unemployment and industrial crisis. Thus, industry seems to face a situation in which one effective way to expand productivity is to increase the efficiency of the individual at the job. The problem of people’s relationships with their work continues to be a basic one. Although the ebb and flow of the economy produces occasional periods of both over- and underemployment, the problem Of an individual’s attitudes toward the job remains constant. The payoff to industry for a study of job attitudes would be increased productivity, decreased turnover, decreased absenteeism, and smoother working relations. For the community, it might mean a decreased bill for psychological casualties and an increase in the overall productive capacity of industrial plants and in the proper use of human resources. An understanding of the forces that lead to improved morale would bring greater happiness and self-realization for the individual (Herzberg et al., 1959, pp. ix-xi). In the following pages, four studies related to job satisfaction in industry are discussed: the Hawthorne studies, the Herzberg study, and the Vroom study. 39 W The Hawthorne studies are discussed here because of their scope, significance, inclusiveness, and design (Blum & Naylor, 1968). They represent the most important research program undertaken to show the enormous complexity of the problem of production in relation to efficiency. The Hawthorne studies were conducted at the Western Electric Company over a period of 12 years, commencing in 1927. The most significant findings Of the Hawthorne studies are the fact that workers are affected by factors outside the job to an even greater extent than by those on the job itself, and that workers organize into informal social groups. These informal organizations take precedence over management-employee relations and determine production to as great an extent as do changes in the job environment (Blum & Naylor, 1968, p. 306). The Hawthorne studies showed the complex interrelationship among the various aspects of the job and demonstrated that changes in work environment, rest pauses, hours of work, hours in the work week, fatigue, monotony, incentives, employee attitudes, formal and informal employee organization, and employee-employer relations are all intimately related. If these aspects were considered separately, it would introduce artificiality and make the set-up unreal (Blum a Naylor, 1968, pp. 368-69). 40 W Even though the fOllowing discussion of Herzberg’s Two-Factor Theory is lengthy, it is necessary to explain the theory from the beginning in order to understand its significance. Herzberg et a1. (1959) reported that studies in which factors affecting workers’ attitudes toward their jobs were intensively investigated rarely included any data on the effects of these attitudes. Similarly, studies of effects of attitudes rarely included any data on the origin of these attitudes. In most cases in which either factors or effects were studied, inadequate information was given about the individuals concerned--their perceptions, their needs, and their patterns of learning. The primary idea that emerged was the necessity for an investigation of job attitudes in toto, a study in which factors, attitudes, and effects would be investigated simultaneously. The basic concept was that the factors-attitudes- effects (F-A-E) complex required study as a unit (Herzberg et al., 1959, p. 11). Herzberg et a1. called these ideas for a basic con- cept a new approach to the study of job satisfaction--the study of attitudes toward the job. To study the F-A-E complex, Herzberg et a1. selected the individual or ideographic approach. This approach starts with the premise that the relationship among the components of the F-A-E complex should be studied within individuals. That is, an attempt should be made to note, individual by individual, how given kinds of factors lead to high or low morale and the consequences Of the morale state as indicated by measures of various criteria. A likely 41 way of doing this is to obtain an account of periods of high or low morale from the individual. In obtaining such accounts, the researcher would be able to determine what occurs during those times that leads to higher or lower morale and what the reactions of the respondent are. Analyzing the reports of these cycles in an individual’s life would enable researchers to delineate the F-A-E complex (Herzberg et al., 1959, p. 12). After the pilot study, Herzberg et al. reported that the notion of the sequence of events as a unit, bounded in time, during which the individual characterizes his attitudes toward the job as being exceptionally positive or exceptionally negative, was central to the research design (p. 28). From respondents’ reports on this sequence of events, the F-A-E triad can be studied as a unitary system within which functional relationships among the components can be described. These relationships were to be derived from answers to questions asked in the interviews. The investigators reported first-level factors, second-level factors, and effects, which they defined as follows: First-level factors: The objective occurrences during the sequence of events, with special emphasis on those identified by the respondents as being related to their attitudes, such as a promotion. Second-level factors: The reasons given by respondents for their feelings; they may be used as a basis for inferences about the drives or needs that are met or that fail to be met during the 42 sequence of events, such as the following respondent’s answer: "I felt good because the promotion meant I was being recognized" (p. 28). Effects: In the study of effects, the sole change was the introduction of probe questions delving into attitudinal effects beyond the behavioral level involved in productivity, turnover, and interpersonal relations. An attempt was also made to specify the effects on mental health (p. 28). The study was conducted in Pittsburgh, which is a center for heavy industry, primarily the basic production and fabrication of metals. The sample included 203 accountants and engineers, whom the researchers considered two of the most important staff groups in modern history (p. 32). During the interview, a brief introduction was made to explain the nature of the study. The interviewer informed the respondents that he/she was primarily interested in hearing about actual experiences. Long- and short-range sequences of events were then defined. Respondents were told that they could start with any kind of story they liked, either a time when they felt exceptionally good or a time when they felt exceptionally bad about the job; it could be a long-range sequence of events or a short-range incident. After the first sequence was explored completely, the respondents were asked for a second sequence. This time they were given less freedom to choose the kind of story. The average number of sequences per respondent was 2.4. The course of the interview, as each sequence 43 was described, consisted of a search for the factors, both first- level and second-level, and the effects (p. 35). In content analysis, Herzberg et a1. attempted to isolate the ingredients in the attitude stories given by the respondents, in order to be able to compare different stories on the same variables. Consequently, they identified several first-level factors. These were recognition, achievement, possibility of growth, advancement, salary, interpersonal relations, supervision--technical responsibil- ity, company policy and administration, working conditions, work itself, factors in personal life, status, and job security (pp. 44- 49). The material analyzed for second-level factors came from respondents’ answers to the question, "What did these events mean to you?” (p. 49). Thus, the second-level factors identified were feelings of recognition; feelings Of achievement; feelings of possible growth; blocks to growth; first-level factors perceived as evidence of actual growth; feelings of responsibility, lack of responsibility, or diminished responsibility; group feelings, feelings of belonging or isolation, sociO-technical feelings, or purely social feelings; feelings of interest or lack of interest in the performance of the job; feelings of increased or decreased security; feelings of fairness or unfairness; feelings of pride or of inadequacy or guilt; and feelings about salary (p. 50). According to Herzberg et al., analysis of the effects was relatively simple because most of the effects were specified by the respondents in concrete terms. These effects were performance 44 effects, turnover, mental health effects, effects on interpersonal relationships, and attitudinal effects (p. 51). Herzberg et al. found that, Of the 16 first-level factors, only five (achievement, recognition, work itself, responsibility, and advancement) seemed to play an important role in increasing job satisfaction among the accountants and engineers in the sample. The major contributors to job dissatisfaction were the other 11 first- level factors previously mentioned, characterized as describing the context in which the job is performed. In comparing the motivation factors (satisfiers) and the hygiene factors (dissatisfiers), the investigators concluded that people tend to actualize themselves in every area of life. Their job is one of the most important areas. The conditions that surround the performance of their job cannot give them basic satisfaction because the conditions do not have that potential. It is only from the performance Of a task that individuals can gain the rewards that will reinforce their aspirations. It is clear that although the factors relating to job performance and those defining the job context serve as goals for the employee, the natures of the motivating qualities of these two kinds of factors are essentially different (p. 74). Factors within the job context meet individuals’ need to avoid unpleasant situations. In contrast to the motivation of meeting avoidance needs, job factors reward individuals’ need to reach their aspirations. The effects on individuals can be conceptualized as an 45 actuating approach rather than an avoidance behavior. It should be understood that both kinds of factors meet the needs of the employee, but it is primarily the motivators that serve to bring about the kind of job satisfaction and the kind of improvement in performance that industry is seeking from the workforce (p. 78). ]he Vreeh Study Vroom (cited in Blum 8 Naylor, 1968) examined the relationship between job satisfaction and various aspects of job behavior. He categorized studies in terms of which job behaviors were correlated with job satisfaction. Specifically, Vroom grouped the investigations into studies of turnover, absenteeism, accidents, and job performance. All seven studies that Vroom examined relating job satisfaction to turnover indicated there was a negative relationship between the two. That is, the higher a worker’s satisfaction, the less apt the individual was to leave the job (p. 373). In addition, there was a consistent negative relationship between job satisfaction and the probability of resignation, a less consistent negative relationship between job satisfaction and absenteeism, some indication Of a negative relationship between job satisfaction and accidents, and no simple relationship between job satisfaction and Job performance (p. 375). W A basic principle in motivation theory is that people invest themselves in work so as to obtain desired returns or rewards. Examples of that investment include time, physical energy. mental 46 energy, creativity, knowledge, skill, enthusiasm, and effort. Returns or rewards can take a variety of tangible and intangible forms, including money, respect, comfort, a sense of accomplishment, social acceptance, and security. It is useful to categorize expressions of investment in work as (a) participation investment or (b) perfOrmance investment (Sergiovanni & Elliott, 1975, pp. 138- 39). W In 1980, Abreu conducted a study of job satisfaction of faculty members of schools of education in three Michigan universities that granted doctoral degrees. The primary purpose of Abreu’s research was to determine the importance of Herzberg’s intrinsic factors in contributing to job satisfaction Of the faculty' members in the sample. The data were collected by means of a questionnaire designed by the researcher. The second purpose was to determine the importance of Herzberg’s extrinsic factors in contributing to job dissatisfaction of these faculty members. The third purpose was to develop (a) a general job satisfaction index for the faculty members of schools of education in the three universities and (b) a general job satisfaction index for the faculty members of each school. Abreu used Herzberg’s intrinsic factors of Work Itself, Responsibility, Achievement, Advancement, and Recognition to analyze job satisfaction. He found a significant relationship between these factors and the participating faculty members’ reactions to items expressing job satisfaction. Abreu also included as satisfiers 47 General Satisfaction and Leaving the University. These two vari- ables were not among Herzberg’s intrinsic factors. Abreu found a significant relationship between Herzberg’s extrinsic factors of Salary, Job Security, Possibility of Growth, Institutional Policy, Working Conditions, Interpersonal Relations, Status, Technical Supervision, and Personal Life and faculty members’ reactions to items expressing job dissatisfaction. The study findings also supported the relationship between feelings of job satisfaction/dissatisfaction and the concept of investment, on the assumption that people invest themselves in work so as to obtain desired intrinsic and extrinsic returns or rewards. The findings supported Herzberg’s Two-Factor Theory and demonstrated that the theory is applicable to faculty members at institutions Of higher education. W Reagan (1985) conducted a study of job satisfaction of college of education faculty at three research universities in Michigan following a period Of major resource decline (1979 through 1984). The study was based on the premise that Herzberg’s Two-Factor Theory can be used in assessing perceptions of job satisfaction by college and university faculty during a period of major resource decline. Reagan’s purpose was to identify and describe how the introduction Of a new variable, resource decline, into the work environment has influenced faculty members’ perceptions of factors leading to job satisfaction and dissatisfaction. 48 The researcher duplicated Abreu’s population and sites. The participating institutions were the University of Michigan, Michigan State University, and Wayne State University. The researcher collected data with a questionnaire designed by Abreu, which she sent to all full-time faculty who held the positions of assistant professor, associate professor, or professor and who were teaching fall term 1984. Reagan reported that "no statistically significant differences were found in faculty perceptions of Herzberg’s intrinsic variables leading to job satisfaction between 1979 and 1984 in spite of five years of major decline” (p. 254). She also concluded that the respondents . were generally more dissatisfied with their relationships with superiors in their colleges and with the pressure they were receiving to publish than they had been in 1979. They did, however, report substantially lower levels Of dissatisfaction with the amount of job security their positions afforded them in 1984. (p. 256) w' ud Swierenga (1970) conducted a study of job satisfaction and job dissatisfaction based on investigations carried out in business and industry, to determine whether Herzberg’s Two-Factor Theory of job satisfaction/job dissatisfaction is applicable to faculty members teaching at a university. The respondents for this study included 214 full-time faculty members who were teaching at a large midwest- ern university during the 1969-70 academic year. A 46-item ques- tionnaire was used to Obtain the data for the study. Only the 49 first-level factors defined by Herzberg were included in the instru- ment. The findings Of Swierenga’s study seemed to support the hypothesis that job satisfaction and job dissatisfaction are not at opposite ends of the same continuum measuring job satisfaction, but rather represent two separate but related continua. The results suggested that one set of factors, when present, tends to increase job satisfaction; however, if these factors are missing or lacking, they do not necessarily lead to job dissatisfaction. Evidence from other studies has suggested that increased job satisfaction leads to improved performance, whereas job dissatisfaction leads to decreased performance, increased absenteeism, and higher turnover. [he Borlehd Stgdy Borland (1970) conducted a study to analyze the formal system of individual rewards at Indiana University. The researcher obtained faculty members’ and academic administrators’ perceptions of the policies, practices, and contingencies Of the formal faculty reward system. Full-time faculty members holding academic ranks of professor, associate professor, and assistant professor, as well as deans and department Chairpersons, in colleges that enrolled both undergraduate and graduate students (Colleges of Arts and Sciences, Business, Education, Recreation, and Music) participated in the study. The formal individual rewards used were salary, promotion, tenure, sabbatical leave, and allocation of professional duties. 50 Data for the analysis of the reward system were collected through personal interviews with the participants. The first part of the interview sought personal and professional information about the interviewee. The second part concerned the proportion of time faculty members spent performing various functions related to their positions. The final part Of the interview was designed to elicit responses concerning perceptions about the Operational goals of the university and about the formal rewards for individual faculty members. As a result of the research, Borland concluded that: l. The operational goals of the university were the professional and personal goals of the faculty. The greatest amount of faculty' members’ time was spent in research/publishing activities, and faculty desired more time for these activities. 2. Influence on faculty behavior regarding academic matters depended on the lower organizational level, in which the commonality of goals was perceived. 3. The university, as a social organization, was found to be a federation of autonomous units regarding academic matters and a bureaucracy regarding financial matters. 4. The only manner whereby the university as a whole could have formal influence on the behavior of its faculty members was through its fiscal relationship with them. 51 lheteenitudx In 1973, Leon replicated the Herzberg et al. study with a sample of college and university faculty. He posed the following three research questions: 1. In keeping with the Two-Factor Theory, are motivators the main contributors to job satisfaction among college professors and hygienes the main contributors to job dissatisfaction of professors? Or, is any factor capable of contributing to either job satisfaction or dissatisfac- tion for college professors? 2. Will the arrangement of factors be different when using two different methods of data gathering? 3. What is the relationship of motivators and hygiene factors to the satisfaction and dissatisfaction of college profes- sors? . Two instruments were used in this study. The first was designed to duplicate Herzberg’s methodology and to determine whether the Two-Factor Theory of job satisfaction was applicable to college professors. The second instrument was designed to determine whether a different method of gathering data would yield disparate results, as Herzberg’s critics have contended. Herzberg’s methodology was replicated with two modifications. First, respondents were asked to write their two experiences rather than to state them orally, as had been done in the semi-structured interviews used by Herzberg. The second modification was to concentrate only on the 16 first-level factors, in order to focus on objective happenings rather than on subjective interpretations of the first-level factors. Two sets of matched samples of college professors were used in the study. Each sample included 250 professors from selected state 52 colleges and universities in Oklahoma, Arkansas, Missouri, and Kansas. The first sample was subjected to the Herzberg methodology, whereas the alternate methodology was used with the second sample. The results with both methods showed that college professors were basically satisfied with their jobs when their efforts were recognized by someone, when they thought they had accomplished something, and when their jobs were interesting and challenging. College professors in both samples were dissatisfied when they were led by someone whom they considered to be an incompetent supervisor, when they were victims of what they considered poor college policies and administration, when they had poor interpersonal relationships with their superiors, when their salary was poor, when they worked in what they considered to be a poor environment, and when they believed their job security was threatened. The findings showed that the Two-Factor Theory of job satisfaction is applicable to college professors. It was also shown that when care is taken to interpret the theory prOperly and to conform to the theory definition Of factors, an alternative methodology will yield results that support the validity of the theory. The findings also suggested that some of the different results obtained by researchers using diverse methods to test the validity of the theory have been largely a result of varying factor definition. Such limitations result in overlapping definitions of factors that are basically similar in nature. 53 W Velez (1972) conducted research on faculty members’ satisfaction and/ or dissatisfaction with intrinsic and extrinsic job factors. The sample comprised faculty members from universities in Colombia. One of the problems discussed in Velez’s study was the brain drain of Colombian professionals. It has been estimated that between 10,000 and 15,000 college graduates left the country between 1955 and 1968; this means that 15% to 20% of the population who held university degrees left the country in that period. Velez stated that one of the most serious problems facing Colombian universities was retention of qualified professionals. The purpose of Velez’s research was to determine faculty members’ attitudes toward their work situation. He designed a questionnaire based on Herzberg’s Two-Factor Theory of job satisfaction/dissatisfaction. Twenty percent of the faculty in 37 Colombian universities were randomly selected to complete the questionnaire. Velez found that faculty from private universities appeared more satisfied than (their counterparts in departmental (i.e., state) and national universities. The most important satisfiers cited by Colombian academicians were growth and advancement. W Lopez (1984) conducted a study of the job satisfaction of Mexican American female administrators in higher education. The population for the study included 147 women in seven southwestern 54 states. Lopez’s purpose was to evaluate job-satisfaction expectations and experiences of Mexican American women in higher education administration and the relationship of these factors to the work environment. A secondary purpose was to collect demographic data on Mexican American administrators. To collect the data, Lopez used Hulin and Blood’s Job Descriptive Index, Wanus and Lawler’s Job Facets, Gilchrist and Browning’s Climate Factors, Lopez’s Survey of Mexican American Women in Higher Education, and Patchen’s Job Involvement Questionnaire. The major findings of the study were as follows: 1. The integration of Mexican Americans into higher education administration has been minimal. 2. Mexican Americans were found to be holding primarily middle-management positions (directors and coordinators) and were implementors rather than creators or executors of programs. 3. The factors having a statistically significant effect on job satisfaction for these administrators were primarily political in nature. 4. While expressing satisfaction with their current positions, administrators’ expectations of future promotion into institutional decision-making levels were low. 5. A negative linear relationship was found between the discrepancy variable (resulting level of satisfaction between perceived equitable rewards and actual rewards) and three job- related variables (overall job satisfaction, job involvement, and 55 organizational climate), supporting the idea that the less individuals perceive discrepancies between their expectations and the reality of the organization, the more favorable will be their attitudes toward work. 5.0mm Individuals must work to satisfy their basic needs, such as food and shelter. Economic rewards are necessary, but individuals work for reasons other than economic ones. ‘These reasons are to satisfy psychological needs, the desire to be self-sufficient, and to achieve. People also contribute their knowledge and expertise to meet the goals of a social organization. If this organization provides a working environment that allows individuals to grow and develop their potential, assume responsibility, and participate in decision making, they will achieve self-realization. Individuals develop positive, negative, or ambivalent attitudes toward their jobs, depending on the experiences they have within the context of the social organization where they work. Taylor, the father of the scientific management movement, used several analytical techniques to study ways to assign the right individual to the right job. We included two main concepts: (a) orderliness and stability and (b) authority based on capability. In contrast to Taylor’s view of money as the primary motivator, need theory, postulated by Maslow in 1954, states that people work to satisfy a hierarchy of needs and that money can satisfy only a few of these needs. Once basic physiological needs are satisfied, 56 more abstract necessities emerge. Herzberg designed the Motivation- Hygiene Theory to test the concept that people have two sets of needs: the need as an animal to avoid pain and the need as a human to grow psychologically. The factors involved in producing job satisfaction have been found to be separate and distinct from those leading to job dissat- isfaction. These two feelings are not the obverse of each other. Thus, the opposite of job satisfaction is not job dissatisfaction, but rather no job satisfaction; similarly, the Opposite of job dissatisfaction is no job dissatisfaction, not satisfaction with one’s job. McGregor postulated Theory X and Theory Y based on two funda- mental principles: (a) The assumption that peOple have to be coerced and controlled, assumed by proponents of Theory X, implies that most peOple dislike work and will try to avoid it if possible. (b) Theory Y postulates that most people are not lazy; they are self-directed and under favorable working conditions will achieve their own goals and those of their organizations. This humanistic approach assumes that all employees have the potential to grow and to assume responsibility. According to the human-resources theory, the individual is a reservoir of potential talent, and management’s responsibility is to discover the possibilities in their employees. The equity theory states that people prefer to have interactions that they perceive are equitable. Adams postulated that when one person is in an exchange relationship with another, the person will be concerned 57 about what he puts into (inputs) and what he gets out of (outcomes) the relationship. Other authors have argued that the heart of the equity matter is not a comparison Of one’s own ratio to another’s ratio, but rather it is a comparison Of one’s own output to one’s own inputs. A brief review of important studies conducted in industry, such as the Hawthorne studies, provided a better understanding of job attitudes and the ieffects that working conditions have on productivity, 'turnoverg and absenteeism. Managers’ and adminis- trators’ views about their employees may have a negative or positive effect on how well they use their human resources or hinder their growth and self-realization. Many people consider education an investment. This in itself can be a motivator. The assumption is that people invest in themselves in order to Obtain desired returns or rewards. People invest energy, effort, time, creativity, skills, knowledge, and enthusiasm. Returns or rewards can be tangible or intangible, such as money, respect, comfort, a sense of accomplishment, social acceptance, and security. People’s investments have been categorized as (a) participation and (b) performance. Many authors have recognized that the rewards teachers Obtain for their partici- pation and performance are the factors that lead to teachers’ job satisfaction and dissatisfaction. Numerous scholars have conducted research to support Herzberg’s Two-Factor Theory. Findings from such research have supported the 58 proposition that the Two-Factor Theory can be applied successfully to the study of job satisfaction Of college faculty members, in this case Hispanic faculty and administrators. CHAPTER III RESEARCH DESIGN AND PROCEDURES Intmdustion The research design and procedures that were followed in carrying out the study are discussed in this chapter. Background on Hispanics in the United States is given first. The population for the study is then described. Next, the research questions for the study are restated. The instrument used in the study is described, as are the in-depth interviews. The data-analysis procedures are also discussed. r n s d Limited empirical data exist on Hispanic academicians and administrators. Even though Hispanics have lived in some parts Of the United States since the sixteenth century, it is only recently that large numbers of Hispanics have joined the ranks of educators in institutions of higher education (Diaz, 1984, p. 16). Hispanics made the earliest and major contributions to education in the United States and the Third World (heh_§heye1epedie mm, 1974, pp. 132-33, 230-31). They are a heterogeneous, multi-racial group who designate themselves as Mexican, Mexican American, Chicano, Puerto Rican, Cuban, Central American (this includes Nicaraguan, Costa Rican, Salvadorean, Hondurean, Dominican, 59 60 Panamanian, and Guatemalan), South American (this includes Argentinian, Chilean, Colombian, Equadorean, Peruvian, Bolivian, Paraguayan, Uruguayan, and Venezuelan), and Spaniard. The U.S. Bureau of the Census reported 14.6 million Hispanics living in the United States in 1980, 6.4% of the total population. By 1985, the Hispanic population in the United States had increased to 16.9 million (Diaz, 1983, p. 40). Although Hispanics come from different racial and socioeconomic backgrounds, most demographic data refer to them as distinct from whites and blacks. In 1981, the median family income for Hispanics was $16,401, lower than the $23,517 for white families but higher than the $13,266 median income for black families (Diaz, 1983, p. 40). Hispanics are experiencing difficulty with educational attainment at the elementary and secondary levels. In 1983, the approximate high school dropout rate among Hispanics was 37.4% (Diaz, 1983, p. 40). In contrast, in 1985, the total number of high school dropouts 14 to 24 years Old was 10.6% of the general population (Snyder, 1987, p. 86). According to the most current research on Hispanic academicians and college administrators, postsecondary Hispanic faculty have made little progress in achieving proportional representation. In 1979, Hispanics represented 1.5% of the faculty in postsecondary education. Whites filled 91% of these positions and blacks 4.3%. The percentages for executive, administrative, and managerial posts were about the same; 90% Of these positions were filled by 61 whites, 7.4% by blacks, and 1.4% by Hispanics (Wilson a Melendez, 1985, pp. 5-10). A 1983 report by the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) (cited in Wilson & Melendez, 1985) revealed that the number of full-time faculty positions that were available had increased by 5.5% since 1977.’ Minorities benefited only slightly from that increase. The number of Asians holding full-time positions grew by 3.5%--from 11,917 in 1977 to 16,398 in 1983. These increases occurred at public and private two- and four-year institutions. The number of Hispanic faculty increased by just l.8%--from 6,606 in 1977 to 8,311 in 1983. This group achieved larger gains in teaching positions at two-year private institutions. In several states with large Hispanic populations, such as New Mexico, Arizona, and California, the number of Hispanic faculty members decreased (Wilson 8 Melendez, 1985, pp. 13-14). It should be noted that the general characteristics of the Hispanic population in the United States do not necessarily pertain to the population for this study. nf‘ in fth ud oul' In fall 1987, the researcher telephoned officials of the Big Ten universities to determine how many female Hispanic faculty mem- bers held dual appointments as professors and chairpersons or any other administrative positions. In May 1988, officials of these universities were again contacted in an attempt to determine how many full-time Hispanic faculty and administrators were employed in 62 their institutions. Some officials asked fer a written request from the researcher before they would release information on the number of Hispanic faculty and administrators working at their institu- tions. Officials of the Big Ten universities provided information on the number of Hispanic faculty and administrators working at their institutions in 1987. These data were contained in the EEOC Report for 1987. However, the Officials declined to release the names of Hispanic faculty and administrators. Because ethnic identification was crucial to this study, the researcher undertook a long and arduous search to Obtain the necessary information. Faculty and administrators with Spanish surnames were selected. This selection process imposed a limitation on the study because not all of the individuals with Spanish surnames were actually Hispanic. The 1987 EEOC Report (see Appendix A) on the Big Ten universities revealed that the total number of tenured and tenure- track faculty was 18,784, of whom 182 (.96%) were Hispanics. The total number of individuals in executive, administrative, and managerial positions was 5,584; of that number, 39 (.69%) were Hispanics. The total number of administrative/professional non- faculty was 31,500, of whom 420 (1.33%) were Hispanics. We The study group included all 185 Hispanic faculty and administrators identified in the Big Ten universities who met the following criteria for selection: Hispanic faculty and 63 administrators were to be tenured, on track or not yet tenured and not on tenure track, and employed full time as (a) full professors, (b) associate professors, (c) assistant professors, or (d) instructors. The Hispanic administrators were to be any Of the fOllowing: (a) Vice-President, (6) Assistant Vice-President, (c) Dean, (d) Assistant Dean, (e) Director, (f) Chairperson, (9) Supervisor, or (h) Manager. W 1. To what extent do Hispanic faculty and administrators perceive Herzberg’s intrinsic factors as contributing to job satisfaction within their organizations? 2. To what extent do Hispanic faculty and administrators perceive Herzberg’s extrinsic factors as contributing to job dissatisfaction within their organizations? 3. TO what extent do Hispanic faculty and administrators participate in Hispanic affairs and the Hispanic community? 4. To what extent do Hispanic faculty and administrators perceive institutional policies as contributing to their job dissatisfaction within the organization? 5. Is there a statistically significant relationship between respondents’ general satisfaction and Herzberg’s intrinsic factors? 6. Is there a statistically significant relationship between respondents’ general dissatisfaction and various components of Herzberg’s extrinsic factors? 64 7. Is there a statistically significant relationship between respondents’ participation or nonparticipation in Hispanic affairs and the Hispanic community and Herzberg’s intrinsic factors? 8. Is there a statistically significant relationship between respondents’ involvement in Hispanic affairs on campus and their being a role model for Hispanic students? 9. What reasons do reSpondents give for wanting to leave or stay at the universities during the next three years? 10. Is there a statistically significant relationship between respondents’ gender and their tenure status? 11. 00 Hispanic faculty and administrators foresee a chance for advancement or an administrative leadership position in their institutions? 12. Have Hispanic faculty and administrators obtained adequate recognition for their achievements in their institutions? mm A survey questionnaire developed by Abreu (1980) to test Herzberg’s Two-Factor Theory was adapted and revised for this study. The survey included open- and closed-ended questions designed to measure Hispanic faculty and administrators’ attitudes regarding job satisfaction and job dissatisfaction. Demographic data were also sought. A panel of five judges with expertise in school administration and behavioral sciences determined the content validity of Abreu’s questionnaire. (The questionnaire used in this study is contained in Appendix B.) 65 Distribuflmuhuuestjmajres On January 28, 1989, 225 survey questionnaires were mailed to the individuals who were thought to meet the criteria for inclusion in the study. Included with the survey were a cover letter, a letter of support from the chairman of the researcher’s doctoral committee (see Appendix B), and a stamped return envelope. A duplicate questionnaire was mailed on February 15, 1989, to individuals who had not returned the survey by the date requested in the cover letter. Thirty-five questionnaires were returned by non- Hispanics (e.g., Brazilians, Philippinos, Portuguese, Italians, and American females whose married names were Hispanic) and thus were eliminated from further consideration; the researcher also learned that five of the individuals to whom questionnaires had been mailed were on sabbatical leave, had resigned, or had died. Thus, the net number of questionnaires sent was 185. Of that number, 126 usable instruments that met the study criteria were returned, for a 68.1% response rate. Babbie (1973, p. 165) estimated that a 50% response rate would be adequate, 60% good, and 70% very good. Thus, the overall return rate for this study was considered very satisfactory. The rate of return Of usable questionnaires by university is shown in Table 3.1. 66 Table 3.1.--Rate of return of usable questionnaires, by university. Net Number of Number of University Questionnaires Questionnaires Percent Sent Returned Return RR 22 13 59.09 TT 16 11 68.75 22 13 9 69.20 XX 18 11 61.0 88 24 14 58.3 LL 24 22 91.6 YY 7 4 57.1 CC 24 19 79.2 JJ 16 10 62.5 Q0 21 13 61.9 Total 185 126 6 .1 Rersenal_1n;de2th_1nterx1eus Quantitative data were supplemented with qualitative data gathered through in-depth interviews with selected respondents (see Appendix C for a copy of the interview schedule). Some researchers have concurred on the importance of using qualitative data to understand what peOple are attempting to accomplish at their institutions. Ibrahim (1989) asserted that: The use of open ended items to supplement closed ended items provides the means to gather both qualitative and quantitative data. . . . In order to elicit detailed and comprehensive information it is recommended that questionnaire surveys be supplemented with personal interviews. Personal interviews can be incorporated as part of the survey or as a follow up at a later stage. The adoption of the latter method may include interviewing a sample of the original respondents. (p. 175) A stratified sampling technique (Raymond, 1980) was followed to select participants for the personal interviews. Borg and Gall (1976) noted that: 67 It is desirable to select a sample in such a way that the research worker is assured that certain subgroups in the population will be represented in the sample in proportion to their numbers in the population itself. Such samples are usually referred to as stratified or representative samples. [Use of] stratified sampling procedures assures the research worker that his sample will be representative of the population in terms of certain critical factors that have been used by the research worker as a basis for stratification, and also assures hint of adequate cases for subgroup analysis. (p. 121) In choosing the sites and participants for these in-depth, semi-structured interviews, the three universities with the greatest number of responses to the questionnaire were first selected. Once the three universities had been chosen, participants from those universities were categorized as follows, based on their questionnaire responses: (a) those with the highest percentage Of satisfaction, 4(b) those with the highest percentage of dissatisfaction, and (c) those with the highest percentage of "undecided'I or ”neither" responses. . A random sample was selected (using random number tables) from three categories Of participants: (a) satisfied, (b) dissatisfied, and (c) neither satisfied nor dissatisfied. During the selection process, the researcher chose more than three participants from each of the universities selected, in case someone declined to participate in the interviews. All Of the participants contacted by telephone agreed to participate; hence there was no need to contact the alternate choices. A letter of consent was presented to the participants for their approval and signature (see Appendix D). The letter assured them 68 that their participation was voluntary and that their responses to the interview would be kept confidential and anonymous. Wm This study was primarily descriptive in nature. Hopkins (1976, p. 135) said that descriptive research is concerned with those questions that can best be answered by studying the way things are. Data-analysis procedures included calculation of frequencies and percentages. Whenever possible and appropriate, a chi-square test was used to determine whether a statistically significant relationship existed between certain variables. Qualitative data were gathered to supplement the quantitative data. Responses to the open-ended questions were coded for quantification. The results of the interviews were evaluated using content analysis. ummar Hispanic faculty and administrators at the Big Ten universities were the population for this study. Respondents who were not employed full time in 1987 and did not meet the definition of Hispanic were excluded from the study. The 32-item survey questionnaire and in-depth interviews were used to collect the quantitative and qualitative data. The questionnaire was pretested and validated by Abreu (1980) and revised for this study. The data- analysis procedures included calculation of frequencies and percentages. Also, a chi-square test was used to determine whether a statistically significant relationship existed between certain variables. 69 Results of the analysis Of data from the questionnaire and interviews are presented in Chapter IV. CHAPTER IV PRESENTATION OF THE DATA Introduction The primary purpose of this study was to examine the conditions contributing to job satisfaction and dissatisfaction among Hispanic faculty and administrators in the Big Ten universities, as perceived by those individuals. In addition, the researcher attempted to determine the extent to which Hispanic faculty and administrators perceived themselves as participating in the decision-making processes in their units, as part of their academic and administrative responsibilities. Finally, the writer examined the effect that institutional policies and practices have had on Hispanic faculty and administrators in the Big Ten universities, as perceived by those individuals. In this chapter, the study findings are presented in two sections. In the first section, the respondents are described in relation to selected demographic variables: gender, university, track category (not on track, on track but not tenured, and tenured), academic title, and ethnic background. The second section contains findings related to the research questions. The data far this study were gathered from July 1988 through June 1989 from Affirmative Action officials at the Big Ten 70 71 universities and through a survey questionnaire developed by Abreu (1980) and adapted by this researcher. Two hundred twenty-five questionnaires were mailed in January and February 1989 to faculty and administrators in the Big Ten universities who were identified as being of Hispanic origin. 0f the 225 people who were sent surveys, 35 turned out to be non-Hispanic (Philippine, Portuguese, Italian, or American women whose spouses had a Hispanic surname) and 5 were on sabbatical leave, had resigned, or had died. Thus, the valid number of questionnaires sent out was 185, of which 126 (68.1%) were completed and returned. ra i n O h R 0 Of the 126 respondents who were involved in this study, 97 (76.8%) were males and 29 (23.2%) were females. The respondents ranged in age from 28 to 66 years old. In terms of the highest degree attained by the respondents, 81 (64.3%) had doctorates, 18 (14.3%) had master’s degrees, 1 (0.8%) had a specialist degree, and 26 (20.6%) had other qualification levels. The distribution of respondents by discipline was fairly even; 12 (9.5%) were in the medical field, 27 (21.4%) in natural sciences, 43 (34.1%) in social sciences and education, and 40 (31.7%) in arts and letters or law. Four respondents (3.2%) did not indicate their discipline. Table 4.1 shows the distribution Of respondents by university and gender. As shown in the table, 22 (17.6%) respondents were from LL, 19 (15.2%) from CC, 14 (11.2%) from BB, 13 (10.4%) from RR, 13 (10.4%) from QQ, and the remaining 44 (35.2%) were from ll, 22, XX, 72 JJ, and YY. The majority of respondents from each university were males; in fact, all of the participants from CC were males. As well, 10 (90%) respondents from ll, 12 (85.7%) from 88, 7 (77.8%) from JJ, and 10 (76.0%) from RR were males. Among the universities with a larger representation of females were XX (5 or 45.5%), 22 (4 or 44.4%), and LL (7 or 31.8%). Table 4.l.--Distribution of respondents by university and gender. Male Female Total Universitya -——-——-—— -——————— n % n % n % RR 10 76.9 3 23.1 13 10.4 T1 10 90.9 1 9.1 11 8.8 22 ‘ 5 55.6 4 44.4 9 7.0 XX 6 54.5 5 45.5 11 8.3 88 12 85.7 2 14.3 14 11.2 LL 15 68.2 7 31.8 22 17.6 YY 3 75.0 1 25.0 4 3.2 CC 19 100.0 - -- 19 15.2 JJ 7 77.8 2 22.2 9 7.2 00 9 69.2 4 30.8 13 10.4 Total 96 76.8 29 23.2 125 100.0 aLetter designations were assigned to protect anonymity. Respondents were asked to indicate whether they were not on track, on track but not tenured, or tenured. Of the 123 respondents who indicated their track category, 27 (21.8%) were not on track, 32 (25.8%) were on track but not tenured, and 64 (51.6%) were tenured. 73 Table 4.2 shows the distribution of respondents by university and track category. As shown in the table, respondents from all universities represented each Of the track categories, with the exception of TT, where none of the respondents were not on track, and YY, where no respondents were in the on track but not tenured category. Concerning representation in the tenured category, 3 (75.0%) respondents from YY were tenured, whereas 10 (71.4%) from 88, 6 (66.7%) from 22, 7 (63.6%) from TT, 8 (61.5%) from RR, and 11 (52.4%) from LL were tenured. Six of the schools had at least 50% of their Hispanic respondents in tenured positions. Table 4.2.--Distribution of respondents by university and track category. Not on On Track, Track Not Tenured Tenured Total University ———- —-—— —-—-—— n % n % n % n % RR 3 23.1 2 15.4 8 61.5 13 10.5 TT - -- 4 36.4 7 63.6 11 8.0 22 2 22.2 1 11.1 6 66.7 9 7.3 XX 3 27.3 4 36.4 4 36.4 11 8.9 88 2 14.3 2 14.3 10 71.4 14 11.3 LL 5 23.8 5 23.8 11 52.4 21 16.9 YY 1 25.0 - -- 3 75.0 4 3.2 CC 3 15.8 8 42.1 7 36.8 18 15.3 JJ 3 33.3 2 22.2 4 44.4 9 7.2 00 5 38.5 4 30.8 4 30.8 13 10.5 Total 27 21.8 32 25.8 64 51.6 123 100.0 74 Respondents were also asked to indicate whether they were a full professor, an associate professor, an assistant professor, or an instructor. Of the 124 respondents who indicated their academic rank, 35 (28.2%) were full professors, 29 (23.4%) were associate professors, 33 (29.6%) were assistant professors, 9 (7.3%) were instructors, and 18 (14.5%) had other titles. The distribution of respondents by university and academic title is shown in Table 4.3. None of the respondents from RR, TT, 88, LL, or YY were instructors. Of the 35 full professors who responded, 8 (57.8%) were from 88, 5 (22.7%) from LL, 4 (21.1%) from CC, 4 (30.8%) from QQ, and 4 (44.4%) from JJ. Table 4.4 shows the distribution of respondents by academic title and gender. As shown in the table, Of the 35 full professors who participated in this study, 31 (88.6%) were males and 4 (11.4%) were females. Similarly, 27 (93.1%) Of the associate professors, 20 (60.6%) of the assistant professors, and 4 (44.4%) of the instructors were males. Respondents were asked to indicate their ethnic background (Mexican American, Mexican, Puerto Rican, Cuban, Spanish, Central American, or South American). All 126 respondents reported their ethnic background; 32 (25.4%) were Mexican Americans, 11 (8.7%) Mexicans, 15 (11.9%) Puerto Ricans, 10 (7.9%) Cubans, 18 (14.3%) Spanish, 7 (5.6%) Central Americans, and 33 (26.2%) South Americans. Table 4.5 shows the distribution of respondents by ethnic background and gender. All 11 Mexican respondents were males; likewise, 24 75 o.oo— N? m.: 2 mg m MEN 8 «AN mN NNN mm .3: fl .2: N n.2, . 3N m -- - «.8 e NN m N.NN N 7: P n: P n: P .1: e 9.: 2 3: N 3. P fiNe N :N e :N e N.m s -- - -- - 3N F SN P 0.8 N 5: NN N.NN o -- - N.NN a N.NN m N.NN m R: S Q: N : - «:3 N n: N :m a Q S -- - 9.8 N 0.8 e 0.2 F 0.8 N 2 o n: P e: P N.NN N I; e T: F New : ta P -- - N.NN m 9% e 3 F 3: 2 #2 N -- - 3N m mam m 3N m a c a c a c _x = a = a e Peach segue seposcumcm Lommmeoea Commute»; eommmeogm acaamwmm< mu~_uomm< —P=d .mpu_u UNEmomua use zapmew>Fc= an mucmucoamoe mo =o_a=nvcumw punch cc aa uu >> 44 mm xx NN hp mm »»_meo>w=: a--.m.e anee 76 (75%) of the Mexican Americans, 9 (60.0%) of the Puerto Ricans, 7 (70.0%) of the Cubans, 15 (83.3%) of the Spaniards, 5 (71.4%) of the Central Americans, and 26 (78.8%) of the South Americans were males. Table 4.4.--Distribution Of respondents by academic title and gender. Male Female Total Academic Title ______. __ ..__._._____ n % n % n % Full professor 31 88.6 4 11.4 35 28.0 Associate professor 27 93.1 2 6.9 29 23.2 Assistant professor 20 60.6 13 39.4 33 26.4 Instructor 4 44.4 5 55.6 9 7.2 Other 15 78.9 4 21.1 19 15.2 Total 97 77.6 28 22.4 125 100.0 Table 4.5.--Distribution Of respondents by ethnic background and gender. Male Female Total Ethnic Background -——————- -———-——— -—————————- n % n % n % South American 26 78.8 7 21.2 33 26.2 Mexican American 24 75.0 8 25.0 32 25.4 Spaniard 15 83.3 3 16.7 18 14 3 Puerto Rican 9 60.0 6 40.0 15 11.9 Mexican 11 100.0 - -- 11 8.7 Cuban 7 70.0 3 30.0 10 7.9 Central American 5 71.4 2 28.5 7 5 6 Total 97 77.0 29 23.2 126 100.0 ___ 77 The distribution of respondents by track category and gender was similar to that for academic title and gender (see Table 4.6). The majority of respondents (64 or 51.2%) were tenured. However, Of the 64 respondents who were tenured, 58 (90.6%) were males and just 6 (9.4%) were females. On the other hand, of the 28 respondents who were not on track, 17 (60.7%) were males and 11 (39.3%) were females. Twenty (62.5%) males and 12 (37.5%) females were on track but not tenured. Table 4.6.--Distribution Of reSpondents by track category and gender. Male Female Total Track Category -———————- -————————- -————————— n % n %. n % Tenured 58 90.6 6 9.4 64 51.2 On track, not tenured 20 62.5 12 37.5 32 25.6 . Not on track 17 60.7 11 39.3 28 22.4 Total 95 76.8 29 23.2 124 100.0 To get an idea about the economic status of the study participants, respondents were asked to indicate the range of their individual annual income. Of the 123 respondents who indicated their annual income, 1 (0.8%) received $15,000 to $19,999, 6 (4.8%) earned $20,000 to $24,999, 18 (14.5%) earned $25,000 to $29,999, 32 (25.8%) received $30,000 to $39,999, and 67 (54%) earned $40,000 or more. 'To present a reasonable distribution of respondents by university and income category, the income ranges were collapsed 78 into two categories: less than $40,000 and $40,000 and more. According to this breakdown, 57 (46.3%) of the respondents earned an annual income of less than $40,000, and 66 (53.7%) received $40,000 or more. A majority of respondents at BB (12 or 85.7%), XX (7 or 63.6%), and LL (14 or 63.6%) earned $40,000 or more annually. Table 4.7.--Distribution Of respondents by university and individual annual income. Less Than $40,000 or University $40,000 More Total n % n % n % RR 7 58.3 5 41.7 12 9.8 T1 6 54.5 5 45.5 11 8.9 22 6 66.7 3 33.3 9 7.3 XX 4 36.4 7 63.6 11 8.9 88 2 14.3 12 85.7 14 11.4 LL 8 36.4 14 63.6 22 17.9 YY 2 50.0 2 50.0 4 3.3 CC 10 52.6 9 47.4 19 15.4 JJ 4 50.0 4 50.0 8 6.5 Q0 8 61.5 5 38.5 13 10.6 Total 57 46.3 66 53.7 123 100.0 n r he iO The findings pertaining to the 12 research questions are presented in this section. Each question is restated, followed by the findings for that question. 79 W4 To what extent do Hispanic faculty and administrators perceive Herzberg’s intrinsic factors as contributing to job satisfac- tion within their organizations? Herzberg’s (1959) six motivators/satisfiers--Responsibility, Work Itself, Achievement, Advancement, Recognition for Achievement, and Possibility for Growth-~were considered in addressing Research Question 1. For the motivators/satisfiers of Responsibility, Work Itself, and Achievement, respondents were asked to indicate their perceived level of satisfaction on an ordinal Likert-type scale, with 1 - Very Satisfied, 2 - Satisfied, 3 - Neither Satisfied nor Dissatisfied, 4 - Dissatisfied, and 5 - Very Dissatisfied. All six motivators/satisfiers were assumed to yield satisfaction; conse- quently, responses on these three motivators/satisfiers were coded into a dichotomous variable with 1 indicating satisfaction (very satisfied or satisfied) and 0 indicating no satisfaction (neutral, dissatisfied, or very dissatisfied). For the motivators/satisfiers of Advancement, Recognition for Achievement, and Possibility for Growth, respondents were asked to indicate their perceived satisfac- tion on a dichotomous measure with 1 indicating satisfaction and 0 indicating no satisfaction. For each of the six motivators/satis- fiers, the number and percentage Of respondents who indicated they were satisfied were computed. Table 4.8 shows the number and percentage of responses in the satisfied category for each of the six motivators/satisfiers, by gender. 80 Table 4.8.--Number and percentage of responses Of satisfaction with the six motivators/satisfiers, by gender. Male Female Total Motivator/Satisfier -——————- —————————. .————-————- n % n % n % Work Itself 84 88.4 25 89.3 109 88.6 Responsibility 78 80.4 22 75.9 100 79.4 Achievement 77 81.9 17 63.0 94 77.7 Advancement 59 61.5 18 66.7 77 62.6 Recognition for 52 58.4 15 55.6 67 57.8 Achievement Possibility for Growth 51 53.1 13 44.8 64 51.2 As seen in Table 4.8, respondents indicated a high percentage of satisfaction with Work Itself (88.6%), followed by Responsibility (79.4%). Possibility for Growth (51.2%) had the lowest percentage of satisfaction among the six motivators/satisfiers. There was no clear indication of differences in satisfaction between males and females except (H1 Achievement, with which females were less satisfied than males (63% and 81.9%, respectively). Table 4.9 presents the number and percentage Of satisfaction responses by track category (not on track, on track but not tenured, and tenured). It should be noted that tenure track was used in this study as a demographic variable and not as an indicator of dissatis- faction, as in Herzberg’s Job Security. A consistently low percent- age of satisfaction was apparent among respondents who were not on track; the lowest percentage of satisfaction was on the motivator/ satisfier of Recognition for Achievement (14.3%), and the highest percentage was on Work Itself (68%). The satisfaction level Of 81 respondents who were on track but not tenured was higher than that of tenured respondents on Work Itself, Responsibility, Achievement, and Advancement. Table 4.9.--Number and percentage of responses of satisfaction with the six motivators/satisfiers, by track category. Not on On Track, Motivator/ Track Not Tenured Tenured Total Satisfier -————-—- -——-————- -——————-——— n %1 n % n % n % Work Itself 17 68.0 31 96.9 59 92.2 107 88.5 Responsibility 19 67.9 28 87.5 52 81.3 100 80.0 Achievement 13 56.5 27 84.4 53 82.8 93 78.3 Advancement 8 30.8 27 87.1 42 65.6 77 63.1 Recognition for 3 14.3 20 66.7 44 69.8 67 58.3 Achievement ‘ Possibility for 13 46.4 16 51.6 34 53.1 63 51.6 Growth As might be expected, the data also showed a generally higher percentage of satisfaction among high-income ($40,000 or more) than low-income (less than $40,000) respondents. Table 4.10 shows the number and percentage of satisfaction responses on the six motivators/satisfiers by income category. Only on Work Itself was the percentage satisfied higher for low-income respondents (92.6%) than for high-income respondents (85.1%). For the other five motivators/satisfiers, the percentage satisfied was lower for low- income than for high-income respondents. 82 Table 4.10.--Number and percentage of responses of satisfaction with the six motivators/satisfiers, by income. Less Than $40,000 or Motivator/ - $40,000 More Total Satisfier -———————- -————————— -———————— n % n % n % Work Itself 50 92.6 57 85.1 107 88.4 Responsibility 44 77.2 55 82.1 99 79.2 Achievement 38 71.7 54 81.8 92 77.3 Advancement 32 59.3 44 65.7 76 62.8 Recognition for 22 43.1 44 69.8 66 57.9 Achievement Possibility for Growth 24 42.1 39 59.1 63 51.2 Unlike the satisfaction levels by respondents’ track category, the percentage satisfied with the motivators/satisfiers varied according to academic title. As shown in Table 4.11, high percentages of satisfaction were Observed among full professors on the motivator/satisfier of Achievement (94.3%) and among associate and assistant professors on Work Itself (96.6%). On Possibility for Growth, low percentages of satisfaction were observed among associate (44.8%) and assistant professors (43.8%), but the percentage Of satisfaction for this motivator/satisfier among full professors was fairly high (60%). In the “other" category, which included instructors and other faculty and administrators, the percentages of satisfied responses were generally low for all six motivators/satisfiers; the highest percentages of satisfaction were for Work Itself (72%), followed by Achievement (69.6%); the lowest percentages were for Recognition for Achievement (20%) and 83 Advancement (34.6%). For most motivators/satisfiers, higher percentages of full professors eXpressed satisfaction than did associate and assistant professors; however, on Work Itself, a higher percentage of assistant and associate professors expressed satisfaction than did full professors. On all other motivators/ satisfiers, higher percentages of full professors expressed satisfaction than did other respondents. Table 4.ll.--Number and percentage of responses of satisfaction with the six motivators/satisfiers, by academic title. Full Assoc. Asst. Motivator/ Prof. Prof. Prof. Othera Total Satisfier n % n % n % n % n % Work Itself 33 88.6 28 96.6 32 97.0 18 72.0 109 89.3 Responsibility 30 85.7 22 75.9 28 84.8 19 67.9 99 79.2 Achievement 33 94.3 20 69.0 25 75.8 15 69.6 94 78.3 Advancement 22 62.9 19 65.5 26 81.3 9 34.6 76 62.3 Recognition for 25 73.5 18 62.1 20 62.5 4 20.0 67 58.3 Achievement Possibility for 21 60.0 13 44.8 14 43.8 16 57.1 64 51.6 Growth aIncludes instructors and other faculty and administrators. In an attempt to show the level of satisfaction with the motivators/satisfiers of respondents from the ten universities, the number, computed by university. percentage, and rank for each motivator/satisfier were The university with the highest percentage of satisfaction responses for a particular motivator/satisfier was 84 given rank 1, and the university with the lowest percentage was given rank 10. Table 4.12 shows the results of this comparison. As shown in the table, there was a great deal of variation in satisfaction levels at each university for each of the six motivators/satisfiers. QQ had the lowest percentages of satisfied responses for the motivators/satisfiers of Responsibility (53.8%, rank - 10), Work Itself (53.8%, rank - 10), and Advancement (53.8%, rank - 10). YY had the highest percentages of satisfied responses for Responsibility (100%, rank . 1), Work Itself (100%, rank 1), and Recognition for Achievement (100%, rank - 1) but the lowest percentage for Achievement (50%, rank - 10). Other universities with high percentages of satisfaction responses on particular motivators/satisfiers were RR on Achievement (91.7%, rank - 1), 11 on Work Itself (100%, rank - 1), Achievement (90.9%, rank - 2), and Advancement (90.9%, rank - 1); 22 on Responsibility (88.9%, rank - 2) and Work Itself (100%, rank - 1); XX on Advancement (80%, rank - 2) and Possibility for Growth (63.6%, rank - 1); 88 on Recognition for Achievement (83.3%, rank - 2); CC on Work Itself (100%, rank - 1); and JJ on Work Itself (100%, rank - l). 85 n o.mm p op p.pp p a u.nm p a m.pw m up c.nm p op o.nm N we a c.vq v u o.mm m op v... N n m.pc p p o.oop a o N.NN p a6 v w.Nm op N v... N o N.Nm pp m «.mp mp p o.oop up n N.¢u up uu m a.om N p o.oop v n o.mp n op o.om N p o.ocp e p c.90p v p» N p.mm up n o.mp mp p p.Nm Np p N.NN mp o p.mn up n v.0a up a; m m.om p N n.n¢ op p p.pm N v N.NN op a p.mo Np c p.mo Np on p w.nw p m o.nu N m u.no p N o.oo N p u.ou op c p.pa u xx o o... v p o... o m o.mp o o o.mp u p o.oop o N N.NN o NN m o.om m c N.NN a p 9.93 op N m.oa op p o.ocp pp o o.po 9 pp op o.om v m m.on m m m.pu a p p.pm pp o N.Nm Np o m.po a «a sea: a a sang a : sewn . 1 fl = 3:3. a ._ new: a c .33. a c we puwnfluwmuoa Loweuuunwwmwwoz u:ouuu=~>u< acolo>opgu< ppumpp ago: napppapmcoanoa pppmem>p== .appneospcs a: .«Luppupu~u\mgou~>puol up» asp co «aneoauoe copuunpupuau No gene a:- ll .uu-pcooeoa .Lon-sz--.Np.c ops-p 86 W To what extent do Hispanic faculty and administrators perceive Herzberg’s extrinsic factors as contributing to job dissatis- faction within their organizations? Herzberg’s (1959) six extrinsic (maintenance/dissatisfier) factors-~Job Security, Company Policy and Administration, Working Conditions, Supervision, Interpersonal Relationships with Peers, and Interpersonal Relationships with Superiors--were used in addressing Research Question 2. For the extrinsic factors of Job Security, Interpersonal Relationships with Peers, Interpersonal Relationships with Superiors, and Supervision, respondents were asked to indicate their perceived level of satisfaction on an ordinal Likert-type scale, with l - Very Satisfied, 2 - Satisfied, 3 - Neither Satisfied nor Dissatisfied, 4 - Dissatisfied, and 5 . Very Dissatisfied. All extrinsic factors were assumed to yield dissatisfaction; consequently, responses on these four extrinsic factors were coded into a dichotomous variable, with 1 indicating dissatisfaction (very dissatisfied or dissatisfied) and 0 indicating no dissatisfaction (neutral, satisfied, or very satisfied). For the extrinsic factors of Company Policy and Administration, and Working Conditions, respondents were asked to indicate their perceived dissatisfaction on a dichotomous measure with 1 indicating dissatisfaction and 0 indicating no dissatisfaction. For each of the six maintenance/dissatisfiers, the number and percentage of respondents who indicated that they were dissatisfied was computed. Table 4.13 shows the number and percentage of dissatisfaction responses, by gender. As shown in the table, the 87 overall percentage dissatisfied ranged from a high of 37.2% to a low of 8.7%. A high percentage of dissatisfaction was Observed for Company Policy and Administration; 34% of the males and 48.1% of the females were dissatisfied with this factor. Interpersonal Relationships with Peers had the lowest percentage of dissatisfaction for both males (8.2%) and females (10.3%). Table 4.13.--Number and percentage of dissatisfaction responses on the six maintenance/dissatisfiers, by gender. Maintenance/ Males Females Total Dissatisfier -———-——— -——————— -——————— n % n % n % Job Security Pressure to publish 14 15.2 6 22.2 20 16.8 Job giving security 18 18.6 7 24.1 25 19.8 Company Policy 8 Administration Promotional system 32 34.0 13 48.1 45 37.2 Working Conditions Workload 22 26.2 8 33.3 30 27.8 Secretarial help 21 24.1 11 40.7 32 28.1 Libraries 8 9.9 5 20.8 13 12.4 Laboratories 8 11.1 1 5.3 9 9.9 Car parking 19 22.9 6 25.0 25 23.4 Office location & space 22 25.6 5 20.0 27 24.3 Supervision Administrative leadership 28 29.2 10 34.5 38 30.4 Interpersonal Relationships with Peers 8 8.2 3 10.3 11 8.7 Interpersonal Relationships with Superiors 18 18.8 8 27.6 26 20.8 88 Table 4.14 shows the number and percentage of dissatisfaction responses on the six maintenance/dissatisfiers by track category (not on track, on track but not tenured, and tenured). It should be noted that tenure track category was used in this study as a demographic variable and not as an indicator of dissatisfaction as in Herzberg’s Job Security. A higher percentage of respondents who were not on tenure track were dissatisfied than those who were on track but not tenured and those who were tenured. This was especially noticeable on the maintenance/dissatisfier of Company Policy and Administration, on which 70.8% Of the not-on-track respondents indicated dissatisfaction, compared to 31.2% of the respondents who were on track but not tenured and 26.5% of the tenured faculty and administrators. As in the comparison of satisfiers/motivators by income level, there were variations in percentages Of respondents from various income levels who indicated dissatisfaction. Table 4.15 shows the number and percentage of dissatisfaction responses on the six maintenance/dissatisfiers by income levels. From this table it is evident that generally higher percentages of low-income (less than $40,000) than high-income ($40,000 or more) respondents indicated dissatisfaction. The greatest differences were observed between low- and high-income respondents on the maintenance/dissatisfiers of Job Security (28.1% versus 13.4%), Working Conditions (Workload) (38% versus 19.6%), Supervision (Administrative Leadership) (40.4% versus 21.2%), and Interpersonal Relationships with Superiors (26.8% versus 14.9%). 89 N.ON mN N.Np pp ¢.mp m m.mN w meopemnzm gap: mapgmcoppapmz pacomeonempcp m.w pp o.m o o.mo N N.op m «comm gap: «upgmcoppapom pmcomemnempcp w.aN Nm m.mN mp o.mN N m.mm pp upgmsouamp m>ppacpmpcpev< copmp>emqsm m.eN Np o.mN «p ¢.pN o o.mN N woman a cappmuop oopppo N.NN mN e.oN pp m.mN N N.NN N mcpxemn emu o.op m N.Np N m.e p N.@ p ampecpaeonma o.Np mp v.N v p.¢N N o.op N mwpeaenpa m.oN Nm e.NN mp N.NN m p.me mp ape; papempweomm c.mN on N.Np N p.Nm m o.om ep unopxeoz «capppucou mcpxeoz N.oN pp m.oN Np N.pm op m.oN Np smpmam pmcopposoea coppagpmpcpsv< a happen pcmnsou N.Np vN m.o e p.mN m N.NN pp appezowm mcp>pm new p.ep mp N.Np pp p.m p N.NN N gmppnaa op oesmmmeg Nppgsumm now a c a c a c a : emppmppmmmpo papop umezcmp voeacmp poz xumep \moeacmpcpax pzm xuaep co so we: .Ngomopao xoagp Na .mgmppmppammpu \mocmcwpcpms xpm ecu co «managed; coppoapmppmmmpv mo mmapcooeon ecu conszz--.ep.e opamp 90 Table 4.15.--Number and percentage of dissatisfaction responses on the six maintenance/dissatisfiers, by income. Under $40,000 Maintenance/ $40,000 or More Total Dissatisfier ________ ._______. ________ n % n % n % Job Security Pressure to publish 8 15.8 11 16.7 19 16.2 Job giving security 16 28.1 9 13.4 25 20.2 Company Policy 8 Administration Promotional system 5 9.3 2 3.1 7 5.9 Working Conditions Workload 19 38.0 11 19.6 30 28.3 Secretarial help 18 35.3 14 23.0 32 28.6 Libraries 8 17.4 5 8.8 13 12.6 Laboratories 3 8.1 6 11.5 9 10.1 Car parking 13 27.1 12 21 l 25 23.8 Office location 8 space 13 26.0 14 23 7 27 30.1 Supervision Administrative leadership 23 40.4 14 21.2 37 30.1 Interpersonal Relationships with Peers 8 14.0 3 4.5 11 8.9 Interpersonal Relationships with Superiors 15 26.8 10 14.9 25 20.3 To examine variations in dissatisfaction Of respondents with different academic titles, the classifications Of full professor, associate professor, assistant professor, and "others” were considered. The "others“ category included instructors and other administrators. Table 4.16 shows the number and percentage of dissatisfaction responses for the six maintenance/dissatisfiers by academic title. 91 .meopaepmpcpeua can Nppsump segue can meopoaepmcp mmwapucpa meopeoqam gap: o.pN NN p.Nm a N.Np N N.Np N p.Np N mapsmcoppmpoz pmcomemaempzp N.N pp N.Np N p.m m N.Np N N.m N meow; sup: mqumccppapmm pacomemaeupcp N.om Nm N.NN Np N.NN a o.pm a N.NN N A.p...e...o_v2.p m>pp~epmp=peu< copmp>ema=m NHNN NN N.NN N ¢.pN N N.NN N N.NN N woman N coppauop mopppo N.NN mN N.NN N N.NN N N.Np N N.NN N mcpxean emu o.op m N.N p N.¢ p N.Np m N.Np e mopeopasonma m.pp Np cum p N.NN N m.e p N.m m mmpemenpa N.NN pm N.Np Np N.NN N p.NN N N.Np N ape; papempmeoom p NN «N o Nm Np N.NN N N.Np e N.Np a unopxeoz mcopppucou mcpxeo: N.NN me N.NN Np e.eN pp o.pN m N.NN m smpmNm pmcoppoEoeN coppaepmp=p2v< N Noppog N=~n5cu N.NN NN N.NN op N.NN pp N.N N N.N N Nppezomm m=p>pm noa a Np ON N.Np o. -- - N.Np m c.ON N emppeza so mapmaeca appesuom noa . em m «mm peeop «segue .Noca .Noaa .Ceaa NeWWewwoe.wn .pmm< .uomm< ppam . .opppp opeocaoa a .meo a New \aocmcwpcpas xpm ogp co noncoamos coppoapmppammpu No ommpcuoeon wwmpwonshn--.Np.v mpaap 92 As shown in Table 4.16, the highest percentage Of dissatisfied respondents was in the ”other" category (instructors and administrators), followed by assistant professors. In general, the lowest percentages of dissatisfaction were Observed among full professors. The greatest variations among respondents with different academic titles were observed on the maintenance/dissatis- fier Company Policy and Administration (Promotional System), with 26.5% of the full professors, 34.4% of the assistant professors, and 64% of the ”other” respondents indicating dissatisfaction. The differences in percentages between the ”other" category and the three categories of professors (full, associate, and assistant) were also quite high on the dissatisfiers Job Security (Pressure to Publish) (20%,110.3%, and 47.6%, respectively) and working Condi- tions (Workload) (13.8%, 16.6%, and 52%, respectively). The number, percentage, and rank of dissatisfaction responses on the six maintenance/dissatisfiers by university are shown in Table 4.17. As with the satisfiers considered in Research Question 1, the greatest variation in percentages of dissatisfied responses was between QQ and YY. 'Whereas YY had the lowest dissatisfied percentages for the two maintenance/oissatisfiers of Job Security (0%, rank - 10), QQ had the highest dissatisfied percentages for the maintenance/dissatisfiers of Job Security (Pressure to Publish) (38.5%, rank - 1), Company Policy and Administration (Promotional System) (50%, rank - 2), Working Conditions (Workload) (70%, rank - 1), Working Conditions (Office Location and Space) (42%, rank - l), 93 Neopeoaam up: N.NN NN N N.NN N N N.NN N N N.NN N 2 N... - N N.NN N . N.NN N N N.NN N N N.NN N N N.N N N N.NN N asses-N.N N23... :5 . . . . . . . to: 5:. N N NN N N NN N N N NN N N N.NN N N N.N . N N.N N N N.N - N N N . N N NN N N N N . N N NN N 328:2... N23208:... N.NN NN N N.NN N N N.NN N N N.NN N 2 N.N . N N.NN N N N.NN N N N.NN N N N.NN N N N.N. N N N.NN N 3:53: 33.5.2.1... copr>Noa=N N.NN NN N N.NN N N N.NN N N N.NN N 2 N.N - N N.NN N N N.NN N N N.NN N N N.N. N N N.NN N N N.NN N 8.... N 8:32 8:3 N.NN NN N N.NN N N N.NN N N N.NN N 2 N... . N N.NN N N N.NN N N N.NN N N N.NN N N N.NN N N N.NN N Nesta .5 N.N N N N... . N N... . N N.NN N N N.N . N N.N N N N.NN N N N.NN N N N.NN N N N.N - N N... . Nets-NB: N.NN NN N N.NN N N N... . N N.N N N N.NN N N N.NN N N N.NN N N N.NN N N N.NN N N N.N N N N.N . 3:95: N.NN NN N N.NN N N N.NN N 2 N.NN N N N.NN N N N.NN N N N.NN N N N.NN N N N.NN N N N.NN N N N.NN N N.N... N.NN-N53. N.NN NN N N.NN N N N.NN N N N.NN N 2 N... . N N.N N N N.NN N. N N.NN N N N.NN N N N.NN N N N.NN N Bette. NSNNNNSN NeNte. N.NN N. N N.NN N N t: N N N.NN N N N.NN N N N.NN N N N.NN N 2 N.NN N N N.NN N N N.NN N N N.NN N 8:: 78:68.... .51: N 8:2 Neal... N.NN NN N N.NN N N N.NN N N N.NN N N N... - N N.NN N N N.NN N N N.NN N N N.N - N N.NN N N N.NN N 3:33 N.NN... 8N. N.NN 2 N N.NN N N N.NN N N N.N N N N... - N N.NN N N N.N N N N.N . N N.NN N N N.N N N N.NN N 5.3.... 3 5:2. 3:33. 8.. N.N.SNNNNSNNNNSNNNNSNN.N.NNNNSNNNNeaNNNSNNNNSNNNNSNNN , 55353 N38 8 N.N. 8 t N.. B a N NN s. NONE-2N... .NapNeospca Na .NNNNNNpuuNvaxvoencouepNI xpN use so N.NeoaNoN copuoNNNpunNNps No acne wen .ooaucooeon .Noausz.-.Np.v .pnop 94 and Interpersonal Relationships with Peers (l5.4%, rank - 2). Other universities with high percentages of dissatisfaction responses on some maintenance/dissatisfiers were RR on Supervision (46.2%, rank - l) and Interpersonal Relationships with Supervisors (38.5%, rank - l); 22 on Company Policy and Administration (55.6%, rank - l), Working Conditions (Office Location and Space) (42.9%, rank - l), and Interpersonal Relationships with Peers (22.2%, rank - l); and CC on Job Security (Job Giving Security) (3l.6%, rank - l). Concerning the maintenance/dissatisfier Personal Life, respondents were asked to indicate whether or not their jobs at the university had affected their lifestyles, and to provide reasons for the effect or lack of effect. Table 4.l8 shows the number and percentage of reasons why the job had or had not affected the respondents’ lifestyles. One hundred (84.7%) of the respondents indicated that their jobs at the university had affected their life- styles, whereas l8 (l5.3%) indicated that their jobs had had no effect on their lifestyles. ‘The reasons provided for ‘the Job affecting the lifestyle included: financially better off (l0 or 10%), it’s all consuming (22 or 22%), social/family/professional life affected/isolation (40 or 40%), and other reasons (28 or 28%), which included disproportionate compensation among disciplines and pressure to publish. The respondents who indicated that the job had not affected their lifestyle did not provide any specific reason for their belief. 95 Table 4.18.--Reasons why job had or had not affected respondents’ personal lives. Reason n % AW Financially better off 10 10.0 It is all consuming 22 22.0 Social/family/professional life affected/isolated 40 40.0 Other reasonsa or no elaboration 28 28.0 W Generally no effect ll 6l.l Other reasons/no elaboration 7 38.9 aIncludes disproportionate compensation among disciplines and pressure to publish. Wm To what extent do Hispanic faculty and administrators partici- pate in Hispanic affairs and the Hispanic community? Respondents were asked to indicate whether or not they were involved in (a) Hispanic affairs on campus and/or (b) the Hispanic community, and to provide reasons for participation or nonparticipation. Table 4.19 shows the reasons respondents gave for participating or not participating in Hispanic affairs and the Hispanic community. 96 Table 4.19.--Reasons for participating or not participating in Hispanic affairs and the Hispanic community. Reason n % Hispanic Affairs 23311511311211 Promoting Hispanic issues 49 76.6 Other reasons l2 l8.8 Total 6l 52.9 Nonnartisination Lack of time 16 28.l Lack of identification with Hispanics l4 24.6 Racial/political tensions l0 12.8 Other reasons 20 35.1 Total 60 47.l Hispanic Community 31115112311311 Social/educational activities 29 70.7 Other reasons l2 29.3 Total 4T 33.9 No Hispanic community 24 30.0 Lack of time 22 27.5 Lack of identification with Hispanics l7 2l.3 Other reasons l7 2l.3 Total 80 66.1 As shown in the table, more respondents participated in Hispanic affairs on campus (52.9%) than in the Hispanic community (33.9%). The reason most often cited for participating in Hispanic 97 affairs was promoting Hispanic issues (76.6%). The reasons cited for not participating in Hispanic affairs included racial/political tensions (l2.8%), lack of time (28.l%), and lack of identification with Hispanics (24.6%). The primary reason given for participating in the Hispanic community was social/educational activities (70.7%), whereas lack of time (27.5%), lack of identification with Hispanics (2l.3%), and nonexistence of a Hispanic community (30%) were cited as the main reasons for not participating in the Hispanic community. To show the influence of academic title on respondents’ participation in Hispanic affairs and the Hispanic community, the number and percentage of respondents who participated in each was computed by academic title (see Table 4.20). The data did not give any’ clear indication of' whether academic title influenced respondents’ participation or nonparticipation in Hispanic affairs or the Hispanic community. Table 4.20.--Participation in Hispanic affairs and the Hispanic community, by academic title. Hispanic Hispanic Academic Title Affairs Community n % n % Full professor 17 48.6 ' ll 32.4 Associate professor l7 60.7 8 27.6 Assistant professor 14 42.4 7 2l.2 Othera 15 53.6 l4 50.0 Total 63 50.8 40 32.3 aIncludes instructors and other faculty and administrators. 98 There seemed to be some variation in participation in Hispanic affairs and the Hispanic community according to respondents’ ethnic background (see Table 4.21). In (general, there was more participation in Hispanic affairs by respondents of Mexican American (59.4%), Central American (57.1%), and South American (54.5%) backgrounds and less participation by respondents of Mexican (36.4%), Puerto Rican (46.7%), and Spanish (41.2%) backgrounds. Participation in the Hispanic community was generally low, regard- less of ethnic background, except among Mexican Americans, of whom 16 (50%) indicated that they participated in the Hispanic community. Table 4.21.--Participation in Hispanic affairs and the Hispanic community, by ethnic background. Hispanic Hispanic Ethnic Background Affairs Community n % n % Mexican American 19 59.4 16 50.0 Mexican 4 36.4 4 36.4 Puerto Rican 7 46.7 6 40.0 Cuban 5 50.0 1 10.0 Spanish 7 41.2 3 16.7 Central American 4 57.1 - -- South American 18 54. 11 34.4 Total 64 51.2 41 32.8 99 W To what extent do Hispanic faculty and administrators perceive institutional policies as contributing to their job dissatis- faction within the organization? Respondents were asked to indicate whether they perceived the promotional system in their institutions to be fair or unfair and to provide reasons for their perceptions. Table 4.22 shows the number and percentage of respondents who cited particular reasons why they perceived the system to be fair or unfair. Table 4.22.--Reasons for dissatisfaction or no dissatisfaction with the institution’s promotional system. Reason n % ' s ‘e H'th Pr m 'onal S ste Oiscrimination/friendships important 20 45.6 System too political 10 22.7 No comment 11 25.0 Other reasons 3 6.8 Total 44 37.6 Hi Promo ion 1 m Egalitarian system 20 27.4 Clearly established rules 18 24.7 Pressure to publish 12 16.4 Other reasons 1 1.4 No comment 22 30.1 Total 73 62.4 100 The majority of respondents (73 or 62.4%) indicated that the promotional system in their institution was fair; 44 (37.6%) said the system was unfair. Of the respondents who indicated that the promotional system was fair, 38 (52.1%) said there were clearly established rules or that it was an egalitarian system, 12 (16.4%) described the system as imposing pressure to publish, and 22 (30.1%) had no comment but were satisfied with the system. Of the 44 respondents who considered the system to be unfair, 20 (45.6%) cited discrimination/friendships as the reason, 10 (22.7%) considered the system to be too political, and 11 (25%) did not specify a reason. Respondents were also asked the method through which they had been recruited for their present positions (educational journals, friends, or affirmative action programs). In addition, respondents were asked whether or not they had been assigned to a senior faculty member or administrator as a mentor when they arrived on campus. Responses to whether or not study participants had been assigned to. a mentor, by method of recruitment, are shown in Table 4.23. Table 4.23.--Responses concerning whether or not recruits had been assigned to a mentor, by method of recruitment. Assigned to Not Assigned Recruitment Method a Mentor to a Mentor Total Educational Journal 5 10.4 43 89.6 48 39.0 Through friends 6 13.6 38 86.4 44 35.8 Affirmative action 2 20.0 8 80.0 10 8.1 Other methods 3 15.8 18 85.7 21 17.1 Total 16 13.0 107 87.0 123 100.0 101 Most of the Hispanic faculty and administrators said they had been recruited through educational journals (48 or 39%) or friends (44 or 35.8%); only 10 (8.1%) of the respondents had been recruited through affirmative action programs. Twenty-one (17.1%) had been recruited through other methods. Most of the Hispanic recruitees had not been assigned to a senior faculty member or administrator to serve as a mentor when they were recruited to the university. Just 16 (13%) participants indicated they had been assigned to a mentor. 531‘ U Is there a statistically significant relationship between respondents’ general satisfaction and Herzberg’s intrinsic factors? Respondents were asked to indicate their general level of satisfaction on a five-point Likert-type scale ranging from 1 (Very Satisfied) to 5 (Very Dissatisfied). To be consistent with Herzberg’s theory, the levels of satisfaction were recoded into a two-level variable with 0 - Not Satisfied (neutral, dissatisfied, or very dissatisfied) and l = Satisfied (satisfied or very satisfied). Using this dichotomous measure of general satisfaction, a chi-square test of statistical significance was used to determine whether there was a significant relationship (at the .05 level) between respond- ents’ general satisfaction and Herzberg’s six intrinsic factors (motivators/satisfiers). The results of this test are shown in Table 4.24. A statistically significant relationship was found between general satisfaction and all six of Herzberg’s intrinsic 102 factors. That is, respondents who were satisfied with the specific intrinsic factors were also generally satisfied. Table 4.24.--Results of the chi-square test of the relationship between general satisfaction and Herzberg’s six intrinsic factors. Intrinsic Factor Chi-Square Value df p-Value Responsibility 68.767 1 .0000* Work Itself 7.952 1 .0048* Achievement 19.237 1 .0000* Advancement 18.013 1 .0000* Recognition for Achievement 25.574 1 .0000* Possibility for Growth 14.803 1 .0001* *Significant at the .05 level. B:§£§I£h.fl!§§119fl.§ Is there a statistically significant relationship between respondents’ general dissatisfaction and various components of Herzberg’s extrinsic factors? The general satisfaction item was recoded into a dichotomous variable with 0 - Not Dissatisfied (neutral, satisfied, or very satisfied) and l - Dissatisfied (dissatisfied or very dissatisfied), to be consistent with Herzberg’s theory. Based on this dichotomous measure of general dissatisfaction, a chi-square test of statistical significance was used to determine whether there was a statistically significant relationship (at the .05 level) between general dissatisfaction and Herzberg’s extrinsic factors (maintenance/dis- satisfiers). Table 4.25 shows the results of this analysis. A statistically significant relationship was found between general 103 dissatisfaction and all but two of Herzberg’s extrinsic factors: Job Security (Pressure to Publish) (X2 - .010, p > .05) and Company Policy and Administration (Promotional System) ()12 - 2.325, p > .05). This implies that, although general dissatisfaction is related to all extrinsic factors, the data did not show any statis- tically significant relationship between general dissatisfaction and Pressure to Publish or the Promotional System. Table 4.25.--Results of the chi-square test of the relationship between general dissatisfaction and Herzberg’s six extrinsic factors. Chi-Square Extrinsic Factor Value df p-Value Job Security Pressure to publish 0.010 1 .9203 Job giving security 18.776 1 .0000* Company Policy & Administration Promotional system 2.325 1 .3127 Working Conditions Horkload 5.671 1 .0173* Secretarial help Libraries Laboratories Car parking Office location a space 5.738 1 .0166* Supervision Administrative leadership 19.738 1 .0000* Interpersonal Relationships with Peers 10.549 1 .0012* Interpersonal Relationships with Superiors 29.607 1 .0000* *Significant at the .05 level. 104 W Is there a statistically significant relationship between respondents’ participation or nonparticipation in Hispanic affairs and the Hispanic community and Herzberg’s intrinsic factors? Using responses to the two questionnaire items concerning whether or not respondents participated in Hispanic affairs and the Hispanic community, a chi-square test was used to determine whether there was a statistically significant relationship (at the .05 level) between such participation and satisfaction with the six intrinsic factors. Table 4.26 shows the results of this analysis. No statistically significant relationship was found between participation in Hispanic affairs and the Hispanic community and satisfaction with any of the intrinsic factors (motivators/satis- fiers). Table 4.26.-—Results of the chi-square test of the relationship between participation in Hispanic affairs and the Hispanic community and satisfaction with Herzberg’s six intrinsic factors. Hispanic Affairs Hispanic Community Intrinsic Factor Chi-Square p- Chi-Square p- Value df Value Value df Value Responsibility 0.969 1 .3250 0.049 1 .8247 Work Itself 0.053 1 .8174 0.861 1 .3530 Achievement 0.001 1 .9826 0.860 1 .3540 Advancement 0.002 1 .9607 0.0141 1 .9059 Recognition for Achievement 0.209 1 .6476 0.198 1 .6560 Possibility for Growth 0.501 1 .4792 3.416 1 .0646 105 W Is there a statistically significant relationship between respondents’ inVolvement in Hispanic affairs on campus and their being a role model for Hispanic students? Respondents were asked to indicate whether they perceived themselves as role models for Hispanic students on campus. They were also asked to indicate whether they were involved in Hispanic affairs on campus. Using these two dichotomous variables, a chi- square test was used to determine whether there was a statistically significant relationship (at the .05 level) between involvement in Hispanic affairs and being a role model for Hispanic students on campus. With an observed chi-square value of 2.918 (p > .05), no statistically significant relationship was found between involvement in Hispanic affairs and being a role model for Hispanic students on campus. Respondents were asked to give reasons why they thought they were (or were not) role models for Hispanic students. Table 4.27 shows the responses to this item. The majority of respondents (70 or 60.3%) thought they were role models to Hispanic students on campus, whereas 46 (39.7%) said they were not role models. Some said they were not role models because there were no Hispanic students on campus, they had little interaction with Hispanic students, they were not political or successful, or they served only on minority-related jobs. On the other hand, respondents who said they were role models claimed this was because they were successful, competent, visible, and respected, and because they were involved in advising, encouraging, and caring about the Hispanic students. 106 Table 4.27.--Reasons participants thought they were (or were not) role models for Hispanic students on campus. Reason n % WWW Absence of Hispanic students 14 30.4 Little interaction with Hispanic students 6 13.0 Apolitical/not successful/serve only on minority-related jobs 5 10.9 Other reasons or no elaboration 21 45.7 Total 46 39.7 W I’m successful/visible/competent/respected 36 51.4 I encourage, advise them, and care about them 17 24.3 Other reasonsa or elaboration 17 24.3 Total 70 60.3 d aIncludes role model for all students, not only Hispanic stu- ents. Re r io Hhat reasons do respondents give for wanting to leave or stay at the universities during the next three years? Respondents were asked to indicate whether they planned to leave the university within the next three years. They were also asked to give reasons for their plan. Table 4.28 shows the reasons why respondents were planning to leave (or stay at) the university within the next three years. The majority of respondents (68 or 60.3%) had no intention of leaving the university within the next three years. Most of the respondents who planned to stay at the 107 university (38 or 55.9%) indicated they were satisfied with their present jobs; 11 (16.2%) gave other reasons for wanting to stay, but 19 (27.9%) gave no specific reason for their desire to stay. On the other hand, reasons given by the 45 (39.8%) respondents who did not plan to stay were more varied. These included lack of professional growth, isolation, or low salary (13 or 28.9%); desire to relocate to another geographical location (7 or 15.6%); retirement age (7 or 15.6%); and the possibility of something better coming up (3 or 6.7%). Seven (15.6%) had already left, whereas 8 (17.8%) did not plan to stay but gave no specific reason for that choice. Table 4.28.--Reasons why respondents planned to leave (or stay at) the university within the next three years. Reason n % 333W Satisfied with the present job 38 55.9 Other reasonsa 11 16.2 No elaboration 19 27.9 Total 68 60.2 W Lack of professional growth/salary/isolation 13 28.9 Relocate to another geographical location 7 15.6 Already left 7 15.6 Retirement age 7 15.6 If something better comes up 3 6.7 Other reasons or no elaboration 8 17.8 Total 45 39.8 aIncludes ”if tenured." 108 W Is there a statistically significant relationship between respondents’ gender and their tenure status? Using the three-level variable of track category (not on track, on track but not tenured, tenured), a chi-square test was used to determine whether there was a statistically significant relationship (at the .05 level) between track category and gender (see Table 4.29). A statistically significant relationship was found between respondents’ gender and their track category (X2 - 14.906, p < .05). Table 4.29.--Results of the chi-square test of the relationship between gender and track category. Males Females Total Track Category -——————— -——————— n % n % n % Not on track 17 60.7 11 39.3 28 22.6 On track but not tenured 20 62.5 12 37.5 32 25.8 Tenured 58 90.6 6 9.4 64 51.6 Total 95 79.6 29 23.4 124 100.0 Chi-square value - 14.906 df - 2 p-value - .0019 Specifically, whereas the majority of male respondents (58 or 90.6%) were already tenured, the majority of female respondents (23 or 76.8%) were not on track or were on track but not tenured. This disproportionate representation is clearly indicated by the fact that 58 (90.6%) of the male respondents were tenured, compared to 6 (9.4%) of the female respondents. Because Herzberg treated tenure 109 track as a component of Job Security, these results indicate that female respondents had less job security than did male respondents, which may lead to job dissatisfaction among female faculty members. WW Do Hispanic faculty and administrators foresee a chance for advancement or an administrative leadership position in their institutions? Two questionnaire items were used to gather data with which to answer this research question. In the first item, respondents were asked to indicate whether they foresaw a chance for advancement in their institution. In the second item, respondents were asked whether they had a chance for an administrative position. Reasons for their answers were also requested. Table 4.30 shows the number and percentage of participants who thought they had (or did not have) a chance for advancement in their institution and the reasons for their responses. Seventy-five (61%) of the respondents had hope for advancement, whereas 48 (39%) did not foresee a chance for advancement in their institutions. Of the 48 individuals who did not foresee a chance for advancement, 10 (20.8%) indicated they had already reached the top, and 12 (25%) cited discrimination, the fact that Hispanic issues were not valued, institutional racism, and the fact that blacks were favored as the main factors hindering their advancement. Twelve (25%) thought their chances for advancement were hindered by structural barriers, the system’s being too political, and the policy of publish or perish. Conversely, of the 75 respondents who foresaw a chance for advancement, 28 (37.3%) had 110 already been promoted; 8 (10.7%) had already reached the top; and 19 (25.3%) had excellent credentials, publications, research, teaching, and service. Table 4.30.--Reasons why respondents foresaw a chance (or no chance) for advancement in their institutions. Reason n % WW1 Discrimination/Hispanic issues not valued/ institutional racism/blacks favored 12 25.0 Structural barriers/system too political/ publish or perish 12 25.0 Have already reached the top 10 20.8 No elaboration 14 29.2 Total 48 39.0 W No apparent structural barriers/people have been promoted 28 37.3 Excellent credentials/publications/research/ teaching/service 19 25.3 Have already reached the top 8 10.7 No elaboration 20 26.7 Total 75 61.0 Table 4.31 shows the number and percentage of respondents who thought they had (or did not have) a chance for an administrative leadership position in their institutions, and the reasons for their responses. 111 Table 4.31.--Reasons why respondents foresaw a chance (or no chance) for an administrative position in their institutions. Reason n % WW Not interested 23 37.1 No upward mobility/structural barriers 12 19.4 System too political 8 12.9 Lack of adequate credentials 5 8.1 Institutional discrimination 4 6.5 No elaboration 10 16.0 Total 62 49.6 a hi No barriers 34 54.0 Not interested 11 17.5 Already at the top 6 9.5 No elaboration 12 19.0 Total 63 50.4 Although 63 (50.4%) respondents foresaw a chance for an administrative leadership position, 62 (49.6%) did not foresee a chance for such a position in their institutions. Of the 63 respondents who thought they had a chance for a leadership position, 34 (54%) said there were no apparent barriers, and 6 (9.5%) had already reached the top. Eleven (17.5%) claimed they were not interested in an administrative position. 0n the other hand, of the 62 respondents who did not think they had a chance for an administrative position, 23 (37.1%) said they were not interested, 12 (19.4%) said there was no upward mobility or there were 112 structural barriers, 8 (12.9%) claimed the system was too political, 4 (6.5%) cited the presence of institutional discrimination, and 5 (8.1%) said they did not have adequate credentials. W Have Hispanic faculty and administrators obtained adequate recognition for their achievements in their institutions? Respondents were asked whether they had obtained adequate recognition for their achievements and to provide reasons for their answers. Their responses are summarized in Table 4.32. Forty-nine (43.8%) of the respondents thought they had not obtained adequate recognition for their achievements, compared to 63 (56.2%) who believed they had received adequate recognition. Of those who thought they had not obtained adequate recognition, 20 (40.8%) gave as reasons discrimination, Hispanic issues not being valued, and institutional racism; 8 (16.3%) said the system was too political, and 3 (6.1%) said the reason was the policy of publish or perish. In contrast, of the 63 respondents who thought they had received recognition for their achievements, 42 (66.7%) indicated they had received promotions, salary increases, and positive feedback from students; 2 (3.2%) had participated in decision making. 113 Table 4.32.--Reasons why respondents thought they had (or had not) obtained adequate recognition for their achievements. Reason n % Won Discrimination/HiSpanic issues not valued/ institutional racism 20 40.8 System too political 8 16.3 Publish or perish 3 6.1 No elaboration 18 36.7 Total 49 43.8 Wm Got promotions/salary increases/positive feedback from students 42 66.7 Participation in decision making 2 3.2 No elaboration 19 30.1 Total 63 56.2 Mar! The findings of the study were presented in this chapter. The data obtained from the survey questionnaire were analyzed with descriptive statistics, primarily number and percentage, together with a chi-square test of statistical significance. Twelve research questions were addressed in this study. Research Question 1 was concerned with the extent to which Hispanic faculty and administrators perceived Herzberg’s intrinsic factors as contributing to their job satisfaction. The highest percentages of satisfaction were observed for the intrinsic factors of Work Itself (88.6%) and Responsibility (80%), whereas Possibility 114 of Growth (51.2%) and Recognition for Achievement (58.3%) had the lowest percentages of satisfaction responses. Research Question 2 was concerned with the extent to which Hispanic faculty and administrators perceived Herzberg’s extrinsic factors as contributing to their job dissatisfaction. The highest percentage of dissatisfaction responses was observed for the extrinsic factors of Company Policy and Administration (Promotional System) (37.2%); the lowest percentage was for Interpersonal Relationships with Peers (8.7%). Research Question 3 concerned the extent to which Hispanic faculty and administrators participated in Hispanic affairs and the Hispanic comunity. The findings indicated that only 52.9% and 33.9% of the respondents participated in Hispanic affairs and the Hispanic community, respectively. Reasons given for not participating in Hispanic affairs included racial and political tensions, lack of time, and lack of identification with Hispanics. Reasons given for not participating in the Hispanic community included the nonexistence of such a community, lack of time, and lack of identification with Hispanics. Hhether the promotional system contributed to Hispanic faculty and administrators’ job dissatisfaction was addressed in Research Question 4. The data indicated that 62.4% of the respondents were not dissatisfied with the promotional system in their institutions, whereas 37.6% were dissatisfied. 115 Relationship(s) between intrinsic factors and extrinsic factors and respondents’ general satisfaction were addressed in Research Questions 5 and 6, respectively. A statistically significant positive relationship was found between general satisfaction and all six intrinsic factors. Likewise, a statistically significant relationship was found between job dissatisfaction and all of the extrinsic factors except Job Security (Pressure to Publish) (X2 - 0.010, p > .05) and Company Policy and Administration (Promotional System) (x2 - 2.325, p > .05). The nonexistence of a statistically significant relationship between any of the intrinsic factors and participation or nonpar- ticipation in Hispanic affairs and the Hispanic community was revealed when testing the data for Research Question 7. Likewise, no statistically significant relationship was found between being a role model for Hispanic students and involvement in Hispanic affairs (Research Question 8). Research Question 9 was concerned with the reasons why respondents planned to leave or stay at the university during the next three years. The findings revealed that 60.2% of the respondents planned to stay at their institutions, whereas 39.8% planned to leave within the next three years. Some of the reasons respondents gave for their desire to leave the university included lack of professional growth, salary, and isolation; those who did not plan to leave said they were satisfied with their present jobs. Research Question 10 concerned whether a statistically significant relationship existed between the respondents’ gender and 116 their tenure status. A chi-square test revealed a statistically significant relationship between gender and tenure status. Hhereas males were overrepresented (90.6%) in the tenured category, females were overrepresented (76.8%) in the two categories of not on track and on track but not tenured. Research Questions 11 and 12 were concerned with whether Hispanic faculty and administrators foresaw a chance for advancement or an administrative leadership position and whether they had received adequate recognition for their achievements. The findings revealed that 39% of the respondents did not foresee a chance for an administrative leadership position, and 43.8% thought they had not received adequate recognition for their achievements. Results of the in-depth interviews with selected respondents are presented in Chapter V. CHAPTER V RESULTS OF THE IN-DEPTH INTERVIEWS Most of human reality is a thicket of complexities that we can peer into only dimly, even when we use all of the vastly complex means of common sense that have evolved over the aeons to peer into that thicket. (Douglas, 1985, p. 70) lntrggugtigg The in-depth interviews had several purposes: (a) to gain insight into the nature of the work of Hispanic faculty and administrators, (b) to expand on some of the closed-ended items in the questionnaire, and (c) to gain a better understanding of some of the conditions that might affect the attitudes of Hispanic faculty and administrators toward their jobs. The interviews were conducted at three Big Ten universities in the Midwest during a two-month period. Hithin the theoretical framework of Herzberg’s concepts of job satisfaction and dissatisfaction, nine Hispanic faculty members reflected on their feelings about and perceptions of their jobs. They talked freely and frankly about matters that. were important to them as academicians and administrators. They expressed their perceptions about their expectations, achievements, and frustrations, as well as the role they were playing as Hispanics and how that role had or had not affected them in their institutions. 117 118 Background 99 the Respgndgnts From the sample population of 126, a subset of nine Hispanic academicians--Latin American, Mexican, and Mexican American--was selected to participate in in-depth interviews, as explained in Chapter III. The participants ranged in age from 30 to 53 years, with a mean age of 43.7. All were married; eight of them had a total of 13 children. All held Ph.D. degrees; seven of them worked in nontraditional fields. Five of the respondents had been born, raised, and educated in the United States. The rest had been born abroad and had come to the United States either as graduate students or after completing an advanced degree in their country of origin. During the interviews, four respondents mentioned repeatedly the pride they felt in being Hispanic-~in their culture and language. This characteristic seemed to give them a sense of self- worth. Two spoke in Spanish, and one answered the interview questions in Spanish. He explained why: There is nothing better than to sit with another Hispanic and speak in Spanish and unburden ourselves of everything that is inside us--to be able to unburden ourselves in the same language, in the precise language and precise intonation of voice in which one wants to do it. This respondent stretched the syllables as he talked to reflect his pleasure at having an opportunity to express himself in his native language. Three respondents began the interview somewhat cautiously. They reflected on and reminisced about their educational and professional careers here and abroad. 119 mm: For some respondents, these beginnings were recent; for others they were not. As the interviews progressed and, after some self- disclosure by the researcher, the respondents became more relaxed and the interaction more enthusiastic. Most of them stated that they had had supportive families, or at least one parent had been. They had developed good study habits and remembered wanting to go to college and to be educated, early in childhood. Professional preparation had been achieved through supportive systems and role models. Even though some of the respondents had taken diverse paths to obtain their Ph.D. degrees, all evidenced a pattern of self- determination and achievement. In the majority of cases, the respondents’ academic success could have been predicted. From their youth, they had had a strong desire to excel. Some of them knew very early what they wanted to Four of them stated that, from the time they were very young, be. They were high achievers and, they had wanted to be scientists. according to one of them, “All I needed was to set everything in motion to achieve my goals.“ Two respondents had earned their B.S. degrees in one science and changed to another scientific field in graduate school. All of the respondents had had a variety of work experience before receiving their Ph.D. degrees. Some of them had worked in industry, had conducted research, or had taught at a university 120 before deciding to change their major area or to pursue an advanced degree in the field they were currently teaching. WWW All of the respondents spoke with positive conviction about their academic credentials, experience, and lengthy preparation for Hithout exception, they expressed their an academic career. dedication to their work and the long hours needed to excel in their jobs. Typical responses were: I possess the usual necessary qualifications for an academic: I serve good writing skills, research, service, and teaching. on several committees at the state, national and international levels. I have I have experience in industry as well as in academe. strong communication skills [and] relate very well with the students. [I have] good academic performance, strong research skills, knowledge of foreign languages, [and] work experience at the international level. Academic credentials are a given. Know the system. Establish networks. I am very self-motivated. I love to do research. You must have perseverance. . all the pride of being [I have) a very supportive family . . Hhat this means is you don’t want to do anything Hispanic. less than other people. A tremendous capacity for work; you That’s the have to work 15-16 hours a day seven days a week. way to do it and a great love for my work. I guess if you put if this is a measure of success it is all that together, because I work very, very hard. Another respondent said that Hispanics must learn the unwritten rules of the Anglos. the reasons As evidenced by the preceding quotations, interviewees gave for their success in academe were diverse. They 121 showed a group of talented, highly educated, and dedicated academics. The respondents talked about their educational background and work experience before pursuing a Ph.D. degree: In my home country my original background was in agronomy. I practiced that profession before switching to my present field. I made contacts in the U.S. and managed to get funding to pursue a Ph.D. in my present field. I knew since I was a little boy that I wanted to be a scientist. I knew very early in life that I wanted to be a scientist. I was always reading. I read a great deal as a child. I decided I liked science when I was in grammar school. I wanted to go into the educational field. I went into medicine, and I changed to my present field. I worked as a scientist in industry; then I decided to pursue a master’s and a Ph.D. Without doubt, these academicians were high achievers and goal oriented. Most of them talked about the positive learning environment in their homes and the encouragement and support they had received from their families. At least three interviewees had very strong role models, and two spoke highly of their mentors. As the interviews progressed and the respondents reflected on the content of their job and the conditions of their work environment, salient themes began to emerge. These are discussed in the following pages. and d or All of the respondents expressed positive feelings about teaching. 'This aspect of their jobs was the most rewarding 122 experience for them. In response to the question, "In general, what gives you satisfaction in your job?” interviewees stated: I am happy in the classroom. I like to help others. I like the job because I like the students; I love to teach. I love to see a success where I can see a student come in and I bring'them through the wall of being monolingual, let’s say Spanish, and bring them through a wall in where they’ll be bilingual. I am happy when I see the students graduate. I like to be creative. So my satisfaction in my job comes from my ability to be creative. Creativity in my job gives me satisfaction. I really feel good about it. That’s a very hard question. I guess what gives me satisfaction is the freedom that you have and the ability to do. ’ No one tells you how to do something; for instance, in teaching class they tell you, "This is the class you are going to teach"; they don’t tell you what you should cover and how you should do it and it’s very scary, but it’s also very rewarding because you get to create something yourself. Another thing that’s really rewarding is the feedback that I get from the students. It’s amazing. I’ve been teaching undergraduates and have some undergraduates who are there because they have to be, but there are some that really want to learn and you . . . really get such positive feedback from them. They say, ”I really appreciate you taking the time to explain this to me,“ or they really appreciate the fact that just anybody will listen to them because they don’t seem to get very much feedback from other professors, or maybe just from the university. So that’s been very rewarding. I really enjoy doing research . . . [but] I don’t like writing up the report. So I really enjoy sort of the nuts and bolts of designing research and developing the theory and running your model, I really like that. [I enjoy] being able to discuss issues . . . to ask the students the right questions. Being able to rethink my own position. I like very much the contact with the students; I really like to work with them, and I enjoy that, I really do. There are many things to learn in my area. I like the studying for what I have to teach; it’s rewarding and keeps my mind renovating. Then my occupation takes me all over the world; I have to travel a lot. I’ve been around the world several times. 123 I work very well under stress; this is challenging. I wouldn’t be happy in a 9 to 5 job. I prefer a job that requires a little more. To be able to teach. I like teaching a lot. To have the respect of my peers. To have status. To do research and do all the things I like to do. I am happy here. Hhat gives me the most satisfaction in my job is the feeling of the work well done, to do it better than the rest of the .people. To teach graduate students and observe them growing into budding scientists is such a pleasure! It’s even greater when, after three, four, five years of working, your students start surpassing you, being better than you are in some areas. You feel so proud of the students, like a proud father. These are the things that give me the most pleasure. The professor who made the last comment seemed very comitted to his students, in an unselfish way. He wanted to see them succeed and even surpass him. He seemed very egalitarian in this respect. He was well-mannered, caring, and warm. Although this individual was highly competitive about his work, he did not promote himself. When he was asked, "Why don’t you let others know about the huge amounts of grant money you get?” he answered, "No, this is part of my job." Self-promotion is considered ungentlemanly in his native country, but failure to promote himself places him at a disadvantage in the United States. There was general consensus among the participants that the tasks they enjoyed the most were teaching and interacting with the students. The academicians who were interviewed became part of the students’ lives in many ways: They stated that they taught the students research skills, helped them become bilingual and bicultural, advised them how to find jobs, and eXplained the political system. To achieve these tasks, the respondents used 124 their creativity to develop several teaching techniques. The most important skill was to communicate well with the students, to earn their trust. This was even more important than teaching them the subject matter, according to one respondent. Teaching and positive interaction with the students satisfied the respondents because these activities motivated the academicians and promoted their development. Hork Itself is one of Herzberg’s motivators, and teaching is part of this factor. The interview responses were supported by empirical findings in this study. One hundred nine respondents in the entire study (88.6%) indicated that they were satisfied with this factor. Most of the interviewees perceived themselves as good professors and as being able to establish good rapport with their students. For them, communicating with their students and earning their trust were as important as facilitating the learning process. Another source of satisfaction and pride expressed by some interviewees was being part of their students’ professional development, even if that meant being surpassed by the students. The matter of teaching--being able to discuss issues and to encourage the transmission of knowledge--was a dynamic process in the lives of the academicians interviewed. This dynamic interaction challenged the professors’ intellect. They had to study to keep up with the students. The transmission of knowledge to the students made the professors the facilitators as well as the beneficiaries, 125 along with the students. The constant updating of their area of expertise produced self-development, and this growth motivated them. Three respondents stated that academe is a very demanding and challenging enterprise, but they accepted and enjoyed the challenge because they worked well under pressure. They agreed that they would not be satisfied in an 8 to 5 job; it would not be sufficiently challenging. The respondents set high standards for themselves and endeavored to live up to them. Henna Interviewees were asked whether they had had a mentor in their lives. Two respondents had had mentors. Both spoke highly of them and discussed the positive influence of their friendship and guidance on their professional development and academic success: I had mentors all my life. But in graduate school I had two. . . Not only were they professional mentors but also social1y--familywise--very close. So, I saw a mentorship, I think to me the mentorship was further than just human and intellectual and professional development. They became part of our total family and I became part of their family. To me, mentoring, and I think it has part to do with me being Hispanic, I didn’t separate the professional from the family. The mentors are American. He’s an Anglo; he’s not a Latino. He’s brilliant. He taught me things about my own culture. He started off with a graduate- mentor relationship. I learned from him. I watched him teach and I watched the skill that he had in taking a classroom and bringing students this wonderful information. I taught his classes. He did research together; we published together. He became very close friends. That mentor in my life, I think, was very crucial, and we are still very, very close. He helped me find work. He wrote wonderful letters of reconniendation. In contrast, participants who had not had a mentor gave the following responses: 126 No. I never had a mentor in the United States. In this country I have had to swim on my own. No, I didn’t. I did everything on my own. I had to find people to help me get through courses or to get into the program I got into. I really did everything on my own. No. I wish I had. 70f I have never had a mentor to guide me in my professional i e. The findings in the entire study showed that 87% of the respondents did not have any kind of mentor either. For academics to learn about the system, mentorships seem crucial. Mentorships are important not only for individuals to learn to conduct research, but also for them to learn the criteria for scholarly work. Above all, mentors are important in learning the normative behaviors of the Anglo community, especially in academe. l' n ' n d A imi 'on The theme of personal or professional alienation emerged on several occasions with some of the participants. According to McKee (1969), "the alienated person . . . is one who is estranged from the social groups and organizations of modern social life in which he must necessarily be a role player“ (p. 117). Various factors seemed to contribute to the respondents’ feelings of alienation. One was the small representation of Hispanic faculty and administrators at their universities. It was not uncommon to hear the respondents remark during the interview: 127 Unfortunately, I am the only Hispanic in my department. I do not interact with other Hispanic faculty. I keep in touch with grad students from my country. A second factor contributing to respondents’ feeling of alienation was the size of the universities. Two stated: I felt lost in this mega-campus. By the nature of my work, I don’t even see my own colleagues. I only see other Hispanic faculty at a conference or at a meeting. This campus is too big; the buildings are scattered aroun . A female respondent expressed the reason for her alienation from her peer group: I am excluded from their interaction because I am a female. A male faculty member, trying to sort out the cause of his alienation, said: I recognize that at the present time I am isolated. I feel that I do not belong in the [Anglo peer group]. I have not been able to determine yet if I am not part of that group because they do not accept me or because I alienate myself because I feel different. Lack of a Hispanic conlnunity contributed to another type of alienation. One respondent missed the state where he had grown up and attended school. He said: I miss the [multicultural] diversity of my state--the food, the weather. I feel isolated in the Midwest. Another missed his native country. He stated: I miss the interactions with my friends, the dinners, the friendly discussions at the cafes. There is more personal contact. Here they give you 15 minutes of their time; if you take a little longer you feel you are imposing. One common element that emerged was expressed by four respondents: their desire to return to the country or state from 128 which they had come. It did not matter whether they had been born overseas or in the United States; all four felt uprooted in the Midwest. Lack of a Hispanic conmunity and their perception of a not-very-welcoming working environment seemed to contribute to their sense of isolation. An opposite view to a sense of alienation was expressed by two respondents who believed they had been assimilated and were part of the larger non-Hispanic community. An interviewee from a southwest- ern state said: My family and I know this community very well; we like it and we are happy here in the Midwest. A foreign-born Hispanic attributed his success in the United States to his assimilation into the community, his influence and contributions: In my view one thing that has contributed to us being relatively successful is my family and my integration within. He didn’t come here and have people isolate and block our input to the environment and the country. We were out fairly quickly and that made us feel more at home in a way, not that alien, and also opened some doors for us. This respondent believed that Hispanics who live in Hispanic neighborhoods, especially in southwestern states, might have a more difficult time assimilating into the mainstream of American society than those who live in culturally heterogeneous surroundings. Mi t 5 Whereas two of the respondents did not perceive their minority status as having any effect on their positions at the universities 129 at which they worked, the rest of the interviewees did perceive such an effect, and they reflected on the implications involved. Minorities on this campus get jobs only in nfinority-oriented programs, even though we are trained to do other things than minorityeoriented programs. I have a chairman who is a bigot, and there is nothing that he will stop [at] in order to show the minorities that their place is below the regular American, the Anglo-Saxon. Our president is a champion in understanding the problems of discrimination, minorities, equal opportunities, affirmative action. However, this university does not depend on authority from the top. The basic authority in this university is the department chairmen. So the president can say whatever he wants, but the department chairmen will do whatever they want. The only power the president has over the department chairmen is the budget. The perceptions of minority status with regard to implementation of affirmative action policies elicited mixed reactions from several respondents: Hhen they tell you, "Oh well, we just hired you because you’re a woman" . . . that is, you know, really frustrating. Hhen I got appointed to an administrative position some people said, ”Hell, she got it because she was a female and a minority,” totally ignoring the fact that the committee and the faculty overwhelmingly voted. So you have to live with that. You have to believe in yourself and not let others think they can shake your own confidence. They don’t hire Hispanics because they are professionals in a particular area of expertise but because they are Hispanics. Our areas of expertise don’t count. I resent,that. He don t need entitlement; we want empowerment. He don t need anything free; we can earn our own place. Everything is treated as an affirmative action case. My appointment was not an affirmative action case, so I was a candidate from . . . among 15 or so other people, Americans and other nationalities. ’So the fact of being Hispanic, I don’t think, per se, wasn t really. a consideration. As I say, it wasn’t an affirmative action position. Of course, being Hispanic and associated withlit‘,j having experience in Latin America and speaking Spanish, he pe me get the position, but I say it was not an affirmative action position. 130 According to McKee (1969): The pattern of majority-minority relations in any society is not to be explained primarily in terms of some set of prevailing prejudices; rather, minority status can be understood only as one kind of social inequality, and this is a structural arrangement that is maintained by more than just attitudes. Indeed, the domination of a minority group by a majority group cannot occur except through the exercise of social power. To be a majority group and to confine a minority groupto a subordinate position within the social structure requires the majority group to have the instruments and mechanisms of power necessary to sustain its dominant position. To discriminate in employment requires that the majority group have control over the distribution of jobs. To discriminate in education requires that the majority group control the educational process. (p. 294) To remedy the problem of social inequality, institutions of higher education have established policies based on the principle of equal opportunity. To ensure this process, programs have been created to promote recruitment, appointment, and promotion of professionals from minority groups. Efforts to ensure equal opportunity in institutions of higher education were viewed with mixed feelings by several participants. Some wanted entitlement or increased representation of Hispanics on campus. Others wanted the appointment of Hispanic faculty and administrators to be based not on ethnic background but on academic credentials and professional expertise. This group wanted empowerment or the ability and opportunity to create their own equity and to earn their place in academe. Hence, some respondents perceived appointments through implementation of affirmative action programs as deterrents to achieving professional credibility and status and full participation in mainstream academe. 131 The findings showed that only 10 (8.3%) of the participants in the entire study group had been appointed through affirmative action programs. Therefore, implementation of such programs with the individuals who took part in this study had been minuscule. Permanent appointments solely to minority-oriented programs were a source of dissatisfaction for some respondents. They perceived these appointments as limiting their possibility of growth and upward mobility. People holding such positions are not able to participate fully in mainstream academe; they are overused in these positions, and their areas of expertise are underused. This is a waste of human resources. Alluding to the underuse of human potential, McGregor (1960) stated: ”He have not learned enough about the utilization of talent, about the creation of an organizational climate conducive to human growth" (p. vi). MW During the interviews, two of the most salient and consistently discussed themes were the institutions’ promotional systems and hiring practices related to Hispanic faculty and administrators. Herzberg (1960) coded Company Policy and Administration as one factor that leads to job dissatisfaction. This category describes a sequence of events in which some over-all aspect of the organization is a factor. Herzberg identified two kinds of over-all policy and administration characteristics. One involves the adequacy or inadequacy of the institution’s organization and management. The second involves not inadequacy, but the harmfulness or the beneficial effects of the organization’s policies. These are primarily personnel policies. Hhen viewed negatively, these policies are n8; 9d7escribed as ineffective, but rather “malevolent.“ (pp. - ) I 132 Two interviewees expressed dissatisfaction with their institutions’ policies, particularly the promotional system, which negatively affected their attitudes toward their jobs. One of the academicians stated that the criteria used to evaluate his performance were not the same as those used to assess other people in his unit. He perceived that differential treatment prevented him from receiving the same rewards as others who performed the same kind of work. There are several things that give me dissatisfaction at this school. [One] is that there is a very subtle, but a very clear and very effective discrimination. Because I am a Hispanic, I believe I have much less opportunities, much less materials, much less everything, than the average American has. However, when I have to be evaluated, they are a lot more severe with me than with any average American. If an American has to publish three papers a year I have to publish five, with much less assistance than the American professor. This causes me a lot 0f dissatisfaction. I think they are not only cheating me but they are also cheating my students, the people who depend on my wor . This respondent’s perception of discrimination based on ethnic grounds, translated into harsher evaluations and lack of recognition of his work, seems relevant to McKee’s (1969) analysis of the structure of discrimination against minority groups based on racial or ethnic grounds: The crux of minority status is the capacity of one group to impose discrimination upon another. Discrimination, in turn, is that behavior which denies to some people opportunities for status and (reward solely because of their belonging to a particular group or category of people, usually a racial or ethnic one. DiscriminatiOn is thus differential treatment; some categbries of people are treated by a different set of criteria than are others. (p. 305) Equity theorists also have asserted that people like to be treated fairly and that when their inputs into their jobs do not 133 correspond to the outcomes received by others, this causes dissatisfaction (Adams, 1965; cited in Deci, 1975). Another respondent perceived lack of equity and opportunity for professional development based on ethnic grounds: Ethnocentrism, racism . . . that’s a real difficulty problem here. He are not given all the treatment and understanding we need to have a better environment to work in. 'I am not allowed to be myself. Minorities on this campus get jobs only in minority oriented programs even though we are trained to do other things. . . . There is no upward mobility. Hhen there are job openings we are not the ones to get them. Others with less academic credentials than us get the jobs. That’s the kind of discrimination we have here, it’s that bad. That’s very, very, very dissatisfying because there’s no upward mobility. . . . There is a network and we discuss these things. But there is very little we can do because if we raise our voice we may be in jeopardy of losing our promotions or whatever. The merit system is another dissatisfaction. . . The environment that I have described is a very negative one and it’s very hard to be who I am and feel comfortable. According to McKee (1969), most people are ethnocentric; that is, they look at the world from the viewpoint of their own particular group or society (p. 10). Three respondents stated that being Hispanic had affected them indirectly. Because there were so few Hispanic faculty on campus, they were always being asked to serve on committees or to write reports. Such activities are time consuming and detract from research and other scholarly pursuits. Two respondents did not perceive their minority status as having any adverse effect on their academic careers. On the contrary, one interviewee stated: I am happy here. I am respected, I have status. You have to learn the unwritten rules of the Anglos. 134 This respondent did not elaborate on the normative behavior of Anglo society, nor did he explain or elaborate on the factors that gave him job satisfaction. Another respondent stated that his graduate program had given him opportunities for research and other responsibilities that had not been given to other graduate students. This had helped him earn recognition and respect, and as a faculty member he had been "all over the place; I’ve been around the world several times. So that’s satisfying." Two other respondents acknowledged being satisfied with their jobs because they were recognized, given responsibility, and had the possibility of growth or professional development. According, to Herzberg, all of these factors are satisfiers that produce intrinsic motivation. Conversely, the remaining respondents perceived they were not being recognized or given jobs with responsibility and the possibility of growth. They did not perceive the possibility for advancement or upward mobility but did perceive a sense of inequity by their supervisors. Horking conditions in some of the institutions did not seem very welcoming and nurturing. According to Herzberg, such conditions do not motivate people; on the contrary, they contribute to job dissatisfaction. There seemed to exist a dichotomy between the philosophy of the presidents of at least two universities and that of leaders at the college and departmental levels. The presidents supported Hispanic issues, affirmative action programs, 135 and other minority needs. Nonetheless, the respondents perceived that their supervisors did not share the same sentiments about minority needs and issues as did the presidents of their universities. The data suggested that either the colleges and departments are totally autonomous units except for fiscal matters (Borland, 1970), or there is a breakdown in conlnunication between the universities’ central administrators and the colleges in matters concerning implementation of affirmative action programs to achieve an egalitarian system. A female respondent was frustrated because her male peers did not know how to relate to a female colleague without being patronizing; they did not recognize her knowledge and expertise. Informal interaction with male co-workers was lacking. She found the behavior of her male peers disconcerting, especially because she came from a diversified and nontraditional environment. Her outstanding academic credentials in a nontraditional field did not seem to make any difference to her male Anglo peers in the department. Interpersonal relationships in the department were a cause of great dissatisfaction for this interviewee. She stated: Hhat dissatisfies me? Hell, one thing that’s very frustrating is being the only woman in my department; that’s very frustrating because I feel isolated. It’s also frustrating because a lot of men don’t know how to interact with women professionally. Some of them are patronizing, even though they don’t mean to be; some are very nice but they’re still patronizing. ‘They tend to try to tell you to do things or try to give you advice. You know, they have good intentions, they want to help you out, but the effect is often times to treat you as though you don’t know anything. And it’s really frustrating. It’s frustrating to see that so many of them profess to be liberals, and yet they don’t . . . their everyday 136 interaction and how they make their decisions . . . and how they interact and how they deal with minority issues, are not liberal; they don’t really have any real experience. This respondent perceived that her colleagues’ good intentions to be open and liberal were really just theoretical; they did not put them into practice. Another source of dissatisfaction for this respondent was institutional politics. The tensions and conflicts in her depart- ment resulting from politics she attributed to lack of professional- ism and maturity: Politics-~there are a lot of times when I feel people in the university . . . are not being clear about what is their motivation, or it seems as though their motivation is very personal and not professional. I have trouble with that because I think when people interact in the department, there should be a certain level of professionalism, and it seems like a lot of the time it just boils down to people not liking each other. . .. . These people are supposed to be adults, they’re supposed to be professionals, and I don’t like it when things just boil down to politics, although I realize no matter where you go there’s a problem with that, anywhere. In Egljtjgs 9f Higher Egggatjgn, Hines and Hartmark (1980) defined politics in higher education as being “concerned basically with patterns of interaction or conflict over values, interests, and goals, relating to the perceived needs of higher education" (p. 3). The respondent perceived differential treatment by her colleagues and a work environment that lacked support systems for female academicians, especially those who were raising a family. The division of labor in academe creates some problems because the behaviors and expectations for men and women are different. The interviewee stated: 137 Homen are not fully informed of decisions that are being made at informal social activities. . . . Men are praised to work overtime, to stay at the office many hours. Hhen women, especially married women, work overtime they might get criticized for neglecting their family. They have to work on both fronts--at the work place and at home. The quantitative and qualitative data from this study suggest that female academicians did not have support systems to meet their special needs. The results showed that Hispanic women are underrepresented in the Big Ten Universities (only 29 participated in the study) and that they have less job security than men. Only six (9.4%) female respondents were tenured, compared to 58 (90.4%) males. In addition, women lack support systems and mentoring programs“ at the organizational level. Further, male-female interactions seem to lack recognition of professional equality and a spirit of collegiality. These conditions do not seem conducive to personal and professional development. Herzberg (1966) stated: "The primary functions of any organization, whether religious, political or industrial, should be to implement the needs for man to enjoy a meaningful experience” (p. x). Universities need to find solutions to the problems female academicians face by changing some of their existing policies, such as the promotional system and provision of sick leave, maternity leave, and day-care centers. Mentoring systems should be established throughout the universities to alleviate some of the professional and personal problems that women face when they enter academe . 138 MW Four respondents stated that they did not participate in Hispanic affairs on campus. The reasons they gave for not participating were as follows: I am traveling a good proportion of my time. . . . I am not in any position of representation among the Hispanic faculty. I don’t get that involved with the students, and quite frankly I don’t think that their problems are as serious as the community’s problems. I have other interests. I am doing research. There is no time for other activities. The data suggest that respondents who participated in Hispanic affairs on campus did not do so as soon as they arrived on campus. They began to participate after they had been on campus a few years and had developed a certain level of social awareness. One interviewee stated: Until two or three years ago, not only was I not involved in Hispanic affairs on campus, but I didn’t even know that Hispanics needed any assistance. . . . Somewhere in my heart I thought that every Hispanic enjoyed more or less the same status that I do. He presented a plan to the university’s president. He are multicultural, but we insisted that we should be recognized as one single group despite our multicultural identities. Lately, I feel very proud to say that maybe by the mediation of my leadership the two groups came together and they started with one single voice. It doesn’t matter if they don’t agree on everything, we still are Hispanics, all of us, and we have to get some good things for Hispanics as a group. . . . He don’t have political power at this university because the problem I was telling you is that the Hispanics come in the lowest category of faculty, and they are never promoted, they never get to the positions in which they can make decisions. 139 The last statement was confirmed by empirical evidence. Only two respondents (3.8%) in the entire study group acknowledged being part of the decision-making process in their institutions. One said: Let’s celebrate diversity; even within our diversities we are still Hispanics. He should present ourselves as a group in spite of our diversity. Another interviewee partially agreed: He realize that even among Spanish-speaking people in the United States, even among Chicanos, you have the California type, you have the midwestern type, you have the Texas type. He are saying, "Look, it’s about time [we acknowledge] our diversity because there are some important differences and if you’re talking about policies that are informed, coming up with informed policies, we cannot homogenize the population." That’s what the older social scientists did. Literally painted us all with one brush. There is a fundamental difference between these two respondents’ statements with regard to the implementation of policies affecting Hispanics. One was saying: He are not a group. He have to present an agenda that covers our basic problems. He have a certain political issue in common. That’s different from saying we’re one group and we’re all united; we are one big happy family. A different posture was expressed as a consequence of mediation and efforts to achieve some sense of cohesiveness: I feel proud to say that maybe by the mediation of my leadership the_two groups came together and they started with one single voice. It doesn’t matter if they don’t agree on everything, we still are Hispanics, all of us, and we have to get some good things for Hispanics as a group. Misconceptions about cultural differences among Hispanics and racism in society are two of the reasons one respondent cited as to why Hispanics coming to work at his institution found it so 140 difficult to adjust. His participation in Hispanic affairs consisted of trying to educate higher-ups about these differences and endeavoring to make Hispanics feel welcome in a working environment that lacked the support system to achieve a sense of belongingness. He stated: I am very strongly involved. I explain and make people aware that the Latino culture is very diverse. The Latino groups on campus are different and have different expectations. There are cultural, political, and regional differences among Latinos. He just brought in a new administrator. His family is very uncomfortable here. They don’t have a support system, there’s none of that, and that’s a problem; the community does not have a strong support system, there is not a lot of culture. There’s racism here, in the society. Because of the complexity of the Hispanic culture and the many variations and dimensions among various subgroups, no attempt will be made to discuss cultural differences among the study respondents. That topic could be addressed in further studies with more homogeneous Hispanic groups. However, six respondents talked about the cultural diversity among Hispanic groups in the United States and abroad and the lack of knowledge and understanding of this cultural diversity by members of the majority group or Anglo society. According to the respondents, lack of information has led to ethnocentrism, stereotyping, and other negative attitudes toward the Hispanic population. Even though it was not this researcher’s intention to examine cultural differences among the respondents, that theme emerged several times in the interviews. The discussions provided insight into the frustrations of some respondents because of the misunderstanding of differences in the aspirations of the several 141 Hispanic groups on campus. The respondents perceived that the negative responses and lack of acceptance were due to discrimination and racial prejudice, and perhaps stereotyping, as well. Some felt compelled to try to educate their communities. The interviewees also provided insight into the different political and cultural groups and their agendas. Interviewees gave a variety of reasons for participating or not participating in Hispanic affairs on campus. Hispanics who believed in empowerment by groups and those who believed in working together as a group despite cultural differences were both politically active. Although certain philosophical differences exist among the various Hispanic groups, the professionals in this study wanted to be more active participants in the decision-making process in their institutions. They perceived themselves to be capable of making a valuable contribution and wanted to be recognized as competent professionals whose cultural differences were understood and respected. According to Sergiovanni and Elliott (1975): A basic principle in motivation theory is that people invest themselves in work in order to obtain desired returns or rewards. Examples of that are time energy, mental energy, creativity, knowledge, skills, enthusiasm and effort. Returns or rewards can take a variety of tangible and intangible forms, including money, respect, comfort, a sense of accomplishment, social acceptance and security. (pp. 138-39) Throughout the interviews, respondents referred to these factors in either a positive or negative way, according to their particular circumstances and working conditions. Their desired 142 returns or rewards were reflected in some of their remarks: 'I work very, very hard.‘I "I am very creative; I am respected.” ”This community does not offer comfort.” 'I just learned that we Hispanics are tolerated but not accepted." 99.001.051.003 Herzberg had a deep and realistic understanding of the complexities of' human beings. The participants in this study demonstrated these complexities and dichotomies, satisfaction and dissatisfaction. The themes that emerged during the personal interviews corroborated some of the empirical findings of the study with regard to Herzberg’s conceptualization of job satisfaction and job dissatisfaction. There was consensus that the motivator Hork Itself contributed to satisfaction. On the other hand, dissatisfac- tion with Company Policy and Administration, Interpersonal Relation- ships with Superiors, Supervision (Administrative Leadership), and Horking Conditions all contributed to job dissatisfaction, as confirmed by the empirical data of the study. CHAPTER VI SUMARY, CONCLUSIONS, RECOMMENDATIONS, AND REFLECTIONS Summer! The researcher’s primary purpose in this study was to examine the conditions and factors contributing to job satisfaction and dissatisfaction among Hispanic faculty and administrators in the Big Ten universities, as perceived by those individuals. A secondary purpose was to examine to what extent the respondents perceived themselves as participating in the decision-making processes in their units as part of their academic and administrative responsibilities. Finally, the researcher examined effects that institutional policies and practices have had on Hispanic faculty and administrators in the Big Ten universities, as perceived by those persons. The study group included Hispanic faculty and administrators in the Big Ten universities. Officials of these universities reported that the total number of tenured and tenure-track faculty in 1987 was 18,784, of whom 182 (0.96%) were Hispanics. The total number in executive, administrative, and managerial ranks was 5,584, of whom 39 (0.69%) were Hispanics. The total number of administrative/ professional nonfaculty members was 31,500, 420 (1.33%) of them Hispanics. The study group included all Hispanic faculty and 143 144 administrators at the executive and managerial levels in the Big Ten universities. A questionnaire developed by Abreu (1980) to test Herzberg’s Two-Factor Theory was adapted and revised by this researcher. Respondents used a five-point ordinal Likert-type scale to indicate their perceived level of job satisfaction or job satisfaction (1 - Very Satisfied to 5 - Very Dissatisfied). Open-ended questions were added to elicit respondents’ attitudes toward aspects of job satisfaction and job dissatisfaction. Simple descriptive statistics, which included frequencies and percentages, were used in analyzing the data for some of the research questions. Hhenever possible and appropriate, a chi-square test was used to determine whether a statistically significant relationship existed (at the .05 level) between certain variables. The Statistical Package for the Social Sciences (SPSS-X) was used in analyzing the quantitative data. Qualitative data were collected through in-depth personal interviews, as well as from open-ended questions on the mailed questionnaire. r f ' 'n an In this section, each research question is restated, followed by the major findings and conclusions for that question. 145 W To what extent do Hispanic faculty and administrators perceive Herzberg’s intrinsic factors as contributing to job satisfac- tion within their organizations? W. Overall, respondents expressed the highest satisfaction with Hork Itself, Responsibility, Achievement, and Advancement, in that order. Recognition for Achievement and Possibility for Growth are the intrinsic factors with which respondents were least satisfied. Satisfaction by gender. There was no clear indication of differences in satisfaction between males and females except on Achievement, with which females were less satisfied than males. Satisfaction by tenure track. A consistently low percentage of satisfaction was observed among respondents who were not on track; the lowest was for Recognition for Achievement, and the highest was for Hork Itself. Levels of satisfaction among respondents who were on track but not tenured were generally higher than among those with tenure, particularly on Responsibility, Hork Itself, Achievement, and Advancement. This finding suggests that faculty who were striving for tenure were highly motivated. Satisfaction by income. Overall, a higher level of satisfac- tion was observed among respondents in the high-income category than among those in the low-income category. Respondents in the low- income category were more satisfied with Hork Itself than were those in the high-income category. On the other satisfiers, low-income respondents had lower levels of satisfaction than did their high- income counterparts. 146 Satisfaction by academic title. Full professors indicated more satisfaction with most of the motivators than did assistant and associate professors, except on Hork Itself. A low percentage of satisfaction on Possibility for Growth was observed among assistant and associate professors. Instructors and administrators indicated a generally low percentage of satisfaction with all the motivators except Hork Itself. Satisfaction by university. The levels of satisfaction of respondents at various universities varied greatly. Those at 00 University indicated the least satisfaction with Responsibility, Hork Itself, Achievement, and Advancement. Respondents from YY indicated the highest level of satisfaction with Responsibility, Hork Itself, and Recognition for Achievement, but they had the lowest level of satisfaction with achievement. Other universities ranked high on some of the motivators. 22, CC, and 00 ranked high on Hork Itself; TT and XX ranked high on Achievement, Advancement, and Possibility for Growth; RR ranked high on Achievement. anclgsjons. On the whole, respondents perceived the intrinsic factors as contributing to job satisfaction. The lowest levels of satisfaction were with Recognition for Achievement and Possibility for Growth. This seems to indicate that the respondents did not foresee the possibility of a promotion or of improving their professional skills in any way. Neither did they receive much praise or social or political support for a job well done. A consistently low percentage of satisfaction among respondents who 147 were not on track suggests that they were holding positions in which they did not foresee a possibility of upward mobility. Hork Itself continued to be a satisfier to them. Even though a clear conclusion cannot be drawn regarding levels of job satisfaction among males and females, the data for female faculty suggested an absence of achievement on their part. Their lack of satisfaction with Achievement might be explained by the significant relationship that was found between tenure status and gender. Income seemed to have a positive effect on the respondents’ feelings about their jobs. Thus, levels of satisfaction seemed to be related to such indicators of success as high income and academic rank. Full professors’ levels of satisfaction were high on all satisfiers except Hork Itself, which seems to suggest that as one rises on the ladder of success in terms of academic rank and income, the intrinsic satisfaction of doing the job decreases. W To what extent do Hispanic faculty and administrators perceive Herzberg’s extrinsic factors as contributing to job dissatis- faction within their organizations? mmar f ' . On the whole, Herzberg’s extrinsic factors were perceived as sources of dissatisfaction. The main dissatisfiers for the respondents were Company Policy and Administration, Supervision (Administrative Leadership), and Interpersonal Relationships with Superiors. Respondents also I48 expressed dissatisfaction with Horking Conditions (Horkload, Secretarial Help, Car Parking, and Office Location and Space). Dissatisfaction by gender. Both females and males indicated a high level of dissatisfaction with Supervision (Administrative Leadership) and Interpersonal Relationships with Superiors. A higher level of dissatisfaction with Horking Conditions (Horkload and Secretarial Help) was observed among females, whereas males expressed a higher level of dissatisfaction with the Horking Conditions of Car Parking and Office Location and Space. For both males and females, the lowest level of dissatisfaction was observed for Interpersonal Relationships with Peers. Dissatisfaction by tenure track. Respondents who were not on track expressed higher levels of dissatisfaction with Company Policy and Administration than did those who were on tenure track. Respondents who were not on track also indicated a higher level of dissatisfaction than did those who had tenure with regard to Horking Conditions (Horkload and Secretarial Help). All respondents indicated some degree of dissatisfaction with the Horking Conditions of Car Parking and Office Location and Space. Dissatisfaction by income. In general, respondents with low incomes expressed a higher level of dissatisfaction than did those with high incomes. The greatest differences in dissatisfaction among respondents in the two income groups were observed on Job Security, Horking Conditions (Horkload, Secretarial Help, Car Parking, and Office Location and Space), Supervision (Administrative Leadership), and Interpersonal Relationships with Superiors. 149 Dissatisfaction by academic title. Instructors and adminis- trators expressed the highest levels of dissatisfaction, followed by assistant professors; full professors had the lowest level of dissatisfaction. The greatest variations in levels of dissatisfac- tion among respondents with different academic titles were observed on Company Policy and Administration; instructors and administrators were most dissatisfied, followed by assistant professors. Full professors also indicated some degree of dissatisfaction in this area. There was also a discrepancy between instructors’ and admin- istrators’ responses regarding dissatisfaction with Horking Conditions and those of full professors; the latter indicated the least dissatisfaction. Dissatisfaction by university. Variations in dissatisfaction again were found; the greatest differences in levels of dissatisfaction were between respondents from the 00 and YY. Hhile respondents from YY had the lowest level of dissatisfaction for Job Security, Horking Conditions, and Supervision (Administrative Leadership), those from QQ had the highest level of dissatisfaction with Job Security (Pressure to Publish), Company Policy and Administration (Promotional System), Horking Conditions (Horkload [70%] and Office Location and Space), and Interpersonal Relationships with Superiors. Other universities whose respondents expressed high levels of dissatisfaction included RR for Supervision (Administrative Leadership), Company Policy and Administration (Promotional System), Horking Conditions (Secretarial Help), and 150 Interpersonal Relationships with Superiors; and 22 on Company Policy and Administration (Promotional System) and Horking Conditions (especially Secretarial Help, Horkload, and Car Parking). Effects of academic work on lifestyle. The majority of respondents indicated that academic work affected their lifestyle. A large percentage of respondents indicated that academic life was all-consuming and that social and family life were affected. Some respondents felt isolated. A small percentage indicated that they were financially better off as a result of their academic work. The rest indicated that academic work had not had any effect on their lifestyle. anglgsigg. Extrinsic factors, as a whole, contributed to job dissatisfaction. The major findings for this research question indicated a consistent pattern of dissatisfaction with Company Policy and Administration, Supervision (Administrative Leadership), Interpersonal Relationships with Superiors, and Horking Conditions. These extrinsic factors are consistent with Herzberg’s conceptuali- zations and other research done to test the Two-Factor Theory. ar 0 To what extent do Hispanic faculty and administrators partici- pate in Hispanic affairs and the Hispanic community? W. The level of participation in Hispanic affairs on campus seemed to stem from respondents’ desire to promote Hispanic issues. The reasons given for not participating in Hispanic affairs on campus included racial/political tensions, lack of time, and lack of identification with Hispanics. Participation 151 in the Hispanic community was very low. Many respondents indicated that there was no Hispanic community. There was no clear indication whether academic title had any influence on participation or nonparticipation in Hispanic affairs and the Hispanic community. The analysis of participation by ethnic background yielded clearer results. The greatest degree of participation was by Mexican Americans and those of Central and South American backgrounds. Qpnglusigns. The findings did not establish whether participa- tion or nonparticipation in Hispanic affairs and the Hispanic community was a result of cultural or philosophical differences or variations in respondents’ political orientations. W To what extent do Hispanic faculty and administrators perceive institutional policies as contributing to their job dissatis- faction within the organization? ummar 49f findings. The} majority of respondents (62.4%) perceived institutional policies (specifically, the promotional system) as being fair. Those who gave reasons for this perception said the rules for promotion were clearly established and explained, the system was egalitarian, and they understood the publish-or- perish requirement. On the other hand, 37.6% of the respondents expressed dissatisfaction with the promotional system in their institutions. Some described the system as being too political; others said ‘that. discrimination occurred and that the 'old boy network" and friendships were important. Only 8.1% of the respondents in this study had been hired through affirmative action 152 programs. Thirteen percent had been assigned to a mentor when they arrived on campus. 5.904213151905- The respondents’ perceptions of an egalitarian system seemed to stem from the ability of some institutions to establish and explain rules for promotion. On the other hand, negative perceptions of the promotional system seemed to stem from subjectivity in evaluating performance and the negative perceptions of the importance of friendships in being promoted. W Is there a statistically significant relationship between respondents’ general satisfaction and Herzberg’s intrinsic factors? W. A chi-square test was used to determine whether there was a statistically significant relationship between general satisfaction and Herzberg’s intrinsic factors. The results indicated that a statistically significant relationship (at the .05 level) existed between general satisfaction and all six intrinsic factors. Respondents who were satisfied with specific intrinsic factors also were generally satisfied. nc i . A significant relationship was found between respondents’ general satisfaction and Herzberg’s intrinsic factors of Responsibility, Hork Itself, Achievement, Advancement, Recogni- tion for Achievement, and Possibility for Growth. This indicates that the intrinsic factors indeed contributed to the general satis- faction of Hispanic faculty and administrators. 153 W Is there a statistically significant relationship between respondents’ general dissatisfaction and various components of Herzberg’s extrinsic factors? W. Statistically significant relationships were found between respondents’ general dissatisfaction and all but two of Herzberg’s extrinsic factors: Job Security (Pressure to Publish (X2 - 0.010, p > .05) and Company Policy and Administration (Promotional System) (X2 - 2.325, p > .05). Respondents’ dissatis- faction with all other extrinsic factors was significantly related to general dissatisfaction. Conclusions. A significant relationship was found between respondents’ general dissatisfaction and Herzberg’s extrinsic factors of Job Security (Job Giving Security), Supervision (Administrative Leadership), Interpersonal Relationships with Peers, and Interpersonal Relationships with Superiors. This indicates that the extrinsic factors indeed contributed to the general dissatisfaction of Hispanic faculty and administrators. No relationship was found between general dissatisfaction and Company Policy and Administration (Promotional System) and Job Security (Pressure to Publish). e ues i n 7 Is there a statistically significant relationship between respondents’ participation or nonparticipation in Hispanic affairs and the Hispanic community and Herzberg’s intrinsic factors? §Qmma:1_2£_11nd1ngs. A chi-square test revealed no statisti- cally significant relationship between respondents’ participation or 154 nonparticipation in Hispanic affairs and the Hispanic community and Herzberg’s intrinsic factors. W. Based on the finding of no statistical significance, it was concluded that Hispanic faculty and adminis- trators’ participation or nonparticipation in Hispanic affairs and the Hispanic community had no relationship with their perception of Herzberg’s intrinsic factors. Reseangn Question 8 Is there a statistically significant relationship between respondents’ involvement in Hispanic affairs on campus and their being a role model for Hispanic students? umm f ind' . No statistically significant relationship was found between respondents’ involvement in Hispanic affairs on campus and their perception of being a role model for Hispanic students on campus (X2 - 2.918, p > .05). Reasons respondents gave for perceiving themselves as role models included: "I am successful/visible/competent/respected," and ”I encourage, advise them and care about them." Reasons respondents gave for not perceiving themselves as role models included "absence of Hispanic students," "little interaction with Hispanic students,” 'apolitical/ not successful/serve only on minority-related jobs." W. Although 60% of the respondents perceived themselves as role models for Hispanic students, 40% did not perceive themselves that way. This might be due partially to a lack of Hispanic students on campus, which may reflect the high attrition rate of high-school-age Hispanics. Other respondents did 155 not perceive themselves as being successful as role models because they were in minority-oriented programs. W Hhat reasons do respondents give for wanting to leave or stay at the universities during the next three years? W. The reasons respondents gave for wanting to leave the university were more varied than their reasons for wanting to say. The reason many gave for wanting to stay was simply "satisfied with present job.” The reasons for wanting to leave revealed some dissatisfying factors, such as "lack of professional growth/salary/isolation." There were also indications of resigna- tions: "already left; I resigned," "relocation to another geographical location," retirement plans, or "if something better comes up.” The last statement did not necessarily indicate dissatisfaction. Some respondents acknowledged that relocation was one way to advance in academe. W. Sixty percent of the respondents had no intention of leaving the university within the next three years; almost 56% planned to stay because they were satisfied with their jobs. On the other hand, not all of the respondents who planned to leave within the next three years were dissatisfied; some mentioned retirement or a more subtle way of expressing no job satisfaction--"if something better comes up." 156 W Is there a statistically significant relationship between respondents’ gender and their tenure status? Summary pi findings. A chi-square test revealed a statistically significant positive relationship between the respondents’ gender and tenure status. The majority of male respondents were already tenured, whereas most of the female respondents were not on track or were on track but not tenured. Specifically, 58 (90.6%) of the male respondents were tenured, compared to 6 (9.4%) of the female respondents. onc i . The data supported the notion that a strong relationship exists between gender and tenure status. This unfavorable situation for Hispanic female faculty at the Big Ten universities may lead them to have negative attitudes about their jobs. Although tenure was used as a demographic variable in this study, it is one component of Herzberg’s extrinsic factor of Job Security. R tio 1 Do Hispanic faculty and administrators foresee a chance for advancement or an administrative leadership position in their institutions? Wm. One of Herzberg’s factors that determines job satisfaction is Advancement. Seventy-five (61%) respondents indicated positive feelings toward their jobs. They perceived no apparent structural barriers because others had been promoted in the past. Also, they acknowledged having excellent credentials in terms of publications, research, teaching skills, and service to the 157 university conniunity. Others stated they already had reached the top. Conversely, 48 (39%) of the respondents who indicated no job satisfaction perceived no chance for advancement due to discrimination, Hispanic issues not being valued, institutional racism, and the belief that blacks were favored. Other impediments to advancement included structural barriers, the system being too political, having to meet the publish-or-perish requirement, or simply the respondents’ perception that they had already succeeded or had reached the top. Fifty and four-tenths percent of the respondents perceived no barriers to being appointed to an adminis- trative leadership position. Some expressed no interest in such positions. An almost equal percentage of respondents (49.6%) did not perceive the possibility of upward mobility due to structural barriers. gnnglgsjnns. Respondents expressed opposite perceptions regarding the possibility for advancement and appointments to administrative leadership positions. Respondents in the no-job- satisfaction category expressed the strongest criticism of the institution. Those who indicated job satisfaction expressed positive perceptions about the institution and also about themselves. W Have Hispanic faculty and administrators obtained adequate recognition for their achievements in their institutions? m” of finding; There was no clear difference in respondents’ positive and negative feelings concerning Recognition 158 for Achievement. Recognition is another of Herzberg’s motivators. Sixty-three (56.2%) respondents expressed feelings of job satisfac- tion. They perceived this satisfaction in terms of promotions, salary increases, and positive feedback from their students. Two (3.2%) respondents acknowledged being part of the decision-making process. Nineteen (30.1%) did not elaborate on their positive feelings toward their jobs. On the other hand, 49 (43.8%) of the respondents who indicated no job satisfaction perceived that they had not received recognition for their achievements due to discrimination, institutional racism, and Hispanic issues not being valued. Some respondents also perceived the system as too politi- cal. Finally, 18 (36.7%) respondents in the no-job-satisfaction category did not elaborate on those feelings. Cnnglnsions. Based on the findings, it is difficult to conclude that Recognition for Achievement was perceived as a strong motivator. Forty-nine respondents expressed negative feelings toward their institutions. The basis for their lack of satisfaction with Recognition for Achievement seemed to stem from their perceptions of existing structural barriers and a discriminating system. On the other hand, two respondents (3.2%) acknowledged being part of the decision-making process. This finding held true for the entire study. Also, the respondents who expressed satisfaction with Recognition for Achievement perceived salary as one of the reasons for their positive feelings about Recognition, although income was used as a demographic variable in this study. 159 According to Herzberg (1966), salary is a complex factor that influences job attitudes; it has more potency as a job dissatisfier than as a job satisfier (p. 126). r n i The study findings indicated that intrinsic factors contributed significantly more to job satisfaction than to job dissatisfaction of Hispanic faculty and administrators in the Big Ten universities. Individually, the motivators of Hork Itself, Responsibility, and Achievement contributed significantly to satisfaction. These findings correspond to those from other studies (Abreu, 1980; Leon, 1973; Reagan, 1985). The lowest levels of satisfaction were indicated for Recognition for Achievement and Possibility for Growth. These findings agree with those of Velez (1972). High levels of satisfaction with Hork Itself remained constant throughout the analyses. 'This empirical finding was corroborated during the interviews, when participants expressed their* positive attitudes toward teaching. The extrinsic factors, as a whole, contributed significantly more to the dissatisfaction than to the satisfaction of Hispanic faculty and administrators. Individually, Company Policy and Administration, Supervision (Administrative Leadership), Interpersonal Relationships with Superiors, and Horking Conditions were the significant sources of' dissatisfaction in this study. Similar results were obtained by Abreu (1980), Leon (1973), and Reagan (1985). 160 Other findings in this study, such as the relationship that was found between gender and tenure, were supported by Reagan (1985), who stated: A significantly higher proportion of female faculty were non- tenured, and a significantly smaller proportion than expected were tenured, unlike ‘their' male colleagues who reported a higher proportion of tenured and a lower proportion of non- tenured faculty. This tenure imbalance may be due to the fact that, as a group, women tended to be more recent hires. (p. 246 The results of the study also indicated that only 10 (8.1%) of the respondents had been hired through affirmative action programs. Thus, implementation of such programs had had a minimal effect with the respondents in this study. The majority of respondents (87%) said they had not had any kind of mentorship or any support system when they arrived on campus. Finally, according to responses to the open-ended questions and personal interviews, appointments to minority-oriented programs were perceived as a deterrent to upward mobility and an impediment to becoming part of mainstream academe. MW Based on the findings and conclusions of this study, the following recommendations are made. Watts: 1. Because respondents in this study consistently perceived dissatisfaction with administrative leadership at the college and departmental levels and with interpersonal relationships with superiors, there is a compelling need to open channels of 161 communication between central administrators and leaders of individual units to mediate problems that may exist between Hispanic faculty and administrators and leadership at the college and departmental levels, without fear of retribution. Central administrators at the universities should set the tone for a fair, open, and amicable coexistence. 2. Mentorship programs should be established to help Hispanic faculty and administrators become acquainted with the organization’s philosophy, hierarchical structures, goals, normative rules, and available support systems. 3. Clear and objective rules should be established for attainment of tenure and for promotion. 4. Inservice programs should be developed to sharpen faculty and administrators’ skills in writing grants, strategies to obtain research grants, and competence in writing and grading all types of tests. 5. A task force should be established to help female faculty attain tenure and advancement in academe. 6. The results of the study indicated that affirmative action programs were implemented only minimally. Only 10 respondents, or 8.3% of the entire study group, had been appointed through affirmative action programs. Aflso, some of the respondents expressed apprehension about affirmative action because of the negative connotation involved in such appointments. Hence, there is a compelling need to (a) monitor institutional policies regarding implementation of affirmative action programs and (b) disseminate 162 information to educate the public about the procedures, objectives, and criteria used to implement the programs, in order to counteract the misinformation and negative image surrounding these programs. 7. Faculty members should be appointed to minority-oriented programs only on a temporary basis. Otherwise, such appointments result in overuse of faculty in these programs and underuse in their areas of expertise. This is a waste of human resources and talent. Lack of upward mobility will decrease Hispanic faculty/ administrators’ motivation and prevent them from being part of mainstream academe. 8. Lack of knowledge about and appreciation of Hispanic culture, as well as lack of awareness of cultural differences among and problems facing the different Hispanic groups in the United States, frustrated some of the respondents in this study. Therefore, history of Spain, Latin America, and the experience of Hispanics in the United States should be part of the university curriculum. Cultural differences should be understood and appreci- ated. e i for e l. A follow-up study should be done to test Herzberg’s Two- Factor Theory with Hispanic faculty and administrators, using the same methodology Herzberg used in his initial study. 2. A comparative study should be undertaken to test Herzberg’s Two-Factor' Theory' with female Hispanic faculty and female non- Hispanic faculty in the Big Ten universities. 163 3. Research should be conducted to investigate the effects that attrition rates among Hispanic faculty and administrators have on Hispanics who desire to pursue a profession in academe. 4. A follow-up study should be done on the data from EEOC reports for years after 1987 to determine whether the representation of Hispanic faculty and administrators in the Big Ten universities has changed. Implementation of affirmative action programs in the various Big Ten universities should be compared. 5. Another study on job satisfaction should be undertaken with a more homogeneous Hispanic population. 6. One purpose of this research was to establish a data base that could be used to conduct further studies with Hispanic faculty and administrators. It is recommended that studies be conducted comparing Hispanic faculty with faculty from other minority groups, in order to continue learning more about Hispanics in this country. Such research could compare Hispanic and African American faculty, as well as Hispanic and Asian faculty. The studies should be conducted in the Midwest as well as in other geographical locations. R f i The Hispanics: Hho are they? Hhat is happening to them? These were the key questions that impelled me to conduct this study. I hope that related questions will continue to emerge and that answers to them will be found. Many dissertations have been written on job satisfaction, yet none had been written on Hispanic faculty, using Herzberg’s 164 intrinsic and extrinsic factors. Hence, this study is a stepping stone to learning more about the conditions and factors that contribute to Hispanics’ satisfaction in their workplace. I did not depend entirely on quantitative data; qualitative data were also gathered. This methodology yielded richer data. In attempting to understand the respondents’ feelings toward their work, it became imperative to meet some of them. It was a privilege to do so. The question "Hhere are they?" materialized into reality. The second question--"Hhat is happening to them?"--was answered, thanks to many Hispanic faculty and administrators’ willingness to participate in the study and to confide to me their joys and frustrations. The experience was invaluable to this neophyte researcher. It made me wiser, more knowledgeable, and more aware of a deep sense of shared peoplehood with the respondents. I enjoyed hearing about their successes and was impressed with their keen analytical ability, their sense of humor, and their chivalry. I also empathized with the respondents’ frustrations and, in some cases, their sense of inability to change their reality. These feelings of frustration underscore the compelling need to continue examining the working conditions of Hispanics in academe. The study respondents were striving to become actualized. Actualization is achieved through an interplay of autonomy, participation in the decision-making process, and access to the institutions’ support systems. The rewards and returns have to be mutual. 165 The methodology used to collect the data for this study was appropriate. One procedure was to establish a data base on Hispanic faculty and administrators in the Big Ten universities. In further research on Hispanic faculty and administrators, it would be appropriate to test Herzberg’s Two-Factor Theory using his methodology. Universities must reexamine their policies regarding the use of human resources. In responding to the open-ended questions and during 'the interviews, several participants indicated ‘that ‘their knowledge and areas of expertise were not being used; these are untapped resources. Hispanic faculty and administrators are faced with the voluntary or involuntary responsibility of being role models and eventually, perhaps, mentors to Hispanic students. The not-uncommon answer in the survey, ”There are no Hispanic students in the program or in the department," reflects what is happening in school districts throughout the United States: a high rate of attrition or the low rate of high school graduation among Hispanics. Hence, universities should establish a link with school districts and involve Hispanic faculty and administrators in developing programs and conducting research so that they can be instrumental in helping Hispanic students achieve academic success. The researcher faced many difficulties in compiling a list of Hispanic faculty and administrators because the universities had restrictions on releasing the names of faculty and administrators according to ethnic background. Because of this limitation, the researcher mailed the questionnaire to some faculty and 166 administrators who turned out not to be Hispanic, despite their Spanish surnames. The majority of individuals of non-Hispanic origin were gracious about this error and sent notes, cards, and letters of support and good wishes. And to the Hispanic faculty and administrators who answered the questionnaire and allowed me to interview them, and who also sent notes of encouragement and support, my deepest appreciation. Hithout their participation, this dissertation would not have been possible. APPENDICES APPENDIX A NUMERICAL INFORMATION ON HISPANICS AS A PROPORTION OF FACULTY AND ADMINISTRATORS AT THE BIG TEN UNIVERSITIES AND CHARACTERISTICS OF BIG TEN UNIVERSITIES 167 .NNNNNN\3:NN uNENNNuN NNN: N.Nsou age can NNNNE oxNN .u.o .couchNNma cN :oNNNNsEou ANNcau -Noqao NNNENoNNsm Nazca .m.= mgu oN vca aNNNN NNNNN cN coNNNusum No Newsueanmo ozu oN :oNNNuavm gmgmN; No :oNusuNNNcN guNm Na NNNNNccmNn cNNNNenzN NN NNoamN NNsp .NNNNNN -NN>N== NNN aNm an» cN NmuNNNo coNNu< o>NNNsNNNN< No NNoNumNNo «nu an LocuNNmNmN ogN oN umNNgan .Neoamm auNcaugoqao Newsaopasu Nazca Nmap mga NN vchaacou NNNv co uwNNm Nougaom mm._ owe oom.—m mm.o om «mmNm ma.o Nmp ¢w~.mp Pmaop om.m «Np FPVNe —¢.o ~ ~mv op.P em pcPN~ co mm.o m —op.p om.o p csw om.o m somNP dd _o.o mm pomNm mm.o m mmm o~.o pm o~m.~ uu ow.— mp NNN oo.o o can o~.o A sna >> mm.— a mum mo.— am psm om.o op mam.P 4N mw.o mm emv.m vm.o v mvs ~.— mN PmMNN mm m~.F om nom.m om.o m omm om.o mp ovo.~ xx mN.o Fm mm~.v m~.o F mmp om.P mp cavNP NN m—.p ov ovm.m m—.~ m can ov._ op cmPNP Hp mm.o op n-.p vo.~ m va op.p m~ mm—.~ mm N 353:. NNNNN N 258:. :32 NN NNNNNNN: NNNNN NNNNUNNNoz NNNNomNcN: NONNN meacop :oNNNNNNNcN NNcoNNNmNoNN \N>NNNNNNN:NEN< . vca omgzcwp \NNoNNNNNNcNec< \N>Nuaumxu .NNogmN u0mu Nwmp mgu a» acmccouua .NNNNNNNN>N:: amp mNm mgu NN NNoNNNNNNcNENN ch NapzuNN NNNoN a» uoNNasou NN NuNcNaNN: No ooNucmugma tea NNNENZ--.N.< NNNNN 168 Characteristics of Big Ten Universities (1986) University of Illinois Champaign-Urbana, Illinois Founded in 1867 Total enrollment: 34,427 Indiana University Bloomington, Indiana Founded in 1820 Total enrollment: 33,000 University of Iowa Iowa City, Iowa Founded in 1847 Total enrollment: 30,000 University of Michigan Ann Arbor, Michigan Founded in 1817 Total enrollment: 32,710 Michigan State University East Lansing, Michigan Founded in 1855 Total enrollment: 41,032 University of Minnesota Minneapolis, Minnesota Founded in 1851 Total enrollment: 47,174 Northwestern University Evanston, Illinois Founded in 1851 Total enrollment: 15,699 Ohio State University Columbus, Ohio Founded in 1873 Total enrollment: 53,438 Purdue University .Hest Lafayette, Indiana Founded in 1869 Total enrollment: 31,987 University of Hisconsin Madison, Hisconsin Founded in 1848 Total enrollment: 45,050 APPENDIX 8 COVER LETTER, QUESTIONNAIRE, AND LETTER OF SUPPORT 169 Sohed Rodriguez 1020 Pebblebrook Lane East Lansing. Michigan 48823 (517) 351-3128 February 15. 1989 The attached questionnaire based on Frederick Herzberg's Two Factor Theory is designed to measure job satisfaction and dissatisfaction oi the Hispanic faculties and administrators in the Big Ten Universities. Your voluntary participation will be greatly appreciated as it is essential to my dissertation study. Consequently, tor the results to be valid a near unanimous response is important. You may choose not to participate at all or not to answer certain questions without penalty. Be assured that all your answers will be held in the strictest confidentiality. Your name will not appear on any material developed from responses to this questionnaire. The questionnaire has been coded for purposes of tabulatrng returns. At a later time a very small sample oi the population will be interviewed under the same conditions of anonymity and confidentiality. Please return the completed questionnaire in the stamped. self-addressed envelope. Your response to my first mailing was most encouraging but i still need your participation to the success of my research. Would you kindly reply to this follow up by February 28, 1989. If you would lrke the results sent to you. please let me know. Thank you in advance for your valuable time. data. and cooperation in this study. Sincerely yours, Sohed T. Rodriguez Ph. 0. candidate Teacher Education Department Michigan State University 170 QUESTIONNAIRE FOR THE STUDY OF THE JOB SATISFACTION OF HISPANIC FACULTY AND ADMINISTRATORS IN THE BIG TEN UNIVERSITIES Your answers will be kept absolutely confidential and will be used for the purposes of the research mentioned in the enclosed letter in such a way that there will be no way to identify individual faculty or administrators answering the questionnaire. INSTRUCTIONS: 1. Do not write your name or sign the questionnaire. 2. Please fill in the blank space or circle the number when appropriate for the category which you consider best reflects your feelings for each question. 3. Return the questionnaire in the stamped envelope which is enclosed. THANK YOU VERY MUCH FOR YOUR TIME AND CONSIDERATION. 171 PART I Could you please circle the number or write the answer for the category you think best reflects your feelings in relation to each ques on. QT. 02. Q3. Q4. 05. Q6. How satisfied are you with the responsibilities given to you in your job? Very Neither Sat. Very Sat. Sat. Nor Dissat. Dissat. Dissat. l 2 3 4 5 How much do you agree or disagree with the following statements? I enjoy the tasks and activities of my job, such as teaching, student advising, faculty committees. Strongly Neither Agree Strongly Agree Agree Nor Disagree Disagree Disagree 1 2 3 4 5 I am academically successful in my actual position. Strongly Neither Agree Strongly Agree Agree Nor Disagree Disagree Disagree 1 2 3 4 5 There is a great deal of pressure on me to publish. Strongly Neither Agree Strongly Agree Agree Nor Disagree Disagree Disagree 1 2 3 4 5 I feel my job gives me a lot of security. skgggeg Agree Ngrtggsaggeze Disagree giggggli l 2 3 4 5 Accordin to our academic qualifications, do you think you have a cganceyfor advancement in your institution? (Circle one) 1. Yes. "by? 2. No. Why not? O7. 08. 09. 010. 172 Please explain: Do you think you have a chance for administrative leadership positions in your institution? (Circle one) 1. Yes. Why? 2. No. Why not? Please explain: Do you think you have obtained adequate recognition for your achievements as a faculty member within your institution? (Circle one) 1. Yes. Why? 2. No. Why not? Please explain: Would you say the promotional system in your institution is (circle one): 1. Fair. Why? 2. Unfair. Why? Please explain: How satisfied are you with your relationship with your superiors within your institution? Yer Neither Sat. . Very SatY Sat. Nor Dissat. Dissat. Dissat. I 2 3 4 5 011. 012. 013. 014. 015. 173 How satisfied are you with your relationship with your colleagues within your institution? Very Neither Sat. Very Sat. Sat. Nor Dissat. Dissat. Dissat. l 2 3 4 5 How satisfied are you with the administrative leadership within your department in your institution? Very Neither Sat. Very Sat. Sat. Nor Dissat. Dissat. Dissat. l 2 3 4 5 Do you agree or disagree with the following statement? My job at the university has affected my lifestyle (circle one): 1. Yes. Why? 2. No. Why not? Please explain: How do you feel about working conditions such as: a. Workload b. Office location 8 space c. Secretarial help d. Libraries e. Laboratories f. Parking space Do you feel you are a role model for Hispanic students? (Circle one) 1. Yes. Why? 2. No. Why not? 016. 017. 018. A19. 020. 174 Please explain: Are you involved in Hispanic affairs on campus? (Circle one) 1. Yes. How? 2. No. Why not? Please explain: Are you involved in the Hispanic community? (Circle one) 1. Yes. How? 2. No. Why not? Please explain: How were you recruited? 1. Educational journals 2. Friends 3. Affirmative action programs 4. Other Were you assigned to a senior faculty member or administrator as your mentor when you arrived on campus? 1. Yes 2. No Do you plan on leaving the university within the next three years? (Circle one) 1. Yes. Why? 2. No. Why not? Please explain: I75 02l. In general, how satisfied are you with your job? Very Neither Sat. Very Sat. Sat. Nor Dissat. Dissat. Dissat. l 2 3 4 5 PART II: Demographic Data Would you please fill in the blank or circle the number when appropriate for the category you think best reflects your situation. 022. Please indicate your age. 023. What is your sex? 1. Male 2. Female 024. Please indicate your ethnic background: Central American South American 1. Mexican American or Chicano 2. Mexican 3. Puerto Rican 4. Cuban 5. Spaniard 6. 7. 025. Please indicate the number of children you have. 026. Your marital status is: Single Married Separated Divorced Widowed 0“de 027. Are you: 1. Not on track? 2. 0n track, not yet tenured? 3. Tenured? 028. Is your annual university income in the range of: 315,000-319,999 320,000-324,999 525,000-329,999 $30,000-$39,999 $40,000 or more (”#de 029. 030. 031. 032. —l 176 Your academic title is: 1. 2. 3. 4. Full Professor Associate Professor Assistant Professor Instructor Your administrative title is: mummng—I How GUI-wa—l _4 he «bde The ODQNGMDwN-J Vice-President Assistant Vice-President Dean Assistant Dean Director Chairperson Supervisor Manager many total years of service have you completed? Less than 4 4- 9 10-14 15-19 20-24 25 or more highest degree you have obtained is: Ph.D. Specialist Master’s Other (please specify) university at which you are working is: Illinois Indiana Iowa Michigan Minnesota Michigan State Northwestern Ohio State Purdue Wisconsin 177 MICHIGAN STATE UNIVERSITY COUEGE 0f EDUCATION DU.5IINENT (If EDUCA mm“ AIIMINISTNAI‘IUN “WWN HALL EAST LANSING 0 NIUIIGAN 0 {Illa-I0“ Hispanic Faculty Members] Administrators at the Big Ten Universities Dear Colleague: This letter is in support of Mrs. Sohed 'I‘. Rodriguez who has completed her course work and passed her doctoral qualifying examinations in the Department of Teacher Education at Mlchlgan State University. Her dlssertatlon proposal has also been approved. She will be using some of Frederick Herzberg’s theoretical formulations to analyze job satisfaction of Hispanic faculty and administrators in the Big Ten Universities. As chair of Mrs. Rodgiguez’ doctoral advisory committee, I seek and appreciate your cooperation in her research efforts. The few minutes necessary for your participation will be most helpful, appreciated and essential for completion of Mrs. Rodriguea’ research. Thank you in advance for your cooperation. Sincerely yours, fierce/«5 —- Kenneth L. Neff Professor Educational Administration If N I u u .U/s‘mulu‘r .-l. u..- [un ‘A’I’Nefll‘lllv Institution APPENDIX C INTERVIEW QUESTIONS 178 W Doctor : What made on decide on our cho field? y y sen Did you have a mentor in your life? What assets or qualifications do you possess that enabled you to attain the position you have today? In general, what gives you satisfaction in your job? What gives you dissatisfaction? Do you think that being Hispanic has affected your position here at the university? Would you like to comment on your involvement (or participation) in Hispanic affairs on campus? APPENDIX D LETTER OF CONSENT 179 Dear Dr. According to our recent telephone conversation regarding my dissertation on THE JOB SATISFACTION OF HISPANIC FACULTY AND ADMINISTRATORS IN THE BIG TEN UNIVERSITIES, I hereby request your written permission to conduct a taped in-depth interview. Your participation in the interview will be voluntary. Your answers will be kept confidential and will be used in such a manner that there will be no way to identify institutions, individual faculty, or administrators participating in the interview. I grant permission to conduct the taped interview I do not grant permission to conduct the taped interview Thank you very much for your cooperation in this dissertation study. Sincerely yours, Sohed T. Rodriguez BIBLIOGRAPHY BIBLIOGRAPHY Abreu, Jorge Rolando. "Job Satisfaction of the Faculty Members of the Schools of Education in Three Universities Granting Doctor of Philosophy Degrees in the State of Michigan.” Ph.D. disser- tation, University of Michigan, 1980. Argyris, Chris. r an ani ion. New York: Harper and Row, l957. r t n r tio l ehavi r. Homewood, Ill.: Dorsey Press, 1960. Astin, Alexander W.; with Astin, Helen 5.; Green, Kenneth C.; Kent, Laura; McNamara, Patricia; and Williams, Melanie Reeves. noriti s i American i her Educ i n: Recen r nds r- nt r c n e mmendati n. San Francisco: Jossey- Bass, 1982. Babbie, Earl R. ar h . Belmont, Calif.: Wadsworth, 1973. Bailey, S. K. f v U e o uman Resour es: An m erative fgr Higher Education. Washington, D.C.: Association of Gov- erning Boards, 1974. Baldwin, R. G. ”Fostering Faculty Vitality: Options for Institu- tions and Administrators.” Administrator’s Update 4 (Fall 1982): 1-5. , and Blackburn, Robert T. “Faculty for Human Resources: Reality and Potential.” In 11 cul : Ver ati H man WWI. n on i . Edited by R. G. Baldwin and R. T. Blackburn. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass, l983. Balian, Edward S. i n ze nd W Research New York: University Press of America, 1982. Bauman, Portillo Raquel. “A Study of Mexican American Women’s Perceptions of Factors That Influence Academic and Professional Goal Attainment.” Ed.D. dissertation, University of Houston, 1983. 180 181 ’ o - . Schaumberg, 111.: Intercol- legiate (Big Ten) Conference, 1987. Blum, Milton L., and Naylor, J. C. Ingnetrjel Peyehnlogy; It; 1 6 New York: Harper and Row, 9 8. Bockman, Valerie M. "The Herzberg Controversy.” Perennnel Eeyennlngy 24 (1971): 155-89. Borck, Edward H. ”Social Psychological Determinants of Job Satis- faction Among Social Science Faculty at Two Midwestern Univer- sities.” Ph.D. dissertation, Michigan State University, 1972. Borg, Walter R., and Gall, Meredith D. Egneatinnel Beeearen; An Ingrodnerjen. New York: David McKay, 1976. Borland, David T. "The University as an Organization: An Analysis of the Faculty Rewards System." Ed.D. dissertation, Indiana University, 1970. Boulding, Elise. "The Global Macro Problems: Prospects for Women and Minorities.” lne ijerel 62 (May 1977): 185. Burke, R. J. “Are Herzberg’s Motivators and Hygienes Unidimen- ‘ sional?" P 50 (1966): 317-21. Carnegie Commission on Higher Education. Th or o r ' m e t v i her i r u Becnmmendetinne. New York: McGraw-Hill, 1972. Carrol, Mary F., et a1. Women jn Higher Edueetjon: A Cesebnnk. Bloomington: School of Education, Indiana University, June 1978. Carver, Fred 0., and Sergiovanni, T. J., eds. Qrgenizetione eng ' New York: McGraw-Hill, 1969. Clark, M. J., and Blackburn, R. 1. ”Faculty Performance Under Stress." In e v ne v e . Edited by A. L. Stockloff. Philadelphia: Temple University, 1973. Collins, Nancy W. 5 en nd T i o . Englewood Cliffs, N.J.: Prentice-Hall, 1983. Cummings, Nancy Perkins. “Women in Higher Education Administra- tion.” In m i h r u at' n A mini tr . Edited by Margaret C. Berry. Washington, D.C.: National Association for Women Deans, Administrators and Counselors, 1979. 182 Davis, Keith. ° i New York: McGraw-Hill, 1977. Deci, Edward L. Intrjneie_flntiretinn. New York: Plenum Press, 1975. Delbert. Miller G. W' menr. New York: David McKay, 1969. De Los Santos, Alfredo. aneene_§tneent§ 1n Institntjnne nf fljgner u a i - r ion anl Achievemeng. Research Report Series. Austin: Office for Advanced Research in Hispanic Education, University of Texas at Austin, 1980. ”Emerging Chicano Administrators in Higher Education: Problems and Perceptions." Emergent Leadership; Encus nn ' r l (1977): r 12-16. . "The Mexican American/Chicano Student in Texas Colleges and Universities--Donde Estamos?" 1978. (ERIC Document Repro- duction Service No. ED 160 154) Diaz, William A. The Edneetinn nf Hienenjeeg Sratne end Imnljee- Ilene. National Council of La Raza, Current Population Survey, 1983 Advance Report. Washington, D.C.: U.S. Department of Commerce, Bureau of the Census, 1983. . ° 1 n rt . New York: Ford Foundation, June 1984. Douglas, Jack D. Cree;1ye_1n1ery1en1ng. Beverly Hills, Ca1if.: Sage Publications, 1985. Dunnette, M. P.; Campbell, J. P.; and Hakel, M. 0. ”Factors Con- tributing to Job Satisfaction and Job Dissatisfaction in Six Occupational Groups. " WWW fermenee 2 (1967): 143-73. Eliason, Carol. lne Energjng anen Administretnr en Inn-Year us -- ue an n i h . Washington, D.C.: American Association of Women in Community and Junior Colleges, Center for Women’s Opportunities, 1980. u l m n i o . Washington, D.C.: Department of Education, 1989. Ewen, R. 8. “Some Determinants of Job Satisfaction: A Study of the Generality of the Herzberg Theory.” anrne1_n£_nnnlien_fiey; en_o_1_o_gy 48 (1964): 161-63. 183 Filley. Allan 6.. and House. R. J. BMW rjnnel_fienerinr. Glenview, 111.: Scott, Foresman, 1969. Friedlander, F., and Margulies, N. ”Multiple Impacts of Organiza- tional Climate and Individual Value Systems Upon Job Satisfac- tion.‘I Perennne1_£eyennlngy 22 (1969): 171-83. Gandara, Patricia. I'Early Environmental Correlates of High Academic Attainment in Mexican-Americans From Low Socio-Economic Back- ground." Ph.D. dissertation, University of California at Los Angeles, 1979. Gay, L. R. £9!£§L19£§l.3£§£§£§h~ Columbus, Ohio: Charles E. Merrill, 1976. Gilmer, 8. von Haller, and Deci, E. L. 1ndnetrje1 and Orgenjze- Linnel_£eyennlegy. New York: McGraw-Hill, 1977. Guilford, J. P., and Fruchter, Benjamin. Fundamentel Statietiee in Peyenelngy_end_figneerinn. New York: McGraw-Hill, 1978. Hennig, Margaret, and Jardim, Anne. Ihe Manegerie] finnen. New York: Simon and Schuster, 1976. Herbert, Theodore T., and Yost, Edward 8. "Women as Effective Managers: A Strategic Model for Overcoming the Barriers." Hnmen Beenurce Management 17 (1978): 18-24. Herzberg, Frederick. ”The M-H Concept and Problems of Manpower.” Wiles 27 0966): 3-7- . ”Part Three Behavior in Organization." In Qrgenizerinn e r . Edited by D. S. Pugh. New York: Penguin Books, 1983. MM. New York: Thomas Y. . n Crowell, 1966. Herzberg, F.; Mausner, B.; Peterson, R.; and Captwell, 0. gen t' ° v w ini . Pittsburgh: Psychological Service of Pittsburgh, 1957. Herzberg, F.; Mausner, B.; and Snyderman, B. h Mo iv 'o t Herr. New York: John Wiley and Sons, 1959. Hines, E. R., and Hartmark, L. S. lit If h r d . AAHE-ERIC Research Report No. 7. Washington, D.C.: American Association for Higher Education, 1980. Hopkins, Charles D. ' 1 ar ' Columbus, Ohio: Charles E. Merrill, 1976. 184 Hoppock, R. dflh.§§£1§f§£1120- New York: Harper and Row, 1935. Ibrahim, Abu Bakar. 'An Assessment of Graduate Feedback for Evaluating the Diploma in Banking Studies Program at Mara Institute of Technology in Malaysia." Ph.D. dissertation, Michigan State University, 1989. Isaac, Stephen, and Michael, William B. flendbonki “Ree er rena eng i h or Diego, California: Edits, 1978. Kanter, Rosabeth. W. New York: Basic Books, 1977. Kiesler, A. Charles; Collins, 8. E. ; and Miller,N . Attitude an 1 n re a A . New York: John Wiley and Sons, 1969. Lawler, E. E. M t'vati in W r r an’z 'on . Monterey, Ca1if.: Brooks/Cole, 1973. Leon, Julio S. ”An Investigation of the Applicability of the Two Factor Theory of Job Satisfaction Among College and University Professors." Ph.D. dissertation, University of Arkansas, 1973. Likert, R. Men Petterne nf Menegement. New York: McGraw-Hill, 1961. , and Willits, J. M. Morele end Agency Manegement. Vol. 1. r Ma n r na ement. Hartford, Conn.: Life Insurance Sales Research Bureau, 1940. Lopez, Gloria Ann. ”Job Satisfaction of the Mexican American Women Administrators in Higher Education." Ph.D. dissertation, University of Texas at Austin, 1984. Lopez, R. U, Madrid- nBarela, A. ; and Flores Macias, R. Chjeenne in i h r .~ Los Angeles: Chicano Studies Publication, 1976. Lutz, F. W., and Ianaccone, L. Underetandjng Enueetjnne! Qrgenjze- . - Columbus, Ohio: Charles E. Merrill, 1969. Maslow, Abraham. Mnrjvetjnn and Perseneljty. New York: Harper and Brothers, 1970. McClelland, D. The Aenjevjng Snejety. Princeton: Van Nostrand Reinhold, 1961. 185 McGregor, Douglas. .Ihg_flumgn_§1dg_o£_£n1grpn1sg. New York: McGraw-Hill, 1960. McKee, James B. 1gtggdgst19g_tg_§gs191ggy. New York: Holt, Rinehart and Winston, 1969. Miles, Raymond. Ihggrjgs_gf_flsnaggmgnt. New York: McGraw-Hill, 1975. Miller, Delbert C. o e ugssuremgnt New York: David McKay, 1964. Mottaz, C. J. ”The Relative Importance of Intrinsic and Extrinsic Rewards as Determinants of Work Satisfaction.” ' 91:61:16:le 26 (1985): 365-66. Myrdal, G. Ing_AmgL1gsfl_legmms. New York: Harper and Row, 1944. National Commission on Excellence in Education. n R - v r n R . Washington, D.C.: Government Printing Office, 1983. ' o o ..‘ o R 1 ' o ' an. ‘0 in. n u- f i h du a n h . Higher Education Task Force, Centro de Estudios Puertoriquenos, 1986. L: 01.] I Vols. 14, 16. Chicago: Encyclopae- dia Britannica, 1974. Norman, Earl T. 'Job Satisfaction of Student-Personnel Workers in Washington Community Colleges." Ph.D. dissertation, University International, Ann Arbor, Michigan, 1976. Olivas, Michael A. flispanjgs in fljghgr Edggatjgn; Status and nga] lssggs. 1978. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED 165 933) Raymond, Gordon L. wi ° 1 Instiss. Homewood, 111.: The Dorsey Press, 1980. Reagan, M. F. "A Study of Job Satisfaction of the Faculties of the Colleges of Education at Michigan’s Three Research Universities Following a Period of Major Decline, 1979-1984.” Ed.D. disser- tation, Wayne State University, 1985. Sergiovanni, Thomas J. “Factors Which Affect Satisfaction and Dis- satisfaction of Teachers." In Qrganizatigns and Human Behav— 12:. Edited by Fred D. Carver and T. J. Sergiovanni. New York: McGraw-Hill, 1969. 186 Sergiovanni, Thomas, and Elliott, D. L. d a Englewood Cliffs, N.J.: Prentice-Hall, 1975. Sergiovanni, Thomas, and Startett, R. J. Emerging_£attenns_of 1 71r ° New York: HcGraw-Hill, 9 . Snyder. Thomas D. 01ges1_of_Education_§1atistisss_12§1 Current Population Reports, Series P20. Washington, D.C.: Department of Commerce, Bureau of the Census, 1987. Steers, Richard M., and Porter, L. W. Mgtiystign_gnd_flgrk_flsnails:. New York: McGraw-Hill, 1975. Swierenga, Lloyd George. ”Application of Herzberg’s Dual-Factor Theory to Faculty Members in a University." Ed.D. disserta- tion, Western Michigan UniVersity, 1970. Taylor. Frederick. Ihe_Er1ns1nles_o£_§gientijls_uanagement. New York: Harper and Brothers, 1947. Valverde, Leonard A. "Bringing Equality to Institutions of Higher Education: Greater Inclusion and Support of Hispanic Academics." Unpublished manuscript, University of Texas at Austin, August 1979. . I'Development of Ethnic Researchers and the Education of White Researchers.” . "Focus on Minorities and Women in Educational Administra- "Tofi." mgnggnmmm 1.1 (1976). 'Prohibitive Trends in Chicano Faculty Employment." n h . "Succession Socialization: Its Influence on School Administrative Candidates and Its Implication to the Exclusion of Minorities From Administration” (Ph.D. dissertation, Claremont Graduate School). Dissertatjgn Abstracts Intgr- national (1974)- 01 o . . 0‘ :1! A _ 01' l -‘l - 0| . h.i 'omil- . V‘ .ncioa - in. mi 1 o u 1- M i r . Final Report, BR- u m 190813). Washington, D.C.: National Institute of Education, 74. . ”Why Are There So Few Women and Minorities in Educational Administration?” £mgsggn1_Lgsdgrship 1 (1976): 7-9. 187 Van Dalen, D. B., and Meyer, W. J. n i Rev. ed. New York: McGraw-Hill, 1966. Velez-Velez, Guyillermo. “A Study of Faculty Satisfaction- Dissatisfaction With the Intrinsic and Extrinsic Job Factors in Colombian Universities.“ Ph.D. dissertation, Florida State , University, 1972. Vroom, Victor M. Werk_end_fletiyetien. New York: John Wiley and Sons, 1967. Wanous, John P., and Lawler, E. E. “Measurement and Meaning of Job Satisfaction." .Journal_2£_Annlied_£sxshelegx 56 (1972): 95- 05. Wilensky, Harold. ”Work as a Social Problem." In Seeie! Enablems; r . Edited by Howard S. Becker. New York: Wiley, 1976. Williams, Frederick. Reaseging With §tetjsties. New York: Holt, Rinehart and Winston, 1962. Wilson, Reginald, and Melendez, Sarah E. Eegrth Anngel Repert en Minorities in Hig e: Educatien. Washington, D.C.: American Council on Education, 1985. Wilson, S ”The Use of Ethnographic Techniques in Educational Research.“ Bex1ew_o£_£ducat12nal_flesearsb 47 (1977): 245-65.