a” . @fimfiafimgwg ... .... .. , . 3.1.1 5.33.1.4 : . . .5. . , . in... .2. .. . . . é... .. . . ... .. . fiWfifimMfi. «mmmfiywnnméflmwfiwfimmwmfimt finagmflmmnwwkmfiaw .a‘dwmtuhm.‘fin.unwmvmm.wfik?§t ‘fibfluhdkufififiunvfififivfi v rtvr I 1' lvvfilv. .. . .w r ! ... g . . Vin”: :Un. Iv"! ..1‘. . v. “...; “...“? r 1 N10}... . 7.1.. 4 7 1%.“? ..v.L..! .t iV‘yDfi‘J-«huofiav‘ var $44.4Ewmwnfi .....3 ; %&finwwwwfl%av¥aww¥mfllwa¢Kwfinfi.‘ gifiwx 3 .‘ kmkmuafiufifiwfluvz. 93%me 13.§mhm«%~.§ a... ..I§3R.fl1hui, Innqumamwn......M.u$,..n..m+...ttrgn.m.r “rummmuvtnfitfii. . . ufimfiffi . , mgfikfi‘ L3». .mfiflaw‘mxmkafi .ew fim,..ufim.;mr%my m:ww.§..f%§ fifmwzwwsfimfix ¢§%mfiitm.xf~t§§xfitkfl§yfl§a~da .. .. firhsiwuw ,. .r... Rump. .y. 5:: v : u. a .1. «king. I fir}: and... ; r19... 3%.an Evauwkwwfinbrfifihfl. .3. he 1k... £§4fi§ L. 535:...85. .untkttufiruf:hh...flu$ .. y . ... . : .. .h...w....3u. ..u: L. a: g y. .. F ...?wfixfi .ifikfik .....«fi. , h ruffiu, :2 .3... 5...: . ... . r33: ... . it... .I?.2.X.$.:. 1. ... v: .. ..4._,....~,.n@ . \ ..ifi‘igu . 3,: . ‘ «3% E? , kw”. awn; mama. anguéwgisafiafimmfihfifinhmh Rmmm r aN-xuzcxonvv hf tat! Q. M fl r a fikth. in. ‘ Ike; '9. t. W}V&It’¢t{ .2 Ifawz; . 4‘ O a 9L 9),. .w. a . . . @w ..fiquflwfir £5. u. .Ezzufivf flaw? fig. 3.. mluuhfig ii...........:..: ,. , ..(t... x .. ; firtvvfia t t.» A 3. 1.1%... it“. .2! . O I 1 QVJJ it u . - t!‘ L; n . . ‘ t . a? . u . .. N \ ... _ A. .. Q i . f 41:31..) 29%;»: lgfigOn—fig’gg—Z ‘ .Jgggg a 1:1: 5 .... . a“, egmwkmufi. fifiakrmhéuflua .uuxttd;h.amm.hv.55+...ubv- .uk {Hug \. ...finhhnuduuhvfimw.fih ....Wfi. new xv. 333%. . : .... unremawfi. a u “:71: u i Jfit titauO‘knttltb\‘Fauibt)A} than}: (0091‘. ‘99.)!111‘9 vfipu§n¥ :‘sox'Obh‘Otoaqhuv-Lt'yt'clali ‘5 .zm-Oioir ...:béTngtt h$¥12§31§1 5,, t'v 0‘ MI. v.43. 3» b . . . . an . u 3... a Effiré. , Ra . . .mo... ”mama. . éfiufi wwwwk‘rmfinnmwwnfl HiawwWme? +, :5.“ ‘. It. unfilfm‘hi; e {3&u4uwt. W. {3.1: . 11:. .. . at It?" 9%.; .' .Ini A . to“ kg; 4 0% i ,. :v .. Mud” ’l ‘0' L. n kt , V t .10.... I It r sumo: xv...“ .... GI VJNV'P-Nvak ,tl .E15vapVi1vA‘t'u-‘flw‘KME 1 :rRiL. . I... . J . I: n. f :,$, .v . Fr‘ . . . 4r¥......m.{hh..: r , 3.3.1,.» nu. a .9 pg. ,3 (Nut . .I. v hnfirfvr? 72$???c‘rk f .1: ant.4‘biv~v.lr1:.o.-r 7: (v 3;!!!1o5v’01’13 ..rtvrr 9.? Ir - 7115315 I’ll”! I. ‘6er a“ It‘lfi.‘ n 3:136...§Itrhxvllrz$thvl409aifa~§vVE . a . gimmelflri . I! r r , A103! zl“: abé“ VO??'DI\IJOJ i.»~.lrvvfi9'17i?T1.(t:fl-l I? 1,707». 1.343. I .. i it utfiilmlvtltoul? 2.11....‘35 I!!! I!vV?~I..‘lb~.vtL. ‘93..» r I: r ‘ki‘ 3%. 1 9:318:33 iiiiiii 1:!nt..7r.1.r!9¢rn zany-u'ivn‘v': v3 Eriicvv ll I ? 9d , flitt‘.1\.u»l[IlIthrkv‘Drro-tliaGirlit'n‘ .ru It!‘ .0! . I}. v $17! in Q {titlltl‘gikavtivrfl’rho..trtrgi'vttvaxv YPV .K‘fikit ’0’. *3. ..JS‘ {éltig‘zar’tlivtruié VNE. 1)}rfiytibwf' Ob. wheuzv 1‘11ll: folk '1 ..ltm . \v. gulsx‘ tttttttttttttt ‘6 D I :VDIOYI r?!‘ .I .1; it Ii I’m !$an I 9 .u’rt..l..Vl:9:! tutlcuvo‘3‘l In“? 0?}... to. 1.!!!lixvll97rva .104: $2.. . .or‘aituntviilfi.r#r1 . técr! t tit zirreiuaia .1 It I. ”ft-Ms? Eli1..NIL3.4.01:Muchfiflflfitesi, .. .3 I, fiwéunnuvbighuucr .6 J. .v ...bw 2.. v v; v . . . EI‘Ira-uc’zviflrasz..!l ......... e! :1..er , b- ‘ i unit 723%. v . l‘ltilylrsauraf iiulvOfurllovv) an... 7 ho...) . in“. 5|... .{.Ih?.... 73 1.... a. §|.f»v-O‘~th-;Jv6n.n£t?.§.1.136%“.ingtvbw-VEZE iégtlk’mma‘u. : 5 . . . .19 1t ‘5. 1! it I in at. 101109! .14 I. otlf ti it: I. 0 .1... . , Viki-:30"??? I"..."Qt.....lhrvflro‘)szorfNrflll.-?Q!1&O~NILO.: FINN”? g 5:0 “in: ’alllx'vulufnait ..t‘tir“!a!.lnctlt of‘vlvro-iglfovvhzzz 1 » . .131 Bi . “at: v...“ I}: 391'}: I luduvivvllltll.ivv viifriflu." gal. dhhgj: $1.9. ~§z1¥?fi§ifi.¥l¢3 {high .I. R ukuluviif 3.9“. 5‘); ‘xlu ?‘ ‘thJnPJWVJNILlQEPOIPVt i§r¥fio p . .I v. ... - ... ha ......s ..I‘. .... , , ‘ . I. 79v... ‘ iinfnhwutcgivqflovvnvafi .b.\ .fiv‘...’ I. or“! r3396. .3905! $1}!!! . :1 mar-.9!“ mmuie b u {L .1 an... n... h b. w . ‘é‘,§0?z Pk r v I . . . a. .1: \ (..tr:.rl$.IVY-v‘ ttttttttt gcul.ia1?sq?lb‘i’ll léfoér ‘ r . . . Invite to ‘sifib‘Xfis. n'u‘ $9! v o luv-xi?!) VII . .1 h it‘ll-‘1‘“:tflttrltltblllth‘rlngfivxfgv gap-011% 5"“. $.55. . . ‘ .1 - , .. .fi 13:55? I. immérs . , Esruuhg! Iflvfirp‘rvh‘fi\paflfifly {flu-i : igfiflrtfifi. :nwommlfin‘z T‘g l1 ‘ $31211... ..... I. ........ y... ... 'i...x$.§£95¥13v{1:h23 2: i fizzzipti.tl-uavwe.vv..:..tb.vcdv ..;.Ioo$uu7}§!islolrng¢brv?fif ‘ I 1 .‘7‘!)IXOIV‘1V¢ID"I$10:VIIE ....... VOA v It t 1.0V. i9..?tiVO-1.‘ 5.2“ 4 ...-35' \ t ......fix‘o.‘Ink...“H9....3331“thp...59;...ixnuwhfihflnrrltvdhuwsvrv‘huIah...5t}26?.. a I .. 2.3.x!iatrurxthtwviln.vflirys.bv‘rvrctrrv:5v.5?.iagriiz‘fi; . 131...! \ )2 . .‘VS‘S . 1.01 Hunt. #3:... 1...... 2.3:) it... $31.33;. I}!!! 32.1? 30.1“. .. . A ‘ , . 3559??!.:¥.4l¥::§;.L:fr.¥.zt¥!:i>€,€.fstl. ‘ rimmnr: . a. 2.3.3 if ...n '31): {I . -....srx . .. . . . L i ’ , . . ,n.§.§.&§k.ii.§.t.t. ‘ , sh? .....fiflbtuuumfi .4 333+? 132932.. Cilitltnlattliti VIIIO'xfil’Izivv: 7? Ill.) 5.? '7’ l :1 1‘?! Ar.- .. i xv 1 n 1.1 Tfifittyrbfnit. 2...}... . , . .. , 23.. z. . .33.. . 2 a {MS y .. 51.43.53,. ..shfflnns ...r u . , ...!e. 2:: .. r (4.. 1...... . 39,4 Six? h‘mmul‘. ..2. 3:. :l..3$9$p¥....{.1: I. .. 1 . . ”A. DIuIIIIL '0; It! .. v Eyrgflfl 7. ‘43; ufixfl. 649%).1. 1.\Aali.\d01 b r $.57. 1. EH . if?!“ < .v ...rutlltlazb’ Oiaciu .... ... J griffin?! ‘ ~ ... a: 5.... A . is .. . VwifiblNVNa if. I.¢O’>)| v! I... D7EI§II£E»9:I§YIY‘IEO‘§QE‘ I'Diw" K . I u I" vvvvvvv t‘boihlfi'tvtgvt".i.!fvo£ a .. . 23.9 7.9!.1‘33 .X...;Ox.y0$tf...£a9lt ’Efzc! . . V ‘ .39 .1? utli'rislxwrvfifl ( u... . : .. 1‘ . , 1.5.9: .,. .fivvc, ‘ it; (tic-1.1 5%.)?! i911...» Erik'- r.{‘!zlr..u}i I}!.I.§..Ii!lsx.viisllvyibo¥t . 3L. Tut-batiivirbtot‘ ‘Qrtléirl :zftsl y?! tOVIVw <11. . Arttirviluvfovv L 3'6? , ..‘fiuttkia.ilEat-31:»)tngaut§:£27171t|.5zfix .lgti. '5' V V |S§1L‘..Dl)t'lnilitttvv::!vo9‘<\’¢£.iii!a~é’i\ésrgrv 1£O§v§§l '1v'tlu’vl: |'h¢,.r 'tlllb'b A“ Ifl.v':n\l .1“?':I"OI Pfiz‘? ‘f 4" . ...-E . u I! It'flltlbttlix 1’!»!.o>)ll.\)‘br {Ii-4‘ :1 7,} (Vi: _. x I . fighirtlr¥1vltuqh:lti Ibo...) lufartfli y 1% r lit-Xvi Wu. .. A... rt 7&4 3K ...vl . . . ..., N - )1. ywvxui;wtr§r.2.v.!3.. or, rvvulI. 31! iv 1 ..I 27.. , I.» ...... {3M . . . . . . {Epitr‘ V . fig: mt .. -f .2? 4 v r V , . h; . . . K‘s!!!)yiéi lealtl. E17?! ;m i r . .-lkliill? f.¥§§u.rvlrl . u v ‘ . , . > 911i‘8.‘ it!!! Alli Io. . ~ 1 ~39: lil‘oTutvr Vt: . Exit: ~ .nv'olr‘..u A T'Ifi’l‘v, q t... 3' II»). V an M . ...w. .Efv . 5’67.“ ' it. ‘2; E A u. .. it??? [May I. ”.53.. , fix“ {‘03 {I‘dv r Nut-1'3: Edit. ; f 1 Q! Otuh‘stta‘krfr I. E Vi? )7. l ..k? XLNLIT 3:3..{tthfirlil ifftfi L 5.1.1?! ‘5'}. b. _ $1.5 L3 .11.. . . v1.41: ...kuntf , $93.35: an Ellizifir .....kA‘... ..nyrbfiu «3;! ..E1591 ‘. . . 14.: i t 1. llllllHllHlllllllllll|||H||ll||IIWHIINIIIHIINNI ' 3 1293 10406 6653 This is to certify that the thesis entitled EARLY-CAREER ATTITUDES AND BEHAVIORS 0F RECENTLY-HIRED COLLEGE GRADUATES presented by Dennis R. Briscoe has been accepted towards fulfillment of the requirements for Ph. D. degree in. Management. / 7HQZH 933.30 madam mmooodm new mpooZ HdQOmnonH n, pndonmxomm poumaom 6.303 4 greyed o 2393 own 603 Momfipooh moose? ogxm nob. MmdflH H6. 18 Recent graduates will be more successful when they have a high amount of work-related background prior to graduation and when their personal needs, first-j ob expectations and first-job experiences are congruent than will be the case for recent graduates who do not have this work-related background and who do not have the congruence between their needs, first-job expectations and first-job experiences. Recent graduates will be less likely to leave when they have a high amount of work-related background prior to graduation and when their personal needs, first-job expectations, and first-job experiences are congruent than will be the case for recent graduates who do not have this work-related background and -who do not have the congruence between their needs, first-job expectations and first-job experiences. Recent graduates' expectations for their current jobs will be ‘more congruent with their current-job experiences than was the case for their first—job expectations and first-job experiences. Recent graduates will be more satisfied when they receive a performance review and when their personal needs, fir st- job expectations and first-job experiences are congruent than will be the case for recent graduates who do not receive a performance review and who do not have the con- gruence between their needs, first-job expectations and first-job experiences. Recent graduates will be more successful when they receive a pe rformance review and when their personal needs, first- job expectations and first-job experiences are congruent than will be the case for recent graduates who do not receive a performance review and who do not have the con- gruence between their needs, first-job expectations and first-job experiences. Recent graduates will be less likely to leave when they receive a performance review and when their personal needs, first-job expectations and first-job experiences are con- gruent than will be the case for recent graduates who do not receive a performance review and who do not have the congruence between their needs, first-job expectations and first-job experiences. Summary In summary, then, the following picture emerges of college graduates' early career attitudes and behaviors. Many graduates apparently develop expectations for challenging, developmental, autonomous, and highly rewarding jobs for their first employment after graduation. To the extent that these expectations are met by organizational experiences, graduates find adaptation facilitated and, thus, usually want to stay with their organizations. On the other hand, when these expectations are not met-~which often seems to be the case, graduates feel frustrated and dissatisfied and often con- sider leaving. This relationship—-between graduates' first—job expectations and their first-job experiences-—appears to be moderated by other variables. Graduates who receive feedback about their performance are more likely to be both more satisfied and more successful, and, thus, less likely to want to leave (than graduates who do not receive a performance appraisal). And those individuals with work experi- ence or professional family backgrounds appear more likely to not only form 'more realistic expectations about their first jobs, but also to be able to choose jobs and organizations which provide them with the experiences to meet their needs and expectations. CHAPTER 11 METHODOLOGY In Chapter I, a model of some relationships among the early career experiences and attitudes of college graduates was developed. A number of hypotheses about these relationships were stated. This chapter describes a research strategy, a measurement instrument, and an analytical approach to test those hypotheses. Subjects The model considered the relationships between early career experiences, attitudes, and behaviors of college graduates. Accord- ingly, a sample of recently-hired graduates for managerial, engineering, and staff jobs of a major automobile manufacturing firm were provided information for the study about their early careers. The organization provided the names of all their graduate hires for a five-year period, including those who had voluntarily terminated (the leavers) and those who were still with the Company (the stayers). The leavers represented about one-half the Company's hires and made up close to one—half the total research sample. Table II-l lists the criteria that were used for determining who to include in 20 21 the sample. Every effort was made to insure that all the members of the sample would be recent graduates, with limited experience prior to graduation (under 30 years of age) and with similar experiences after hire (participation in the college graduate training program). Data we re obtained from 1019 of these recent hires, which was about half the Company's total hires for the period. Five hundred and twelve (512) were stayers and 507 were leavers, each represent- ing approximately half of their corresponding groups. Table II-l. --Selection criteria for research sample. l. Leavers and Stayers had to have been hired within the recently- ended five (5) year period. 2. All respondents were under 30 years of age. 3. All respondents were, or had been, on the College Graduate Training Program during their employment. 4. All respondents were college graduates with Bachelor Degrees, or better. 5. The Leavers had to have been voluntary quits. 6. All Leavers had to have had at least a 90-day cooling-off period after termination before they could participate in the study. 22 Measurement Instrument A questionnaire was developed to assess the factors outlined in the model in Chapter I (see Figure I—l). The questionnaire con- tained several sections. Subjects responded about their family, college, and work backgrounds; their personal job-related needs; their job expectations; their early-career job experiences; their receipt of a performance review on their first job; and how satisfied they felt about their job experiences (see Appendix A for the question— naire). The following are the sections of the questionnaire, which identifies the types of variables used in the testing of the research hypotheses: Background Information Job Needs Job Expectations Job Experiences Job Satisfaction Perceived Success Pe rformanc 6 Review Turnover OO\]O\U'1H>WNl—' Stayers and Leavers were asked to answer questions, in retrospect, about their early careers with the company. This kind of research strategy may create biased responses. Respondents tend to change past attitudes into agreement with present attitudes, or into agreement with what the respondents have come to believe are socially desirable attitudes. Campbell and Stanley (196 3) indicate that answers-in-retrospect are probably quite conservative, or 23 understated, estimates of individuals' actual attitudes at the earlier time. They suggest, therefore, that having available such responses-in-retrospect is not as bad as one might, at first, assume. This is particularly true when no longitudinal responses are avail- able. Further, Hinrichs (1975) concluded that questionnaire data from already terminated employees provided more accurate infor- mation about actual attitudes toward the employees' experiences than did immediate exit interviews, because of the emotion sur- rounding the exit interview and because of the terminee’s desire not to say anything that would bias future job-reference requests. The job satisfaction section of the questionnaire used an existing form (the Job Description Index of Smith, Kendall and Hulin, 1969). Other sections of the questionnaire were written to tap attitudes about job aspects which have been researched by others and found to be important, for example, by Porter (1962, 1963) and Alderfer (1969, 1972). The sections which were prepared for this study were written so that the items within the different sections would refer to the same facets of the job. All but the Job Needs section used a Likert—type scoring for— mat, with five to eight response alternatives. The Job Needs section asked respondents to rank-order fifteen job facets, from "Least Necessary in a Job” to HAbsolutely Necessary in a Job. ” The following paragraphs describe the original scales of the question— naire which sought to assess the subjects' backgrounds, job—related 24 needs, job expectations and experiences, job satisfaction, per- ceived success, and turnover. Subjects' Backgrounds. A number of items about respondentst backgrounds were included in the questionnaire. Table II-2 indicates thes e items . Table II-2. --Background information. 1. Educational attainment of Father (or Guardian). 2. Father's Occupation. 3. Educational attainment of Mother (or Guardian). 4. Number of persons dependent on graduate for all or most of their support while graduate attended college. 5. Proportion of college expenses earned personally. 6. Armed Forces experience prior to joining the Company for the first job. 7. Average number of hours worked per week during last two years of college (other than summer job). Job-Related Needs. This section of the questionnaire asked respondents to rank-order fifteen job facets. Table II-3 shows a shortened example of this section. 25 Table II—3. -—Example of questionnaire items dealing with job needs when graduating from college. What Did You Want in a Job When You Were Graduating From College? What did you want in a job at the time you were graduating from college--when you were interviewing with different companies for jobs they had? What were you looking for then? Listed below are 15 phrases describing various job features. Read them over and then sort them according to what you were looking for in a job when you were graduating from college. Remember, when you are done, all job features should be crossed out and each box should have a number in it. ._n 0 Having a boss who backs me up Having good working conditions on the job 3. Being well paid N 15. Job security Least Necessary Relatively Desirable in in a Job Less Necessary a Job in a Job Highly Desirable Absolutely Necessary in a Job in a Job Job Expectations. An example of the items assessing respondents' expectations for their first jobs after graduation is shown in Table II-4. These items were written to cover the same job facets as the next section on Job Experiences. Similar questions 26 ' l were asked about all respondents' present jobs. Of course, the Leavers Were in other organizations, while the Stayers were still with the Company. Table 1.1-4. ——Example of questions dealing with job expectations. Relationship between EFFECTIVE PERFORMANCE and .TOB OUT— COMES on Your First Assignment with the Company. How certain were you in your first assignment at the Company that a high degree of performance effectiveness (really being top notch) would lead to each of the job features or outcomes listed below? Indicate your expectations about the probable results of effective performance on that first job. On ‘my first assignment with the Company, if my performance was judged to be highly effective: 1. I would try out my own ideas. Cert Prob ? Prob Cert not not ? would Would Job Experiences. Table II-5 illustrates the type of questions that asked respondents about their experiences on their first jobs. A similar set of questions were asked about respondents' present jobs. Again, these items refer to the same job facets as do the items in the Job Expectations section. 27 Table II-5. ~—Example of questions dealing with job experiences. A Description of Your First Assignment with the Company. Workers on that first job . . 1. tried out their OWn ideas. DD D ? A DA DD —- Definitely Disagree —— Probably Disagree ? -- Neither Disagree or Agree A —— Probably Agree DA —— Definitely Agree Job Satisfaction. The Job Description Index (JDI) developed by Smith, Kendall and Hulin (1969), was used to measure respondents' satisfaction with their work experiences. The JDI has been widely used in organizational behavior research. As Table II—6 shows, its format is slightly different from the other sections of the question— naire. One advantage of the JDI for measuring levels of satisfaction is that it provides an established procedure for examining the com— ponents of employees' satisfaction, i. e. , their satisfaction with different components of the job (work, supervision, people, pay and promotion). 28 Table II—6. —-Examples of items contained in the job description index. Description of the Work, People, Pay, Promotions and Supervision of Your First Assignment. Below are five groupings of items. Each group represents some aspect of your first job assignment. We'd like you to indicate your feelings about these aspects by circling ”Y” (yes) if the item is descriptive of your first job assignment, ”N" (no) if it is not descriptive, and H? H if you cannot decide. WORK PAY Fascinating Y N ? Less than I Routine Y N . deserve Y N ? Challenging Y N ? Highly Paid Y N ? SUPERVISION PROMOTIONS Hard to Please Y N ? Dead-End-Job Y N ? Knows Job Well Y N Regular promotions Y N ? Perceived Success. Measures of success were self reports of employees' feelings of success relative to their peers, according to percentile-type rankings. Since individuals might view themselves as more or less successful than the organization, though, graduates were asked both how they felt about themselves and how they per- ceived the Company to be rating them (see Table II-7). Three dif- ferent rating scales were used for each of the self and Company perceptions (refer to the questionnaire in Appendix A). 29 Table 1.1—7. --Example of items dealing with graduates' perceptions —.3. of success. Your Success on Your First Assignment with the Company. Comparing yourself with others with similar jobs and qualifications, how did you feel about your success on this first assignment? Circle the appropriate category. In the top: 1. 10070 3. 75(70 2. 25% 4. 95% How did you feel that the Company rated your success on this first assignment? Circle the appropriate category. In the top: 1. 1070 3. 7570 2. 25% 4. 95% Performance Reviews. The last item in the questionnaire asked respondents if they had received a performance review in their first assignment. Table 11—8 shows the question that was used to ascertain the presence of this type of feedback. Table II-8. -—Question to ascertain receipt of performance review. _ l Did you ever have a performance review with your supervisor on your first job assignment? Circle: 1. Yes 2. No 30 Scale Analysis The Job Expectations and Job Experiences sections of the questionnaire were factor analyzed to determine the underlying factors in the scales. Since the JDI has been extensively used by other organizational researchers, it was not subjected to the factor analysis. This section of the chapter presents the results of the factor analysis and the scale reliabilities of the resulting factors. These derived, rather than a priori, factors were used in testing the hypotheses. The research hypotheses are restated in terms of these derived factors in the final section of this chapter. The methods used for testing the hypotheses are also described. A detailed description of the results of the factor analysis is in Appendix B. The Statistical Package for the Social Sciences (SPSS, Nie, et al. , 1975) was used for most of the statistical procedures, including the factor analysis. _S_P_§_§_, in its factor analysis procedures, derives factors from a set of items up to a limit of the number of individual items being analyzed. The VARIMAX rotation procedure was used. Basing factors on those items which loaded most heavily into groups after Varimax rotation and which explained the largest percentages of variance in the total set of items (with eigen values of at least one) produced the subscales described in the following paragraphs. Work-Related Background. The seven items of this section were reduced to a three—item scale with reliability (coefficient alpha) 31 of . 78. The resulting scale included items which related to subjects1 family backgrounds and to their degree of work experience prior to graduation. The following three items comprised the factor: 1. Education of Father (or Guardian) 2. Occupation of Father (or Guardian) 3. Per cent of college expenses self—earned Personal .Tob Needs. Specific Job Needs were identified by grouping individual items which correlated highly and also had similar content. Using this procedure on the original ranked data produced two factors which contained items which made sense in terms of previous research efforts. These two factors were labelled Need for Achievement (nAch) and Need for Security (nSec). The nAch subscale was made up of the following items: 1. Achievement from job 2. Try out own ideas 3. Make use of abilities The nSec subscale included these items: 1. Good pay 2. Advancement possibilities 3. Job security The reliability was based on the mean correlation between the items in the scale (Nu'nnally, 1967). The reliability for the nAch subscale was . 33 and for the nSec subscale was .17. Job-Challenge Expectations. The section that asked about respondents' expectations for their first jobs contained two major factors, which accounted for 91. 2 per cent of the variance in the 32 total set of expectation items. The first set of these items included the following: 1. Make use of abilities 2. The work itself 3. Try out own ideas 4. Achievement from job The reliability of this scale is . 84. These items are characteristics often associated with an enriched and challenging job (Hackman, et al. , 1975) and has been, accordingly, labelled IIJob-Challenge Expectations . H Work—Setting Expectations. A number of items relating to the context of the job grouped together into a second underlying factor. The reliability for this scale is . 79. The scale items included: Fairly administered policies Good pay Boss would back me up .Tob security Good working conditions Status in the community Advancement pos sibilities Recognition for work ooxiomgswmi— Job—Challenge Experiences. Two factors were also derived from the questionnaire section dealing with first-j ob experiences, accounting for 81. 3 per cent of the total variance in these items. The first of these factors had a reliability of . 82 and included the following items: 1. Make use of abilities 4. Make decisions on own 2. Achievement from the job 5. Variety on job 3. Try out own ideas 6. The work itself 33 The items in this factor were similar to those in the Job-Challenge Expectations factor. Therefore, this factor was labelled ”.Tob- Challenge Experiences. H Work-Setting Experiences. The second HexperienceH factor was similar to the Work-Setting Expectations factor. This HWork- Setting ExperiencesH factor had a reliability of . 76 and included the following items: Recognition for work Boss back me up Boss train men well Good pay .Tob security milele-d Job Success. Two a priori measures of Job Success were used. Both measures included the same items, but differed in that one was a measure of the graduates1 estimates of their own success while the other was subjects' perceptions of how the Company was rating them. These two scales had reliabilities of . 57 and . 61, which are generally adequate for research purposes (Nunnally, 1967). The first of these scales was Self-Perceived Success and included these items: 1. In the top (_ o) 2. According to the Company rating system 3. On a 10-rung ladder The second of these scales was HPerceived Company RatingH and used the same items: 1. In the Top (__%) 2. According to the Company Rating System 3. On a 10~rung ladder 34 Feedback. Respondents' receipt of feedback was determined through their answers to a single item which asked whether they had received a performance review on their first job. This single-item scale was used to test the hypotheses that dealt with the role of feedback on graduates' attitudes and behaviors. Such a single-item scale precludes any measuring of reliability, but it does have face validity for providing the necessary information about this par- ticular source of feedback. Job Satisfaction. Job Satisfaction was measured with the JDI. Smith, Kendall, and Hulin (196 9) report reliabilities for the different sections ranging from . 80 to . 88. The five areas of satisfaction examined by the JDI—-Work, Supervision, People, Pay, and Promotion--provided a ‘means for looking at a number of possible satisfaction outcomes in the testing of the hypotheses. Turnover. Turnover was a single-item scale to determine whether the individual had left the Company within his first five years of employment. Summary of the Scales. These were the factors and scales used in this research. They are listed together on Table II-9. An examination of the Needs, Expectations, and Experiences factors reveals the similarities among two different sets of factors. The items found in the nAch, Job-Challenge Expectations and Job— Challenge Experiences factors are similar. Likewise, the items in the nSec, Work-Setting Expectations, and Work-Setting Experiences 35 Table II-9. --Factor and scale composition for questionnaire. Section of Factor Reliability Questionnaire Name Items in the Factor of F actors* A . Background WORK- 1. Education of Father (Guardian) . 78 Information RELATED 2. Occupation of Father (Guardian) BACKGROUND 3. Per cent of College Expenses Self-earned B. Job NEED FOR 1 . Achievement from Job .33 Needs* ACHIEVEMENT 2. Try Out Own Ideas 3. Make use of Abilities NEED FOR 1 . Good Pay .17 SECURITY Advancement Possibilities 3. Job Security [0 Make Use of Abilities . 84 The Work Itself Try Out Own Ideas Achievement from Job C . Job JOB Expecta- CHALLENGE tions viz-cowh- WORK SETTING Fairly Administered Policies . 79 Good Pay Boss Would Back Me Up Job Security Good Working Conditions Status in Community Advancement Possibilities Rec0gnition for Work mVO‘iU'lihUJNH Make use of Abilities . 82 Achievement from Job Try Out Own Ideas Make Decisions on Own Variety on Job The Work Itself D . Job JOB Experiences CHALLENGE OxU'li-AWNH WORK SETTING ReCOgnition for Work . 76 Boss Back Me Up Boss Train Men Well Good Pay Job Security UerUJNH * Coefficient Alpha for all factors except ranked data (Section B) and single-item factors. Reliabilities for Section B determined from the average interitem correlations (Nunnally, 1967). Table II-9 . ——(Continued) . 36 Section of Factor Reliability Questionnaire Name Items in the Factor of F actors* E. Job SELF- 1 . In the Top (__%) . 57 Success PERCEIVED 2. According to Company Rating System 3. On 10-rung ladder PERCEIVED 1. In the Top (__%) .61 COMPANY 2. According to Company RATING 3. On 10-.rung ladder F. Feedback PERFORMANCE 1 . Receipt of a Performance Review on first REVIEW job G. Job WORK Satisfaction (Job SUPERVISION Description Index) PEOPLE (. 80 to . 88)** - PAY PROMOTION H. Turnover* TERMINATION 1 . Voluntary termination within five-year period * Coefficient Alpha for all factors except for ranked data (Section B) and single-item factors. ** Reliabilities as reported by Smith, Kendall, and Hulin (1969). 37 factors were similar. The resulting factor reliabilities ranged from the low . 17 and . 33 of the ”needs” factors to the respectable . 84 of the Job-Challenge Expectations factor. The next section shows how these factors and scales were used to test the research hypotheses. The Research Hypotheses All the hypotheses stated in Chapter I (except Hypothesis 4) involve the interaction among graduatest personal job needs, first— job expectations, and first-job experiences. This section states each of the hypotheses from Chapter I in terms of the derived factors and, briefly, which statistical techniques were used to test them. In general, analysis of variance (ANOVA) techniques were used to test the interaction effects between the independent variables of Job Needs, Job Expectations, and Job Experiences. Hypotheses 1, 2, and 3 (from Chapter I) predicted levels of satisfaction, success and turnover in terms of the interactions between these needs, expectations, and experiences and Work-Related Background. Hypotheses 5, 6, and 7 predicted outcomes of satisfaction, success and turnover in terms of interactions between needs, expectations, experiences and Performance Reviews. The subscales were such that comparisons between similar factors could be readily made. Need for Achievement, Job-Challenge Expectations, and Job—Challenge Experiences contained similar items. Need for Security, Work-Setting Expectations, and _.fl,ul- 38 Work—Setting Experiences also contained similar items. The hypotheses which predicted interactions among Needs, Expectations, and Experiences Were all tested using these sets of factors. Figure 1.1-1 illustrates how these variables were used in the research tests. Job Need Job Expectations Job Experiences nAch ........... Job-Challenge Expectations .......... Job-Challenge Experiences nSec ........... Work- Setting Expectations .......... Work— Setting Experiences Figure II-1 . -—Re1ated sets of independent variables as used in this research. The ANOVA procedures Were performed by splitting the independent variables into ”high” and Hlowll categories at the mean. For example, Job-Challenge Expectations Were split into high Job— Challenge Expectations (greater than the mean) and low Job-Challenge Expectations (less than the mean). Analyses of variance are sensitive to sample sizes in the deter- mination of significance (Nie, et al. , 1975), so with a large sample size, as here (N = 1019), the more conservative the significance level accepted, the more confidence in the interpretation of the results. Therefore, techniques and significance levels were chosen to be as conservative as possible. A significance level of p 5 . 05 for a two-tailed test was generally used for all hypotheses. 39 ; All significant ANOVA interaction effects were further analyzed by examining the differences between the cell means. The most conservative test for differences (Scheffe's S test) was used for this stage of the analysis (Winer, 1962; Kirk, 1968). The alpha level for significant differences between cell means was . 05. The Hypotheses. The following is a restatement of the hypotheses which were suggested with the model that was developed in Chapter I. The hypotheses are stated using the factors described in the previous section of this chapter. In addition to this restatement each hypothesis will be followed by a statement of the statistical procedure used to test that hypothesis. In general, the following notation will be used to describe the ANOVA tests of the hypotheses: Independent x Independent x Independent (etc.) on Dependent Variable Variable Variable Variable HYPOTHESIS 1. Recent graduates will be more satisfied when they have a high amount of Work—Related Background prior to graduation and when their nAch, Job—Challenge Expectations, and Job—Challenge Experiences are congruent than will be the case for recent graduates who do not have this Work—Related Background and who do not have the congruence between their nAch, Job— Challenge Expectations and Job—Challenge Experiences. ANOVA: Work-Related Background X nAch X Job-Challenge Expectations X Job-Challenge Experiences on Satisfaction (with Work, Supervision, People, Pay, and Promotion) HYPOTHESIS 2. Recent graduates will be more satisfied when they have a high amount of Work—Related Background prior to gradu- ation and when their nSec, Work-Setting Expectations, and Work- Setting Experiences are congruent than will be the case for recent graduates who do not have this Work-Related Background and who do not have the congruence between their nSec, Work—Setting Expectations and Work-Setting Experiences. 40 ANOVA: Work—Related Background X nSec X Work—Setting Expectations X Work-Setting Experiences on Satisfaction (with Wori, Supervision, People, Pay, and Promotion) HYPOTHESIS 3. Recent graduates will be more successful when they have a high amount of Work—Related Background prior to graduation and when their nAch, Job-Challenge Expectations, and Job-Challenge Experiences are congruent than will be the case for recent graduates who do not have this Work-Related Background and who do not have the congruence between their nAch, Job—Challenge Expectations and Job—Challenge Experiences. ANOVA: Work—Related Background X nAch X Job-Challenge Expectations X Job-Challenge Experiences on Success (Self-Perceived and Perceived Company Rating) HYPOTHESIS 4. Recent graduates will be more successful when they have a high amount of Work—Related Background prior to graduation and when their nSec, Work-Setting Expectations and Work-Setting Experiences are congruent than will be the case for recent graduates who do not have this Work-Related Background and who do not have the congruence between their nSec, Work—Setting Expectations and Work-Setting Experiences. ANOVA: Work-Related Background X nSec X Work-Setting Expectations X Work—Setting Experiences on Success (Self—Perceived and Perceived Company Rating) HYPOTHESIS 5. Recent graduates will be less likely to leave when they have a high amount of Work-Related Background prior to graduation and when their nAch, Job-Challenge Expectations and Job-Challenge Experiences are congruent than will be the case for recent graduates who do not have this Work-Related Background and who do not have the congruence between their nAch, Job— Challenge Expectations and Job—Challenge Experiences. ANOVA: Work—Related Background X nAch X Job-Challenge Expectations X Job-Challenge Experiences on Turnover HYPOTHESIS 6. Recent graduates will be less likely to leave when they have a high amount of Work—Related Background prior to graduation and when their nSec, Work—Setting Expectations and Work— Setting Experiences are congruent than will be the case for recent graduates who do not have this Work—Related Background and who do not have the congruence between their nSec, Work-Setting Expecta— tions and Work—Setting Experiences. 41 ANOVA: Work-Related Background X nSec X Work—Setting Expectations X Work-Setting Experiences on Turnover HYPOTHESIS 7. Recent graduates' Job-Challenge Expectations in their current jobs will be more congruent with their current Job- Challenge Experi ences than was the case for their Job-Challenge Expectations and Job-Challenge Experiences in their first jobs. COMPARISON (Fisher's Z): Pearson Correlation (Job—Challenge Expectations: first job with Job- Challenge Experiences: first job) and Pearson Correlation (Job- Challenge Expectations: current job with Job-Challenge Experiences: currentjob) HYPOTHESIS 8. Recent graduates' Work—Setting Expectations for their current jobs will be more congruent with their current Work-Setting Experiences than was the case for their Work-Setting Expectations and Work—Setting Experiences in their first jobs. COMPARISON (Fisher's Z): Pearson Correlation (Work-Setting Expectations: first job with Work- Setting Experiences: first job) and Pearson Correlation (Work-Setting Expectations: current job with Work— Setting Experiences: current job) HYPOTHESIS 9. Recent graduates will be more satisfied when they receive a Performance Review and when their nAch, Job- Challenge Expectations, and Job-Challenge Experiences are con- gruent than will be the case for recent graduates who do not receive a Performance Review and who do not have the congruence between their nAch, Job—Challenge Expectations and Job-Challenge Experiences. ANOVA: Performance Review X nAch X Job-Challenge Expecta- tions X Job-Challenge Experiences on Satisfaction (with Work, Supervision, People, Pay, and Promotion) HYPOTHESIS 10. Recent graduates will be 'more satisfied when they receive a performance Review and when their nSec, Work— Setting Expectations, and Work-Setting Experiences are congruent than will be the case for recent graduates who do not receive a Performance Review and who do not have the congruence between their nSec, Work-Setting Expectations and Work—Setting Experiences. 42 ANOVA: Performance Review X nSec X Work-Setting Expectations X Work-Setting Experiences on Satisfaction (with Work, Supervision, People, Pay, and Promotion) HYPOTHESIS 11. Recent graduates will be more successful when they receive a Performance Review and when their nAch, Job- Challenge Expectations, and Job-Challenge Experiences are con- gruent than will be the case for recent graduates who do not receive a Performance Review and who do not have the congruence between their nAch, Job-Challenge Expectations and Job-Challenge Experiences. ANOVA: Performance Review X nAch X Job-Challenge Expecta- tions X Job—Challenge Experiences on Success (Self- Perceived and Perceived Company Rating) HYPOTHESIS 12: Recent graduates will be more successful when they receive a Performance Review and when their nSec, Work- Setting Expectations, and Work-Setting Experiences are congruent than will be the case for recent graduates who do not receive a per- formance Review and who do not have the congruence between their nSec, Work-Setting Expectations, and Work-Setting Experiences. ANOVA: Performance Review X nSec X Work-Setting Expectations X Work—Setting Experiences on Success (Self-Perceived and Perceived Company Rating) HYPOTHESIS 13. Recent graduates will be less likely to leave when they receive a Performance Review and when their nAch, Job-Challenge Expectations and Job-Challenge Experiences are congruent than will be the case for recent graduates who do not receive a Performance Review and who do not have the congruence between their nAch, Job—Challenge Expectations and Job-Challenge Experiences. ANOVA: Performance Review X nAch X Job-Challenge Expecta- tions X Job—Challenge Experiences on Turnover HYPOTHESIS 14. Recent graduates will be less likely to leave when they receive a Performance Review and when their nSec, Work- Setting Expectations, and Work-Setting Experiences are congruent than will be the case for recent graduates who do not receive a per- formance Review and who do not have the congruence between their nSec, Work-Setting Expectations and Work-Setting Experiences. ANOVA: Performance Review X nSec X Work-Setting Expectations X Work—Setting Experiences on Turnover Summary This chapter has described the research design to test the hypotheses derived from the model developed in Chapter I. A questionnaire was administered to 1019 recent graduates and analyzed. Scales were derived to test the hypotheses. The results of the analyses of these data are reported in the next chapter. CHAPTER III RESULTS This chapter reports the results of the analysis of data collected in the research project outlined in Chapter II. Generally, only the statistically significant results of the tests of the hypotheses will be reported in the chapter. Cell means and Scheffe's S test for dif- ferences between means are also reported where appropriate. (See Appendix C for the complete analysis of variance tables. ) Test of the Hypotheses In the following paragraphs, 'each hypothesis will be stated in general form, along with the method of testing. Tables showing the significant results will immediately follow. Because the hypotheses concern the interactions between the independent variables, the highest—order significant interactions will be discussed. For hypothesis tests in which there were significant main effects, but no significant interaction effects, a brief discussion is given at the end of the chapte r. 44 45 Hypothe si s 1 The first hypothesis suggested that graduates with high levels of Work-Related Background prior to graduation and congruence between their nAch, Job—Challenge Expectations and Job-Challenge Experiences would be most satisfied. This hypothesis was tested with an analysis of variance of the interaction effects of nAch, .Tob- Challenge Expectations, Job-Challenge Experiences, and Work— Related Background on the aspects of satisfaction measured by the JDI: Work, Supervision, People, Pay, and Promotion. Tables III-1. 0 displays the significant results of this test. Tables III—1. 1, III-1. 2, and III—1. 3 show the cell means and Scheffe test of mean differences for the significant interaction effects. Satisfaction with Work. Two interactions significantly affected Satisfaction with Work: (1) nAch with Job-Challenge Experiences; and (2) Job-Challenge Expectations with Job-Challenge Experiences. Table 111—1. 1 illustrates that when respondents experienced low levels of Job Challenge, whether their nAch was high or low, they reported high levels of satisfaction with their work. A slight cross- over effect did occur, though, with satisfaction level increasing as the cell scores moved from high Need/low Experiences to low Need/ low Experiences and, in the other direction, from low Need/high Experiences to high Need/high Experiences. 46 Table III-1.0—-ANOVA Summaries for significant results of the effects on different aspects of satisfaction (HI). Aspects of Satisfaction Independent Variables f Work Job—Challenge Expectations 69. 205** Job—Challenge Experiences 317. 870** nAch X Job-Challenge Experiences 5.564 Job-Challenge Expectations X 4. 770 Job— Challenge Experiences Supervision Job-Challenge Expectations 7. 841* Job—Challenge Experiences 93. 752** People Job-Challenge Experiences 108. 399** Pay Work— Related Background 7. 430 Work-Related Background X nAch 5. 314 Work-Related Background X nAch X 7.929* Job-Challenge Expectations X Job-Challenge Experiences Promotion Job-Challenge Expectations 8.180* Job-Challenge Experiences 84.453** * p < . 01 >i°|< p 2 . 001 (all others, p < .05, two-tailed) Table III-1 . 1 . --Satisfaction-with-work cell means for ANOVA interaction effects between nAch and experiences with first-job challenge. nAch Job-Challenge Experiences Low Low High 17.122(A) 28.733(B) n = 230 n = 243 High 15.114(C) 30. 241(D) n = 255 n = 291 Differences Between the Cell Means C llM ns C A B e ea (15.1) (17.1) (28.7) D(30.2) High nAch/Low Experiences C(15 1) 2.0 13.6* 15.1* Low nAch/Low Experiences A(17 1) 11.6* 13.1* h ' E ' . Low nAc /Hrgh xperrences B(28.7) 1 5 ' h h ' hE ' D Hrg nAc /1-I1g xpenences (30.2) *Significant Differences, Scheffe's S test, 01 = .05. 48 Table III-1 . 2. --Satisfaction-with-work cell means for ANOVA interaction effects between job-chal- lenge expectations and job-challenge experiences. Job-Challenge Expectations Job-Challenge Experiences ; ‘_ Low High Low 14. 353(A) 23. 924(B) n = 292 n = 193 ngh 18.658(C) 31.899(D) n = 157 n = 377 Differences Between the Cell Means cell Means A(14.4) C(1s. 7) B(23.9) D (31.9) Low Expectations/Low Experiences A(14.4) 4.3* 9.6* 17.5>l< High Expectations/Low Experiences C(18. 7) S . 3* 13. 2* Low Expectations/High Experiences B(23.9) 8.0* High Expectations/High Experiences D(31-9) *Significant Differences, Scheffe's S test, a = .05. 3 ¥m 7, __‘ 7 7 J 49 Job-Challenge Expectations also significantly interacted with Job—Challenge Experiences to affect satisfaction with work. As Table III—l. 2 shows, each of these interaction-effect cell means is signifi— cantly different from all the others. When Job—Challenge Expectations were low and there was a low level of experienced Job Challenge, the lowest level of satisfaction with work occurred. High expectations with low experiences resulted in the second lowest level of work satisfaction. Low expectations and high Job-Challenge Experiences produced a higher satisfaction—with-work score. High expectations and high levels of experience Were conditions under which the highest levels of satisfaction with work were found. Work Related Background did not interact with the other variables. The part of the hypothesis that concerned congruence between the independent variables was only partially supported. Need . ‘ for Achievement, Job—Challenge Expectations, and Job—Challenge l Experiences did interact to produce high levels of satisfaction, but only when respondents reported high levels of these three variables. That is, when nAch was high, Job-Challenge Expectations were high, and Job-Challenge Experiences Were high, then there were high levels of Satisfaction with Work. When there was congruence, but with low nAch, low Job-Challenge Expectations, and low Job—Challenge Experiences, then Satisfaction with Work was low. Satisfaction with Supervision. There were no significant 50 a}: interaction effects on satisfaction With supervrsion. Satisfaction with People. The re were no significant interaction >1: effects on satisfaction with people. Satisfaction with Pay. The highest order interaction effect on satisfaction with pay is reported in Table 111-1. 3, which reports the cell means for the different levels of the four independent variables tested in the hypothesis: nAch, Job-Challenge Expectations, Job- Challenge Experiences, and Work-Related Background. This inter- action was significant (p E . 01) but the Scheffe S test did not reveal any significant differences between cell means. An examination of the extreme points, though, shows that satisfaction with pay was highest when subjects reported (1) low nAch, low expectations for Job-Challenge, high experiences with Job- Challenge, and low Work-Related Background; and (2) high nAch, high Job-Challenge Expectations, high Job—Challenge Experiences, and low Work-Related Background. Satisfaction with Pay was lowest when respondents reported low nAch, high Job-Challenge Expectations, low Job-Challenge Experiences, and high Work-Related Background. C There were significant main effects, however. These are reported, as they may be of use in future research. But they are not discussed, here, because the hypotheses predicted only interaction effects. This holds true for several of the following hypotheses. The significant main effects are examined, briefly, at the end of the chapter, for those situations where there we re no significant inter- action effects. Throughout this chapter, an asterisk will refer to these situations where there were only significant main effects. 51 Table III-1. 3. --Satisfaction-with-pay cell means* for ANOVA interaction effects between work— related backgrormd nAch, expectations for first-job challenge and experienced first-job challenge. Job-Challenge 106- Challenge Work-Related nAch Expectations Experiences Background Low High Low 14 . 1 32 13 . 411 Low High 16.000 14.262 Low Low 14.780 12.846 High High 15.086 14.709 Low 1 5 . 606 14. 300 Low High 14.462 13.690 High Low 1 3 . 71 9 15 . 149 High High 16.045 14.878 * No significant differences, Scheffe's S test, 01 = .05. 52 These data do not support the hypothesis. Evidently, high levels of Work-Related Background led these subjects to react less favorably to their pay than was the case for respondents with lower levels of Work-Related Background. This was even the case for graduates with high achievement needs who experienced jobs high in the chal— lenge and achievement they expected. Satisfaction with Promotion. There we re no significant inter- >'.< action effects on satisfaction with promotion. Hypothe si s 2 The second hypothesis stated that respondents would be most satisfied when they had high levels of Work-Related Background prior to graduation and when there was congruence between their nSec, Work-Setting Expectations, and Work—Setting Expe riences. The significant results of the analysis of variance are reported in Table 111-2. 0. Satisfaction with Work. There were no significant interaction V >1 effects on satisfaction with work. Satisfaction with Supervision. There was a significant inter- action effect between Work—Setting Expectations and Work—Setting Experiences on satisfaction with supervision. Table 111—2. 1 reports the cell means and differences between cell means for different levels of the independent variables. >:< See note, p. 50. 53 Table III-2.0—-ANOVA Summaries for significant result of the effects on different aspects of satisfaction (H2) Aspects of Satisfaction Independent Variables f Work Work- Setting Expectations 28 . 1 87** Work- Setting Experiences 1 27 . 565** Supervision Work- Setting Expectations 15 . 253** Work- Setting Experiences 293 . 034** Work- Setting Expectations X 4. 361 Work-Setting Experiences People Work—Setting Expectations 22 . 378** Work—Setting Experiences 79. 640** Work-Related Background X nSec 3.844 Work-Setting Expectations X Work- Setting Experiences 6 . 71 1* Pay Work—Related Background 7.430* Work- Setting Expectations 5 . 500 Work- Setting Experiences 32 . 977** Promotion nSec 5 . 066 Work- Setting Expectations 23 . 789** Work-Setting Experiences 165. 296** *p < . 01 **p-<- .001 (all—others, p < .05, two-tailed) 54 Table III-2. 1 . —-Satisfaction—with-supervision cell means for ANOVA interaction effects between work-setting expectations and work-setting experiences. Work- Setting Expectations Work- Setting Experiences Low High Low 22 . 482(A) 34. 916(3) 11 = 276 n = 214 High 23 . 204(C) 39. 055 n = 147 n = 382 Differences Between the Means Cell Means A(22.5) C(23. 2) B(34. 9) D(39. 1) Low Expectations/ Low Experiences A (22. 5) . 7 12.4* 16. 6* High Expectations/Low Experiences C(23. 2) 11 . 7* 15. 9* Low Expectations/ High Experiences B (3 4. 9) 4. 2* High Expectations/ High Experiences D (3 9 1) *Significant Differences, Scheffe's S test, 01 = .05. 55 When Work-Setting experiences were low and levels of expecta- tions for the Work-Setting were either high or low, satisfaction with supervision was low. Satisfaction was highest when expectations we re high and individuals reported high levels of experience with the work-setting. Low Work-Setting Expectations and high Work- Setting Experiences were associated with the next highest level of satisfaction. When subjects were low in Work-Setting Experiences, the level of expectations had no effect. But when experiences with the work-setting were good (high), then expectations made a dif- fe rence, with the lower level of expectation being associated with a lower level of satisfaction with supervision. When high expectations were met, satisfaction was the highest. Satisfaction with People. There was also a significant inter- action effect among the independent variables on satisfaction with people. Respondentst expectations for the Work-Setting and their Work-Setting Expe riences interacted significantly to affect levels of satisfaction with people. Table III—2.2 reports these results. Again, when respondents reported low levels of experience with the Work- Setting, they reported low levels of satisfaction, no matter what they reported for Work-Setting expectations. The highest level of satisfaction with people was reported when respondents had high expectations which we re met by high levels of experienced Work- Setting. Low expectations and high levels of Work-Setting Experiences interacted to produce a mid—range level of satisfaction. 56 Table IE. 2. 2. --Satisfacfion—with-people cell means for ANOVA interaction effects between work- setting expectations and work-setting experiences. Work-Setting Expectations Work- Setting Experiences Low Low High 28.493(A) 34.061(B) n = 276 n = 214 High 30. 102(C) 38. 788(D) n = 147 n = 382 Differences Between the Cell Means Cell Means A(28.5) C(30.1) B(34.1) D(38.8) Low Expectations/ Low Experiences A (28. 5) 1 . 6 5. 6* 10. 3* High Expectations/Low Experiences C(3O. 1) 4.0* 8. 7* Low Expectations/High Experiences B 4. 7* (34.1) High Expectations/High Experiences D ( 3 8 8) *Significant Differences, Scheffe's 8 test, 01 = .05. 57 Table III-2. 0 also reports that Work-Related Background inter- acted with nSec to significantly effect satisfaction with people. This interaction was not further analyzed because it was not an interaction which was addressed by the hypothesis. Satisfaction with Pay. There were no significant interaction >:< effects on satisfaction with pay. Satisfaction with Promotion. There were no significant inter- >}< action effects on satisfaction with promotion. Hyy’che si s 3 Hypothesis 3 predicted that graduates would report their highest levels of perceived success when they had high Work-Related Background prior to graduation and when they reported congruence between their nAch, Job-Challenge Expectations, and Job-Challenge Experiences. This hypothesis was tested with an analysis of variance. Success was measured with both respondents' feelings about their success and their perceptions of how they thought the Company was rating them. Table III-3. 0 reports the significant results of these tests. Self—Perceived Success. There we re no significant interaction effects on self-perceived levels of success that related to the V; hypothesis. >.~ Work—Related Background interacted with Job-Challenge >{< See note p. 50. 58 Table III-3.0. --A NOVA Summaries for the significant results of the effects on aspects of perceived success (H3) Dependent Variable Independent Variables f Self-Perceived Success Work-Related Background - 9. 100* Work-Related Background X 6. 929* Job-Challenge Expectations Perceived Company Rating Work-Related Background 8. 859* Job-Challenge Experiences 4. 292 *p _<_ .01 (all others, p < .05, two-tailed) Table III-4.0. --A NOVA Summaries for the significant results of the effects on aspects of perceived success (H4) Dependent Variable Independent Variable f Self-Perceived Success Work-Related Background 9. 100* Work-Setting Experiences 25. 962** Perceived Company Rating Work-Related Background 8. 859* Work- Setting Experiences 51 . 71 2** *p < .01 **p—<'.001 59 Expectations to significantly effect self-pe rceived success. But the hypothesis only concerned Work-Related Background as it related to congruence between nAch, Job-Challenge Expectations and Job-Challenge Experiences. Perceived Company Ratipg. The re were no significant inter- action effects on respondents' perceptions of the Company's rating \" f‘~ of their success. Hypothe si s 4 The fourth hypothesis stated that respondents! highest levels of perceived success would be reported when they had high levels of Work-Related Background prior to graduation and when their nSec, Work-Setting Expectations and Work—Setting Experiences we re con- gruent. Table III-4. 0 shows the significant results of the test of this hypothesis. There were no significant analysis of variance interaction effects on either respondents' Self-Perceived Success or their Perceived Company Ratings. Hypothe si s 5 Hypothesis 5 stated that graduates would be least likely to leave their companies under the following circumstances: when they had high levels of Work-Related Background prior to graduation, and >:< See note p. 50. 60 when they reported congruence between their levels of nAch, Job- Challenge Expectations, and Job—Challenge Experiences. The hypothesis was tested with an analysis of variance of these four independent variables on the act of termination. Table III-5. 0 shows the significant results of this test. Table III-5.0. --ANOVA summaries for the significant results the effects on turnover (H5). Dependent Variable Independent Variable f Turnover nAch 4. 285 Job-Challenge Experiences 34. 236* Work-Related Background X 6. 377 nAch X Job-Challenge Experiences * p < .001 (all others, p < .05, two-tailed). There was one significant interaction effect on turnover. Work-Related Background, nAch, and Job-Challenge Experiences interacted to significantly affect terminations. Table III-5.1 shows the cell means for this interaction. Because of the way turnover was scored (termination = 1; non-termination = 2), high scores mean a lower level of turnover and low scores mean a higher level of turnover. None of the differences between the cell means were significant. An examination of the cell means indicates that turn- over was most likely to occur (the low scores) when respondents reported high nAch, low Job-Challenge Experiences, and high 61 Work-Related Background. Turnover was least likely to result (high scores) when respondents were low in nAch and had high levels of experienced Job-Challenge. High levels of Work—Related Back- ground prior to graduation consistently we re associated with higher levels of turnover (the low scores), under each of the combinations of nAch and Job-Challenge Experiences. These results do not support the hypothe si 5. Table III-5. 1 . "Turnover cell means * for ANOVA interaction effects between work-related back- ground, nAch, and job-challenge experiences**. nAch Job-Challenge Experiences Work-Related Background Low High Low 1 . 500 1 . 438 Low High 1 . 635 1 . 602 Low 1 . 422 1 . 362 High High 1 . 576 1 . 564 *I-Iigh scores mean low turnover; low scores mean high turnover. **No significant differences, Scheffe's S test, a = .05. 62 Hypothe si s 6 This hypothesis also dealt with turnover. It predicted that respondents would be least likely to leave when they had high levels of Work-Related Background prior to graduation and had congruence between their nSec, Work-Setting Expectations and Work-Setting Experiences. This hypothesis was tested with an analysis of variance. Table 111-6. 0 shows the significant results of this test. Table 111—6. O--ANOVA summaries for the significant results of the effects on turnover (H6). Dependent Variable Independent Variables f Turnover nSec 9. 284$< Work-Setting Experience 5 17. 619** Work-Related Background X 4. 194 nSec X Work-Setting Expectations X Work- Setting Experiences *p__<_.01 >:<>:< p 5 . 001 (all others p _<_ . 05, two-tailed) Table 111—6.] gives the cell means for the one significant interaction effect. Again, low scores mean high turnover; high scores mean low turnover. Scheffe's S test did not reveal any significant differences between the cell means. Examination of the cell means, however, shows that turnover was 'most likely to occur 63 Table 111-6. 1 . --Turnover cell means* for ANOVA interaction effects between nSec, work-setting expectations, work-setting experiences, and work—related background** Work- Setting Work- Setting Work-Re lated nSec Expectations Experiences Background Low High Low 1 . 443 1 . 301 Low High 1 . 601 1 . 597 Low Low . 1 . 324 1 . 273 High High 1 . 523 1 . 511 Low 1 . 471 1. 477 Low High 1 . 656 1 . 526 High Low 1 . 564 1 . 519 Low High 1 .656 1.526 High Low 1 . 564 1 . 519 High High 1‘. 604 1 . 638 *High scores mean low turnover; low scores mean high turnover. **No significant differences, Scheefe's S test, a' = .05. 64 when: (1) respondents reported low nSec, low Work-Setting Expecta- tions, low Work-Setting Experiences and high Work-Related Back- ground; and (2) when they reported low nSec, high Work—Setting Expectations, low Work-Setting Experiences, and high Work-Related Background. Turnover was least likely to result when experiences with the Work-Setting we re high. The lowest level of turnover occurred when nSec was high, expectations for the Work-Setting were low, experienced Work-Setting was high, and respondents had low Work-Related Background prior to graduation. One of these cells does support the hypothesis: turnover was quite low (not significantly different from the lowest level of turnover) when individuals had high nSec, high expectations for the Work- Setting, high Work-Setting Experiences and high levels of Work- Related Background prior to graduation. That is to say, respondents were least likely to leave when they had high amounts of Work- Related Background and also had congruence between their needs, expectations, and experiences. This was the prediction of the hypothesis. Hypothe sis 7 Hypotheses 7 and 8 were tested with correlational techniques. The seventh hypothesis predicted that the correlation between graduates Job-Challenge Expectations and Job—Challenge Experiences would 65 be higher for presently-held jobs than was the case for their first jobs after graduation. It was being suggested that graduates would be learning about themselves and their organizations in such a way that they would be more able to form realistic expectations about their present jobs than they were able to do when they first went to work after graduation. They would have less dissonance between their expectations and experiences now (the time of the questionnaire) than they had when they first went to work. Table Ill-7. 0 reports these correlations. The correlations between respondents! Job-Challenge Expectations and Job-Challenge Experiences in their first jobs was . 46. The correlation between these two variables for their present jobs was . 89. The difference between these is significant (p E . 05). The results supported the hypothesis. Table 111-7. O--Pearson correlation coefficients between job expecta- tions and job experiences for re spondents' first and present jobs (H7 and H8). Variables r(first job) r(present job) Job-Challenge Expectations/ 46 89 Job—Challenge Experiences>1< . . Work-Setting Expectations/ . 33 . 88 Work-Setting Expe rience 3* >1< :1: Fisher's Z = 20.7 ** Fisher's Z = 23.1 (Z = 1. 96 is significant at pf . 05) 66 Hypothesis 8 This hypothesis predicted that the correlation between respon— dents' Work—Setting Expectations and Work-Setting Experiences would be higher in their present jobs than was the case in their first jobs. These results are also presented in Table 111-7. 0. The cor- relation between the first-j ob expectations and experiences with the Work-Setting was . 33. For subjects' current jobs, the correlation was . 88. These correlations are significantly different (p E . 05). These results support the hypothesis. Hypothe si s 9 Hypothesis 9 was the first of a series of hypotheses which dealt with the impact of performance appraisals on graduates' satisfaction, success and turnover. These hypotheses also involve respondents' needs, expectations, and experiences, just as did hypotheses 1 through 6. The ninth hypotheses suggested that graduates would be most satisfied with their jobs when they received a performance review and when they had congruence between their nAch, Job-Challenge Expectations, and Job-Challenge Experiences. Table 111-8. 0 reports the significant results of the analysis of variance test. 67 Table III-8.0. --ANOVA Summaries for the significant results of the effects on different aspects of satisfaction (H9) Aspects of Satisfaction Independent Variables f Work Performance Review 10. 952** Job-Challenge Expectations 67. 674** Job-Challenge Experiences 309. 611** nAch X Job—Challenge Experiences 4. 649 Job-Challenge Expectations X 5. 621 Job-Challenge Experiences Supervision Performance Review 6.058 Job-Challenge Expectations 6.878* Job-Challenge Experiences 88. 170** People Job-Challenge Experiences 106. 883** Pay Performance Review X 5. 900 Job-Challenge Expectations nAch X Job-Challenge Experiences 3. 851 Promotion Job-Challenge Expectations 7. 365* Job-Challenge Experiences 81 . 763** * p _<_ .01 ** p < .001 (all-Embers, p < .05, two-tailed) 68 Comparison of this table with Table 111-1. 0 (which was a similar hypothesis, including Work-Related Background instead of Perfor- mance Reviews) reveals that the Performance Review variable adds no new significant interaction effects to the results of the analysis of variance. Performance Review does interact with Job-Challenge Expectations to effect satisfaction with pay, but this result was not addressed by the hypothesis. The hypothesis only dealt with Per- formance Reviews in conjunction with congruent needs, expectations, and experiences. Table 111-8. 0 does indicate that nAch and Job-Challenge Experiences do interact to significantly effect satisfaction with pay. This result did not appear in the test of Hypothesis 1. These two variables interacted significantly, here, and not in the earlier test because the Work-Related Background component of the total Sums of Squares was much greater than the Performance Review Com— ponent. Table III-8.1 reports the cell ‘means for this interaction effect. There we re no significant differences between the cell means as tested by Scheffe's S test. The extreme cell means, though, show that lowest satisfaction with pay occurred when respondents were low in nAch and had low experienced Job-Challenge. And they were highest in satisfaction with their pay when they were high in nAch and experienced high Job—Challenge. 69 Table III-8. 1. --Satisfaction with pay cell means for ANOVA inter- action effect between nAch* and Job-Challenge Experience 3*. nAch Job-Challenge Experiences Low High Low 1 3. 826 14. 938 High 14.690 15.100 * No significant differences, Scheffe's S test, oz = . 05. This hypothesis was not supported by the results. Pe rfor- mance Reviews did not produce any significant interactions with the other variables. And only to a limited extent did they show any direct effect on levels of satisfaction, when Performance Reviews had significant main effe cts on satisfaction with the work and with supervision. Hypothesis 10 This hypothesis stated that respondents would be most satisfied when they had a Performance Review and when the re was congruence between their nSec, Work-Setting Expectations, and Work-Setting Experiences. Table 111-9. 0 reports the significant results of the analysis of variance on the different aspects of satisfaction. Per— formance Review does interact significantly with other variables in the se results . 70 Table III-9. 0. --ANOVA Summaries for the significant results of the effects on different aspects of satisfaction (H10) Aspects of Satisfaction Independent Variables f Work Performance Review 10.952* Work-Setting Expectations 28.031* Work- Setting Experiences 122. 707* Performance Review X Work- 4. 714 Setting Expectations X Work-Setting Experiences Supervision Performance Review 6.058 Work-Setting Expectations 14. 973* Work-Setting Experiences 284. 620* Performance Review X Work- 5. 834 Setting Expectations X Work- Setting Experiences People Work- Setting Expectations 22. 288* Work-Setting Experiences 78.050* Performance Review X Work- 4.306 Setting Experiences Work- Setting Expectations X 5. 635 Work- Setting Experiences Pay Work- Setting Expectations 4.927 Work-Setting Experiences 30.609* Promotion nSec 4. 1 82 Work- Setting Expectations 23. 188* Work- Setting Experiences 158. 609* * p = .001 (all others, p = .05, two-tailed) 71 Satisfaction with Work. Performance Review interacted with expectations for the Work—Setting and experiences with the Work- Setting to significantly affect satisfaction with work. Table 111-9. 1 reports the cell means and differences between the cell means for this interaction. As this table shows, the highest level of satisfaction with work occurred when respondents reported high expectations for the Work- Setting, high experienced Work—Setting, and also received a Per— formance Review. This supports the hypothesis. Satisfaction with work was lowest when respondents had low expectations for the Work- Setting, had low experienced Work-Setting, and did not receive a Performance Review. Because previous researchers and authors had not distinguished between met-expe ctations when those expectations were for high levels of some job facet and met-expectations when those expectations we re for low levels of job facets, the hypotheses in this research project did not, either. The hypotheses merely speculated about congruent expectations and experiences. These results reinforce other results in this research that indicate that met-expectations when the expectations are for high levels of job facets produce different results (high levels of satisfaction and success and low turnover) than is the case when the met-expectations are for low levels of job facets (resulting in low satisfaction and success and high turnover). 72 Table III-9. 1 . --Satisfaction-with-work cell means for ANOVA interaction effects between perform- ance review, work-setting expectations and work-setting experiences. Work- Setting Expectations Work- Setting Experiences Performance Review Yes No Low 1 7. 233(A) 12 . 969(3) 11 = 210 n = 64 Low High 24 . 574(C) 23 . 093(D) n = 169 n = 43 low 20. 336(E) 20. 000(F) n = 107 n = 38 High High 29. 191(6) 25 . 016(H) n = 320 n = 61 Difierences Between The Cell Means Cell Means B(13.0)"3‘(17.2) F(20.0)E(20.3)D(23.1)C(24.6)H(25.0) G(29.2) Low Expectations/ Low Experiences/ NoPerformance Review 4.2 7.0* 7.3* 10.1* 11.6* 12.0* 16.2* B(1 3 . 0) Low Expectations/ Low Experiences/ YesPerformanceReview 2.8 3.1 5.9 7.4* 7.8* 12.0* A (17.2) High Expectations/Low Experiences/ No Performance Review . 3 3. 1 4. 6 5 . 0 9. 2* F(20. 0) High Expectations/ Low Experiences/ Yes Performance Review 2. 8 4. 3 4. 7 8. 9* E(20. 3) Low Expectations/ High Experiences/ No Performance Review 1 . 5 1. 9 6. 1* D (23. 1) Low Expectations/ High Experiences/ P ' C 4 . Yes erformance Revrew (24.6) 4 6 High Expectations/ High Experiences/ No Performance Review 4. 2 H (25.0) High Expectations/ High Experiences/ Yes Performance Review C(29. 2) *Significant Differences, Scheffe's 8 test, oz = .05. 73 Satisfaction with Supervision. These results are similar to those obtained for satisfaction with work. Expectations and experiences with the Work-Setting interacted with Performance Review to significantly affect satisfaction with supervision. Table III-9. 2 shows the cell ‘means and significant differences between those means for this interaction effect. The highest level of satisfaction with supervision occurred when there were high expectations for the Work-Setting and high levels of experience with the Work-Setting and when respondents received a Performance Review. The lowest level of satisfaction resulted when there was congruence between expectations and experiences at low levels and when respondents did not receive a Performance Review. Again, this demonstrates that congruence between expectations and experiences may have different effects for high levels of some job facets (such as aspects of the Work-Setting) than for low levels of those job facets. Satisfaction with People. The re we re no significant interaction effects on satisfaction with people that related to Hypothesis 10. The significant interaction between Performance Review and Work- Setting Experiences was not considered by the Hypothesis. The interaction between expectations and experiences was examined in Hypothe sis 2 . 74 Table III 9. 2. --Satisfaction-with-supervision cell means for ANOVA interaction effect between per- formance review , work-setting expectations and work-setting experiences. Work- Setting Expectations Work-Setting Experiences Performance Review Yes No Low 23 . 424(A) 1 9. 375(B) n = 210 n = 64 Low High 34. 314(C) 36. 884(D) n = 169 n = 43 Low 23 . 869(E) 21 . 079(F) n = 107 n = 38 High High 39.537(G) 36. 754(1-1) n = 320 n = 61 Differences Between The Cell Means Cell Means B (19. 4) F(21 . 1) A(23.4)E(23. 9) c:(34. 3)H(36. 8)D(36. 9) G(39. 5) Low Expectations/Low Experiences/ No Performance Review 3(19 4) 1.7 4.0 4.5 14.9* 17.4* 17.5* 20.1* High Expectations] Low Experiences/ No Performance Review F(21 1) 2.3 2.8 13.2* 15.7* 15.8* 18.4* Low Expectations/Low Experiences/ Yes Performance Review A(23 4) .5 10.9* 13.4* 13.5* 16. 1* High Expectations/ Low Experiences/ Yes Performance Review E(23 9) 10.4* 12.9* 13.0* 15.6* Low Expectations/ High Experiences/ ' 2.5 2. 6 5. 2* Yes Performance Revrew C ( 3 4. 3) High Expectations/ High Experiences/ P ‘ . 1 2 . 7 No erformance Revrew H (3 6. 8) Low Expectations/High Experiences/ No Performance Review 2 . 6 D (36.9) High Expectations/ High Experiences/ Y P ‘ es erformance Renew G (3 9. 5) *Significam: Differences, Scheffe's S test, a = .05. ,—:=a.x.— — 75 Satisfaction with Pay. The re Were no significant interaction effects on satisfaction with pay. 4 Satisfaction with Promotion. The re were no significant inter- >l< action effects on satisfaction with promotion. Hypothesis ll Hypothesis 11 suggested that graduates would feel most successful when they received a Performance Review and when they had congruence between nAch, expectations for Job—Challenge and experiences with Job—Challenge. Table 111-10. 0 reports the signifi— cant results of this test. As that table shows, the only significant results occurred in relation to Self-Perceived Success. Table 111-10. 1 shows the cell means for the significant inter— action effect of nAch, Job-Challenge Expectations, Job-Challenge Experiences, and receipt of a Performance Review on Self—Perceived Success. There were no significant differences between the means. An examination of the extreme scores indicates that subjects felt least successful when they were low in nAch, had low expecta- tions for Job-Challenge, experienced high levels of Job—Challenge, and did not receive a Performance Review. They also felt unsuccess— ful when they were high in nAch, had high expectations for Job— Challenge, experienced low levels of Job-Challenge, and did not See note p. 50. 76 Table III—10.0——ANOVA Summaries for the significant results of the effects on perceived success (H11) . Dependent Variable Independent Variables f Self-Perceived Success Performance Review 4. 871 Performance Review X nAch 5. 165 X Job- Challenge Expectations Performance Review X nAch 4. 302 X Job-Challenge Expectations X Job-Chalhnge Experience Perceived Company Rating No Significant Results *p < .05, two-tailed. Table III-10. 1--Self Perceived success cell means * for ANOVA interaction effect between nAch, Job-Challenge Expectations, Job-Challenge Experiences, and Performance Review. Job- Challe nge Job-Challenge Performance Review nAch Expectations Experiences Yes No Low Low 14. 043 13 . 000 High 13. 552 12 . 667 Low High Low 13. 493 14. 600 High 14. 141 14. 000 Low Low 13.843 13.438 High 14.377 13.316 High High Low 14. 167 12. 769 High 14. 359 13 . 889 *No significant differences, Scheffe's S test, X = .05. 77 receive a Performance Review. Thus, both when respondents were low in needs and expectations but experienced high job challenge and when they were high in needs and expectations but experienced low job challenge, if they did not receive a performance appraisal, they felt unsuccessful. The lack of a performance review was evidently critical in these graduates! responses to how well they thought they we re doing. The highest level of Perceived Success occurred when respon- dents reported low nAch, high expectations for Job-Challenge, low experienced Job-Challenge, and did not receive a Performance Review. The congruence of high nAch, high Job-Challenge Expecta— tions, high Job-Challenge Experiences, coupled with the receipt of a performance appraisal resulted in a high level of Perceived Success, as predicted by the hypothesis, though this was just slightly less than the highest level of perceived success. Generally, the receipt of a Performance Review produced higher levels of perceived success than was the case when feedback of this type was not received. Hypothe si s 12 This hypothesis predicted that respondents would feel most successful when they received a Performance Review, and when they had congruence between their security needs, Work—Setting Expectations and Work-Setting Experiences. This was tested with an ANOVA of these four independent variables on the two measures 78 of perceived success. Table III—11. 0 reports the significant results of this ANCVA procedure. As the table indicates, there were no a}: significant interaction effects on either of the success measures. Table III-11 . 0. --ANOVA summaries for the significant results of the effects on perceived success (H12). Dependent Variable Independent Variables f Self-Perceived Success Performance Review 4. 871 Work-Setting Experiences 23. 758* Perceived Company Rating Work-Setting Experiences 47. 687* * p5 . 001 all others, < . 05 ( p__ ) Hypothe sis 13 Hypothesis 13 stated that graduates would be least likely to leave the organization if they received a Performance Review and if their nAch, Job-Challenge Expectations, and Job-Challenge Experi— ences were congruent. Table 111-12. 0 shows the significant results of the analysis of variance. The only significant result involving an interaction with Performance Review (Performance Review and Job— Challenge Experiences) is not discussed because the hypothesis did not consider this particular interaction. Table 111-12. 1 reports the cell means for the interaction between nAch, Job-Challenge Expectations, and Job-Challenge K. I “ See note p. 50. 79 Table III-12.0. --A NOVA Summaries for the significant results of the effects on turnover (H13) Dependent Variable Independent Variables f Turnover Performance Review 7. 988* Job-Challenge Experiences 32.544** Performance Review X 6. 876* Job-Challenge Experiences nAch X Job-Challenge 4. 873 Expectations X Job- Challenge Experiences *p<.01 **p (.001 (all others, p < .05, two-tailed) Table III-12. 1 . --Turnover cell means * for ANOVA interaction effect between nAch, Job-Challenge Expectations and Job-Challenge Experiences** nAch Job- Challenge Job—Challenge Expectations Experiences Low High Low 1 . 504 1 . 618 Low High 1 . 416 1 . 617 Low 1 . 351 1. 543 High High 1 . 452 1 . 581 * High scores mean low turnover; low scores mean high turnover ** No significant differences, Scheffe's S test, a = .05 80 Experiences. There we re no significant differences between the means, as tested with Scheffe's S test. This interaction was not significant when these variables we re analyzed in Hypothesis 5 because, again, of the smaller contribution of Performance Review to the total sums of squares than Work-Related Background. An examination of the extreme scores, here, demonstrates that turnover was least likely to occur (the high scores) when respondents reported high levels of experienced Job-Challenge. And respondents we re most likely to leave when they experienced low levels of Job-Challenge. The highest turnover occurred for subjects with high nAch, low Job-Challenge Expectations, and low Job- Challenge Experiences. The lowest turnover was observed for respondents with low nAch, high and low Job—Challenge Expectations, and high Job-Challenge Experiences. These results do not support the hyp othe si s . Hypothe si s 14 The last hypothesis stated that turnover would be least likely when graduates received a Performance Review and when there was congruence between their security needs, Work-Setting Expectations and Work-Setting Experiences. Table 111-13. 0 shows the results of this analysis of variance. Due to the different main-effe ct impacts of Work-Related Background (as examined in Hypothesis 6) and 81 Table III-13 .0. --ANOVA Summaries for the significant results of the effects on turnover (H14) Dependent Variable Independent Variable f Turnover Performance Review 7. 988* nSec 10. 140** Work- Setting Experiences 15. 754** nSec X Work-Setting 3. 875 Expectations Performance Review X 5.462 nSec X Work- Setting Experiences * p 5 .01 **p§.m1 (all others, p < .05, two-tailed) Table III—13. 1 .--Turnover cell means * for ANOVA interaction effect between nSec and Work- Setting Expectations ** nSec Work-Setting Expectations Low High Low 1 . 473 1 . 530 High 1 . 447 1 . 603 * High scores mean low turnover; low scores mean high turnover. ** No significant differences, Scheffe's S test, CY = .05 82 Performance Reviews, nSec interacted significantly with Work- Setting Expectations in this analysis but not in the test of Hypothesis 6. Table 111-13. 1 reports the cell means for the interaction be— tween nSec and Work-Setting Expectations. There were no significant differences between the cell means. An examination of the cell means shows that turnover was least likely to occur (the highest score) when nSec was high and when expectations for the Work- Setting was also high. This supports the hypothesis in terms of the predicted impact of congruence between needs and expectations. Turnover was most likely (the low scores) when respondents expected low levels of Work-Setting (slightly more likely when they were high in nSec than when they were low in nSec). Table 111-13. 2 reports the cell means for the significant inter- action effect on security needs, Work-Setting Experiences and Per- formance Reviews on Turnover. Only the difference between low nSec/low experienced Work-Setting/no Performance Review and high nSec/high experienced Work-Setting/yes Performance Review was significant. These were the two extremes. Turnover was most likely when respondents were low in nSec, experienced low levels of Work-Setting and did not receive a Performance Review. Turn- over was least likely to occur when they were high in nSec, experi- enced high levels of Work-Setting, and did receive a Performance Review. These results partially support the hypothesis. 83 Table III-13. 2. "Turnover cell means* for ANOVA interaction effects between nSec, work-setting experiences and performance reviews. nSec Work- Setting Experiences Performance Review Yes No Low 1 . 377(A) 1 . 259(B) n = 167 n = 54 Low High 1 . 563(C) 1 . 510(D) n = 240 n = 49 Low 1 .513(C) 1.458(F) n = 150 n = 48 High High 1 . 647(6) 1 . 491(H) n = 249 n = 55 *High scores mean low turnover; low scores mean high turnover. Differences Between The Cell Means CellMeam B(1.3) A(1.4.) F(1.5) H(1.5) D(1.5) E(1.5) C(1.56) G(1.65) low nSec/ Low Experiences/ No Performance Review B(1 3) . 1 . 2 . 2 . 2 - 2 . 26 . 35* Low nSce/ Low Experiences/ 4 Yes Performance Review A(1 4) .1 . 1 . 1 . 1 . 16 . 25 High nSec/Low Experiences/ No Performance Review F(1 5) .06 .15 High nSec/ High Experiences/ No Performance Review H(1 5) .06 . 15 Low nSec/ High Experiences/ No Performance Review D05) .06 .15 High nSec/ Low Experiences/ Yes Performance Review E(1.5) .06 .15 Low nSec/ High Experiences/ Yes Performance Review C(1.56) .09 High nSec/ High Experiences/ Yes Performance Review G( 1. 65) *Significant Difference, Scheffe's S test, a = .05. 84 Main Effe cts The model of relationships used in this project was developed from previous research and literature. Basically, it hypothesized interactions between a number of independent variables to produce varying levels of employee satisfaction, success, and turnover. Until now, the discussion has concerned only these hypothesized interactions. Many of these relationships were not found to be statistically significant. The analyses of variance indicated that many of the observed effects were not as complex as anticipated. As the results reported in this chapter have shown, there we re a number of situations in which there were no interaction effects as hypothesized. In some of the situations, the independent variables produced only main effects on the dependent variables . These significant main effects have been reported throughout the chapter. It is the intent, here, to briefly discuss those situations where there were no significant interaction effects. That is, it is the intent, here, to look at those situations in which the analysis only produced significant main effects. Table III-l4. 0 summarizes the results from those situations. Need for Security. This variable had very limited effects. Its single main effect was on satisfaction with promotion--an out- come which is frequently aligned with feelings of security. 85 Respondents with high need for security reported higher levels of satisfaction with promotion than did those with lower nSec. Job-Challenge Expectations. Expectations appeared to most significantly affect one's levels of satisfaction. Other variables (such as job experiences) also seemed to affect one's feelings of success and propensity to leave. Graduates with high expectations for Job-Challenge reported higher levels of satisfaction with their supervision and promotions. Graduates with lower Job-Challenge expectations were less satisfied with these two aspects of their jobs. Job-Challenge Experiences. The two ”experiences” factors had significant main effects on a number of dependent variables. Individuals who experienced jobs high in Job-Challenge reported more satisfaction with supervision, people, and promotion and perceived the Company to rate them more successful than those with low Job-Challenge experiences . Work—Setting Expectations. Work-Setting expectations had ‘main effects on levels of satisfaction but not on the other dependent variables. Graduates with high expectations about the work-setting reported higher levels of satisfaction with their work, pay and pro- motions than did those with low Work-Setting expectations. Work-Setting Experience 5. This independent variable had a main effect on satisfaction with work, pay, and promotion and both measures of perceived success. Those with high work-setting 86 experiences we re higher in satisfaction with work, pay, and promo- tion and in perceived success than those who experienced jobs with a lower work— setting. Work-Related Background. Graduatest backgrounds did not demonstrate much influence on the dependent variables. Where there was a highest-order main effect, high levels of work-related background produced varying results. Graduates with high work- related background reported lower levels of satisfaction with their pay but higher levels of perceived success. Conversely, those with low work-related background reported higher satisfaction with their pay and lower perceptions of success. Performance Reviews. The receipt of feedback via a perfor— mance review had a significant, highest-order, main effect on satis- faction with work and supervision and perceived success. Respon- dents who received performance reviews reported high satisfaction with their work and their supervision and feelings of greater success. Summary of the Main Effects. The hypotheses of this research considered only the interactions among the independent variables. The analyses of variance, though, indicated that a significant portion of the variance in the dependent variables could be accounted for by the ‘main effects of the independent variables. Of those significant main effects, the strongest and ‘most consistent influences seemed to come from work experiences (with the degree of challenge, the 87 nature of the work setting, and the receipt of a performance review). Expectations, by themselves, seemed to only influence levels of satisfaction. Work-Related Background had main effects on satis- faction with pay and feelings of success. Not all of the relationships between the dependent and indepen- dent variables were as complex as the literature had suggested they were. Many significant relationships were found between single independent variables and the dependent variables. Researchers in the future might want, therefore, to look more closely at the dire ct relationships between these independent variables and the dependent variable 5 . S umma EL This chapter has reported the significant findings of the tests of the hypotheses, explaining the statistical results. The next chapter will draw conclusions about the meaning and impact of the results. Trends, implications, and conclusions will be drawn from these data. 88 Table 111-14. 0. —-Summary of the significant, highest-order, ANOVA main effects on the dependent variables. Independent Variable Dependent Variable Need for Security Job -Challenge Expectations Job -Challenge Expe riences W ork-Setting Expe ctati ons Work—Setting Expe rience s W ork- Relate d B ackground Pe rfo rmance Review Satisfaction with Promotion Satisfaction with Supervision Satisfaction with Promotion Satisfaction with Supervision Satisfaction with People Satisfaction with Promotion Perceived Company Rating of Success Satisfaction with Work Satisfaction with Pay Satisfaction with Promotion Satisfaction with Work Satisfaction with Pay Satisfaction with Promotion Self-Perceived Success Perceived Company Rating of Success Satisfaction with Pay Self—Perceived Success Perceived Company Rating of Success Satisfaction with Work Satisfaction with Supervision Self-Perceived Success CHAPTER IV CONC LUSIONS AND IMPLICATIONS Chapter III reported the results of the analysis of the data gathered to research early—career attitudes and behaviors. This chapter discusses the meanings and implications of those results. Conclusions are drawn from the findings and are discussed in terms of previous research and literature. Implications for both future research efforts and for managers are also suggested. In general, the set of research hypotheses suggested that satisfaction and success would be higher and turnover lower when graduates had jobs congruent with their needs and expectations. If they also had high levels of work—related background prior to gradu- ation and received a performance review in their first job, then their satisfaction and success would also be high and their turnover low. The reader should bear in mind two possible explanations for the results obtained in Chapter 111. First, literature about early career attitudes and behaviors of college graduates (for example, see Berlew and Hall, 1966; Schein, 1968; Dunnette, Arvey, and Banas, 1973; Bray, Campbell, and Grant, 1974; Hall, 1971b; and 89 9O Webber, 1976) suggests that levels of satisfaction, success, and turnover are largely due to the degrees to which new graduates' job experiences meet their needs and expectations. This literature fur- ther suggests that those expectations are frequently too high and thus unrealistic. Ondrack (1973) and Yankelovich (1974a and 1974b) found that college students do, indeed, value and want jobs rich in challenge, autonomy, achievement opportunities. Dunnette, Arvey, and Banas (1973) and Katzell (1968) showed that entry-level expectations we re similar for all recently-hired graduates. From data such as these, Schein (1964, 1967, 1968), Hall (l97lb), Dunnette, Arvey, and Banas (1973), and others have concluded that it is the degree to which high needs and expectations are not met on the job which leads to much of the early-career dissatisfaction and turnover. The second explanation for the data patterns of Chapter 111 'may be due to the post hoc nature of the research. Subjects responded 3&3; their first jobs. Thus, it can be argued that for whatever reasons graduates leave, they will claim that it was because of unmet needs and expectations and HbadH job experiences. They will be particularly inclined to do so in hindsight. Leavers can be expected to say their needs were not satisfied and their expectations we re not met and stayers to claim that their needs and expectations are being met. These are socially acceptable reasons and are probably cognitively consistent with their personal values or perceptions of reasonable behavior and attitudes. Thus, the results 91 reported might not be due to unmet needs and expectations as much as to the inclination to explain, in retrospect, one's behavior with such an argument. This study cannot answer the question of which argument is correct. But these two disparate arguments should be kept in mind while reading the conclusions and implications of this study. Conclusions The model of early—career attitudes and behaviors outlined in Chapter I suggested that graduates enter their first jobs with a set of expectations based on their needs and work-related backgrounds. Experiences in first jobs are evaluated against those expectations. This comparison, experiences against expectations, determines the satisfaction, success and propensity to leave of graduates. When job expectations and job experiences are congruent, the graduates will be satisfied, successful, and unlikely to quit. If graduates also receive feedback about performance, there would be high satisfaction and feelings of success, and less willingness to terminate. The following conclusions are drawn from the results of Chapter III and organized around observed patterns in the dependent variables, satisfaction, perceived success, and turnover. The relationships between levels of satisfaction, perceived success, and turnover were not examined in this study (they were treated as 92 separate, dependent variables). Similar levels of the independent variables were associated with high satisfaction, high success, and low turnover. Conversely, low satisfaction, low success, and high turnover were associated with consistent levels of the independent variables. Consequently, the discussion is organized around these combinations of the dependent variables: 1. low satisfaction, low perceived success, high turnover; 2. intermediate satisfaction and success, mid-range turnover; 3. high satisfaction, high perceived success, low turnover. In ascending order from the outcomes of low satisfaction, low perceived success, and high turnover to the outcomes of high satis- faction, high perceived success, and low turnover, the following com- binations of needs, expectations, and experiences produced the identified results. 1. Low Satisfaction, Low Success, High Turnover: A. Low Needs, Low Expectations, Low Job Experiences B. High Needs, High Expectations, Low Job Experiences 11. Intermediate Satisfaction, Intermediate Success, Mid-range Turnover: C. Low Needs, Low Expectations, High Job Experiences 111. High Satisfaction, High Success, Low Turnover: D. High Needs, High Expectations, High Job Experiences This framework for the results is based on the cell ‘means reported for the significant interaction effects in Chapter 11.1. It is 93 most readily observable in Tables III-1.1, III-1. 2, 111-2. 2, III-8.1, 111-12. 1, and III-13.1. The patterns are also to be found in the other tables which report cell 'means, but are more difficult to discern because of the higher-order interactions. Patterns were also observed among the independent variables. Levels of the Job-Challenge variables (nAch, Job-Challenge Expecta- tions, and Job-Challenge Experiences) related to the same levels of the dependent variables (satisfaction, success, and turnover) as did equivalent levels of the Work-Setting variables (nSec, Work-Setting Expectations, and Work-Setting Experiences). Therefore, the fol- lowing discussion does not usually distinguish between Job-Challenge and Work-Setting variables. It typically refers only to needs, expec- tations, and experiences, in general. Low Satisfaction, Low Success, and High Turnover Hypotheses 1 through 6 and 9 through 14 predicted that satis- faction and success would be high and turnover low when there was congruence between graduates' needs, expectations, and job experi- ences. They also predicted that high levels of work-related back- ground and the receipt of a performance review would likely be associated with the outcomes of high satisfaction and success and low turnover. Understood but unstated in these hypotheses was the prediction that satisfaction and success would be low and turnover high when 94 there was a lack of congruence between graduates' needs, expectations, and experiences. It was also understood that low levels of work- related background and the lack of a performance review would likely be associated with low levels of satisfaction and success and high turnover. Two different combinations of needs, expectations, and experi- ences resulted in the outcomes of low satisfaction low perceived success, and high turnover. Only one of these combinations supported the hypothe se 3 . Low Needs, Low Expectations, and Low Job Experiences. In general, the hypotheses predicted that congruence between needs, expectations, and experiences would lead to positive outcomes. The hypotheses didn't distinguish between potential outcomes due to congruence among low needs, low expectations, and low experiences or due to congruence among high needs, high expectations, and high experiences. Congruence among low needs, low expectations, and low experiences might have led to satisfaction and the desire to stay with the company because the respondents didn't want or expect much challenge or a good work setting and when they found what they expected, that was all right. The data didn't support this. When job needs, expectations, and experiences were all low, low levels of satisfaction and success and high turnover resulted. 95 Some of the respondents had low needs for and expected low levels of challenge and aspects of the work setting and, if this was what they experienced, were dissatisfied and M the organization. Even though these respondents had anticipated such job experiences, they responded negatively to them. Much of the literature on early careers (for example, Schein, 1968; Hall, 1971b) and on the role of met-expectations on employee reactions to their jobs (Porter and Steers, 197 3) suggests that met- expectations are critical to employees' satisfaction and success and, therefore, to their willingness to stay. The assumption is that graduates expect high levels of challenge, autonomy, achievement opportunities, as well as high pay, good working conditions, and supportive relations with their supervisors (Yankelovich, 1974b). It is these kinds of expectations that this literature suggests causes problems when they are not met. The authors do not typically discuss low expectations nor what happens when graduates enter their first jobs with low expectations. The current study indicates that when low expectations are met by Hlow” job experiences, then dissatisfaction, a lack of perceived success, and a high likelihood of turnover result. Even though these were met expectations, 1. e. , there was congruence between expecta- tions and experiences, the situation did not turn out to be satisfying. And so the graduates left. Evidently, aspects of the job, like chal- lenge and achievement opportunities and aspects of the work setting, 96 like security, supervisory relations, and working conditions are important, whether or not they are initially wanted or expected. Work-Related Background had a different effect than was hypothesized. Graduates with greater levels of work experience prior to graduation and with college-educated parents with professional/ manage rial occupations were even more likely to be dissatisfied, feel unsuccessful, and leave than those graduates with less work- related background. It was as though the experiences these respon- dents had had prior to graduation were reinforcing their experiences on their first jobs. Even though their expectations and needs were low, those with high work-related background seemed to be saying, llI thought this would happen, H or HI told you so, H when their experienced jobs which were low in just those aspects that they had anticipated when they accepted the job. (Refer to Tables III—l . 3, III-5.1, and III-6.1 for illustrations of these three- and four-way interaction effects. ) Graduates who received a performance appraisal responded, as was predicted, with greater satisfaction and perceived success and lower turnover. In interaction with the other variables, when job experiences were bad (or low) as was expected, respondents who received a performance review reported higher satisfaction and success and lower turnover than their peers who didn't receive an appraisal. This feedback about performance may help graduates to confirm their expectations and experiences, and that was satisfying. 97 (These interaction effects for appraisals can be seen in Tables III-9. 1, 111-9. 2, 111-10. 1, and 111-13. 2). High Needs, High Expectations, and Low Job Experiences One type of incongruence between needs, expectations, and experiences occurs when needs and expectations are low and job experiences are "high. H Under these conditions, respondents Elli. report low levels of satisfaction, _<_i_i_c_l_ perceive themselves to be low in success, and w more likely to leave. This result is supportive of the hypotheses. This situation, when job experiences are worse than was expected, has been the one of general concern to writers and researchers. Either because students! expectations really are too high, or because their first jobs have less challenge and a poorer working situation than is justified by their abilities, new employees often do find themselves dissatisfied, feeling unsuccessful, and leaving their employers. He re, too, work-related background had an effect opposite to that expected. Prior working experience and college—educated family background, when in conjunction with bad job experiences, we re associated with less satisfaction and greater propensity to quit than was the case for those without this type of background. These graduates' backgrounds may have made them even more cynical 98 than their fellow employees who hadn't had the same kinds of work— related backgrounds. (See Tables 111-1. 3, Ill-5.1, and III-6.1 for these interaction effects. ) Performance reviews led to the expected results--higher satis- faction and success and lower turnover. When job experiences were worse than was expected, those who received an appraisal responded more positively to this normally dissatisfying situation than those who didn't receive a review. This feedback may have helped these grad- uates realign their expectations, and they ‘might have viewed that as positive. (Tables III-9.1, 111-9. 2, III-10.1, and III-l3. 2 show these interaction effects. ) Summary. In both of these situations (low needs, low expecta- tions, and low job experiences; and high needs, high expectations, and low job experiences), the nature of the re spondentst job expe ri- ences appeared to be important. Both when graduates expected their jobs to be low in the measured attributes (Job-Challenge and Work- Setting) and when they expected these attributes to be high, if the jobs they actually experienced we re low in these characteristics, then they we re dissatisfied, felt themselves to be unsuccessful, and we re likely to quit (see, for example, Tables III-1. 2 and III-2.1). Intermediate Satisfaction, Intermediate Success, Mid-Range Turn- over The second level of outcomes--intermediate levels of 99 satisfaction, success, and turnover--occurred when job experiences we re better than expected (i. e. , when nAch and nSec we re low and when expectations for Job-Challenge and Work-Setting we re low but respondents' first jobs were high in challenge and work-setting characteristics). These results did not support the hypotheses. Congruence between the independent variables was predicted to lead to high satisfaction, high success, low turnover. Incongruence, therefore, was predicted to lead to low satisfaction, low success, and high turn- over. In this situation, incongruence was associated with fairly high levels of satisfaction and success and fairly low levels of turnover. Perhaps the hypotheses should have been more specific in pre- dicting outcomes from the different combinations of independent variables. Job conditions which were better than anticipated would be expected to lead to higher levels of satisfaction and success and lower turnover. Although these we re not the highest levels of satis- faction and success nor the lowest levels of turnover, they we re 'more positive than the lowest levels of satisfaction and success and the highest levels of turnover. (These results are most clearly visible in Tables III—1. 2, III-2.1, 111-2. 2, III-9.1, 111-9. 2, and 111-13. 2.) Thus, providing jobs seen by the incumbent to be high in job— challenge and in a good work-setting may not lead to the highest satisfaction and success and the lowest turnover. Other factors need to be present. This research suggests that graduates must 100 want and anticipate these job conditions in order to respond most favorably to them (i. e. , with high levels of satisfaction, success, and low turnover). Hiring people with high work-related background may result in lower satisfaction and perceived success, even where they have experienced jobs that are better than expected. Those with high work-related background didn't seem to believe what they admitted was true, that their jobs really we re better than they had anticipated. It was as though these re spondents' previous experiences made them distrust what they perceived to be happening in their first jobs. Feedback about performance, though, produced the predicted results. For those respondents who reported job experiences better than expected and also received an appraisal, satisfaction and success were even higher and turnover lower than for their peers who didn't re ceive such feedback. High Satisfaction, High Success, and Low Turnover The 'most favorable outcomes of this research occurred when respondents had high needs (nAch and nSec), high expectations (Job- Challenge and Work-Setting), and high job experiences (Job-Challenge and Work Setting). As much of the previous work on this subject suggests, graduates who have high expectations and then experience HgoodH jobs will react positively to their jobs. Under these conditions, 101 in particular, outcomes favorable to the organization and to the graduate result. These data support this point-of—view. Graduates may be satisfied because they are getting the chal- lenge, responsibility, and autonomy as well as pay, working con- ditions, and supervisory relations that they want. That, then, 'may lead to more commitment to their jobs (Hall and Hall, 1976) which leads to higher success and lessened interest in leaving. Time and energy are spent on current jobs, rather than on finding and breaking into other jobs. Work-related backgrounds seemed to have an effect different than anticipated. Those with more extensive work-related back— ground, and congruent needs, expectations, and good job experiences, reported lower satisfaction, lower success, and more turnover than their colleagues who didn't have such a strong work-related back- ground. Perhaps graduates with extensive work- related background we re less impressed by their good work experiences than their peers without this type of background. Feedback about performance, interacting with these met good expectations, tended to be associated with higher satisfaction, per- ceived success and lower turnover rates. Formal appraisals may fill a need, in and of themselves, which help graduates adjust and feel more satisfied with their jobs (as suggested by Seiler, 1970), even when those jobs were already meeting their needs and expecta— tions . 102 First Jobs vs. Current Jobs Respondents reported much closer congruence between their expectations and their experiences in their current positions than they reported for their first assignments. Perhaps they learn from experience and thus form more realistic expectations. Or, the gradu- ates may be better able to locate and find jobs which meet expecta- tions. Or, a third possibility is that graduates may say that their current jobs meet their expectations better than their first jobs did, whether or not that was, in fact, the case. Since subjects' responses were provided in retrospect, which of the above explanations is most tenable can't be determined with these results. The results are consistent with all three arguments. Other research designs (such as a laboratory experiment or longitudinal study) will be necessary to draw the causal inference. At any rate, expectations were reported to be closer to job experiences in the jobs respondents now held than was the case for their first jobs after graduation (see Table 111-7. 0 for these results). Job Needs Two job-needs were used in this study: need for achievement and need for security. The scales, however, had low reliabilities (. 33 for nAch and . 17 for nSec). Perhaps, this was due to the ranked 103 nature of the original questionnaire responses. These low reliabil- ities may have been one of the factors which led to the limited significant results involving the job-needs scales. Both nAch and nSec appeared to be less important in graduatest expectations and their reactions to their jobs than was anticipated. A few significant interactions with expectations and job experiences did involve the needs scales. But these were less frequent than was anticipated and less common than the significant results obtained with the other independent variables. The findings involving job needs appeared to support the argu- ment that graduates choose jobs only partially on the basis of their needs, not expecting to meet any full contingent of their job-related needs (Vroom, 1966). Perhaps graduates are too inexperienced to choose their first jobs on the basis of their needs. Later in their careers, though, after some work experience, these needs seemed to affect ‘more significantly the graduates! reactions to their jobs, particularly whether to stay or to leave. (See Tables III-1.1, III-1. 3, III-5.1, III—6.1, III-8.1, Ill-10.1, III-12.1, III-13.1, and III-13.2.) Implications The results of this research project have implications for both researchers and for managers and personnel practitioners. Short- comings in the research methodology suggests different strategies 104 for future research efforts. And the results, themselves, suggest that particular manage rial and personnel procedures 'might improve many organizations! experiences with re cently-hired graduates. Implications for Re search A number of suggestions for further research are indicated by this study. First, the collection of data from respondents with an— swers-in-retrospect must be addressed. In the hierarchy of research designs, a longitudinal study or experimental design will gene rally produce more valid results than one based on questionnaire answers- in-retrospect. Nevertheless, Campbell and Stanley (1963) suggest responses-in-retrospect probably are conservative responses, rather than ones that have been highly altered from their original form. They point out that responses-in-retrospect tend to become 'more like what the respondents have come to believe are socially desirable and acceptable, or, when asking about expectations, become more aligned with their actual experiences. Thus, responses given in retrospect, tend to be conservative, compared to the original positions of respondents. But that point-of—view needs further analysis by researchers. The comparison of pre -job expectations with job experiences provides an excellent situation for testing HhindsightH versus ”actual" hypotheses about the causes of relationships between expectations 105 and experiences. A longitudinal study of this research problem would help provide perspective on this question. Expectations measured before-hand and compared later to employee reactions to different job experiences would provide more valid data as to whether met expectations actually produce the results suggested by this study. Or, it might show that the real reasons for the different levels of satisfaction, success, and turnover stem from other causes and that problems with met expectations are merely phenomena that occur in individuals! re sponses-in-hindsight. These data also suggest that the relationships between the variables could be examined more closely. Not all of the relation- ships we re as complex as anticipated in the hypotheses. Thus statis- tical procedures that look more closely at single variables might be called for. For example, job experiences had consistently significant 'main effects on all the dependent variables. Further analysis of this variable may produce further insight. Additionally, two of the dependent variables--Perceived Company Ratings of Success and Satisfaction with Promotion- -we re related only to main effects of different independent variables. Thus, these two variables 'might benefit from analyses that we ren't based entirely on interactive ideas. Other kinds of analyses are also needed to examine the nature of the interactions between the independent variables. The model in 106 Chapter I assumed some sequential relationships of the variables, and, thus, causality. The research design and statistical procedures did not provide tests of these types of inter-relationships. Path analysis and cross—lag correlation techniques, as well as longitudinal re search designs, can aid in this type of examination. There are also other variables which might be looked at when studying graduates' early careers. Self-esteem and locus-of-control might provide significant insights into how individuals react to dif- ferent types of early-career experiences. Organizational climate might also help complete the explanation of graduates' behaviors and attitudes by showing a moderating effect on employees' reactions to their job experiences and degree of met—expectations. Improved measures of performance, such as actual supervisory ratings, pay increases, or promotions might also provide more fruitful results. Finally, the picture will not be complete until more attention is given to those who are not hired. People may self—select out of the particular job situation, or the organization may decide not to hire them. In either case, expectations, job experiences, and resultant job attitudes and behaviors of this group need to be studied. A picture of these individualsI careers is necessary to fully under- stand the role that expectations and job experiences play in explain— ing why graduates react and behave the way they do in their first few years after graduation. 107 Implications for Managers of Organizations These findings suggest that organizations can do a number of things to maximize the levels of satisfaction and success and to minimize the turnover of their recently—hired graduates. First they should examine the nature of the job experiences they provide their new employees. These jobs need to be high in such characteristics as allowing the graduates to make decisions on their own, letting them try out their own ideas, giving them the chance to use their educations and abilities, providing a variety of activities to work on, and giving them a chance to achieve some significant objectives. The nature of the work-setting is also very important. Jobs must be seen as providing good pay, fair organizational policies, recognition for doing a good job, good working conditions, good relations with supervisors including being backed up when necessary and being trained well, advancement opportunities, and a sense of job security. Whether or not individuals expected their jobs to provide job challenge, achievement opportunities, good working conditions, and good supervisory relations, they responded favorably to jobs that did. If the organization is prepared to challenge its new employees and to reward them for achieving its high expectations, then it should recruit and hire those who have high initial expectations. Such 108 graduates will do even better in the challenging and rewarding situation than their peers who don't expect to find such good job characteristics in their first jobs. These findings also suggest that organizations may experience better results from new employees who don't have extensive work- related backgrounds (high levels of work experience prior to gradua- tion and parents with college educations and professional/managerial occupations) than from those who do have such a background. At least for the organization studied here, the graduates with the more extensive work— related background reacted less favorably to their jobs than their peers who had less work-related background (i. e. , had less work experience prior to graduation and who had less— educated parents who had Hlower--levelH occupations). This contra- dicts the traditional wisdom of organizational recruiting efforts that prior work experience and HgoodH family background is an asset. Of course, these results may be unique to this organization. Some- thing about it or the industry was not agreeable to persons with this type of background. Obviously, something about the situation attracted the graduates in the first place (good pay or perceived job security), but their reactions after joining are not as favorable as they might have been, nor as their peers with less of this work-related background. The results of this study also cast some question on the use of realistic job previews as a method of lowering expectations of recruits. 109 These previews may not always produce the favorable results expected. They may lead to self—sele ction out of the particular job as an individual gets a better picture of what the job is like, which might be a good result (Wanous, 1975b). But graduates who go ahead and work for the organization with low expectations turned out to be very dissatisfied when those expectations were met. And they were only slightly 'more satisfied when their experiences turned out to be better than they expected. Lastly, these findings confirm the importance of performance reviews. Receiving performance feedback was consistently associated with higher levels of satisfaction, success and retention. It is likely that appraisals provide graduates with the feedback so that they can know how they are doing and can then alter their attitudes and behaviors to more closely fit organizational expectations. This type of feedback may have been partially responsible for the finding that respondents we re able to have current jobs more closely aligned with their expectations than was the case for their first assignments. It may have helped them learn to more accurately predict what their jobs would be like. These results in general indicate that an organization should seek recruits with limited work experience prior to graduation. If at all possible, the organization should try to find graduates who have high expectations for the level of job challenge, responsibility, 110 and achievement in their first jobs. Prospective candidates should also desire good relations with their supervisors and a quality work setting. Then, the organization should proceed to provide just such a job and organizational situation. During those early years after hire, the new employees must also receive a performance review. This should help them adjust to their new jobs. If these conditions can be provided, then it is likely that there will be far fewer problems with new hires. The organization's new managers should feel satisfied, successful, and have little inte rest in leaving. Summa ry The congruence hypothesis of needs, expectations, and job experiences as they relate to satisfaction, success, and turnover was only partially supported. It appears that differing combinations of job expectations and job experiences for recently—hired college graduates have different effects. When respondents' low levels of expectations for different job facets were congruent with their job experiences (i. e. , when they expected low job-challenge and a bad work-setting and that is what they experienced), then low levels of satisfaction and success and high levels of turnover resulted. Even though this is an example of met expectations, or congruence, it was not associated with positive results. 1 ll Unmet expectations led to anticipated results in both situations. Graduates who expected I'good'l jobs but didn't experience them, responded as one would expect: with low satisfaction, low perceived success, and high turnover. Graduates who expected ”bad” jobs but experienced jobs that were better than anticipated, also responded as one would expect: with high satisfaction, high perceived success, and low turnover. However, this level of satisfaction and success was not the highest reported nor the turnover level the lowest. The highest satisfaction and success levels and the lowest turnover rates occurred when graduates expected HgoodH jobs and they got them. This was the major predicted result. Work-related background did not relate to job attitudes as expected. If anything, work experience prior to graduation and professional/managerial and/or college educated parents led these graduates to be less satisfied with their situations. For example, when their expectations were low, but their job experiences were good, then low levels of work-related background was associated with 132723 turnover than was high levels of work-related background. On the other hand, formal performance reviews were associ- ated with expected outcomes. Those who received a performance appraisal were gene rally more satisfied, perceived themselves to be more successful, and we re less likely to quit than those who did not receive a review. For example, when expectations we re low, 112 but experiences were good, appraisals were associated with higher levels of perceived success than no-appraisals. After being on the job for a few years, graduates report current job experiences are ‘more congruent with their current expectations than we re first-job experiences and first-job expectations. The results showing what happens when expectations and experiences are congruent in good jobs would suggest that these respondents should be more satisfied and successful now than they were in their first jobs, since their expectations are being largely met. And their turnover rates should be lower. The organization that is concerned about retention of its recently-hired college graduates should design entry-level jobs and work situations, including supervisory relations and feedback, and move in the directions, as suggested by these results. APPENDICES APPENDIX A T he Que sti onnai re Inventory of Reactions Concerning Employment with the Company INVENTORY OF REACTIONS CONCERNING EMPLOYMENT WITH THE COMPANY Introduction This questionnaire is part of a study of college graduate careers in the Company. The aim of the study is to see how you View your assignments. We are interested in how you feel about your early job experiences and various related issues. As mentioned in the cover letter, your participation is impor- tant to the success of the study, and, is, therefore, highly appreciated. The data we are gathering will be reported in terms of group trends and averages only. It is through your cooperation in studies such as this that we will enhance our understanding of how to most effectively use our college graduate employees. 113 114 PART I A. Basic Information Age: Sex: 1. Male 2. Female Marital Status: 1. Married 2. Single 3. Divorced Name of college from which you graduated Educational Level: Circle the appropriate statement number. 1. Did not graduate 2. BS or BA from college 3. MA 4. MBA 5. PhD 115 B. Background Factors Circle the number of the answer that answers each question the best. Please circle only one response for each question. What was the highest educational level your father (or guardian) achieved? high school graduate or less attended college (but no degree) one or more bachelor's degree (including law) graduate training (but no graduate degree) one or more graduate degrees does not apply (3“Ulrl>£.'~)l\)*—a Your father's occupation 'may be best described as: unskilled or semi-skilled work sales or office work farming or skilled work owner of a small business or supervisory scientist (geologist, engineer, chemist, etc.) busine s sman (middle mana g ement) professional (lawyer, physician, etc.) business executive other or does not apply \OOO\JO\U‘I.4>.QJNr—a What was the highest educational level your mother (or guardian) achieved? high school graduate or less . attended college (but no degree) one or more bachelor's degree (including law) graduate training (but no graduate degree) one or more graduate degrees does not apply O‘Ulr-PUJNH How many persons (not including yourself) were dependent upon you for all or most of their support while you attended college? 1 none 2 one 3. two or three 4 four or five 5 more than five 116 What proportion of your college expenses (tuition, books, room, board, etc. ) did you earn personally? 1. none 2. less than ten percent 3. ten to twenty-four percent 4. twenty-five to forty-nine percent 5. fifty to seventy-five percent 6. more than seventy—five percent Had you been in the armed forces prior to joining the Company? no yes, as an enlisted man yes, as both an officer and an enlisted man yes, as an officer )IkUJNH Other than summer jobs, during the last two years you were in college the average number of hours a week which you spent on part-time jobs was: none . less than five five to nine ten to twenty more than twenty UlyPUJN'" 117 C. What Did You Want in a Job When You Were Graduating from College What did you want in a job at the time you were graduating from college--when you were interviewing with different companies for jobs they had? What were you looking for then? Listed below are 15 phrases describing various job features. Read them over and then sort them according to what you were looking for in a job when you were graduating from college. Remember, when you're done, all job features should be crossed out and each box should have a number in it. Having a boss who backs me up Having good working conditions on the job Being well paid Receiving recognition for the work I did Having a high degree of responsibility Telling others what to do in their jobs Enjoying the work itself Good advancement possibilities 9. Having variety on the job 10. Being in a company that administered policies fairly 11. Getting a feeling of achievement from doing the job 12. Trying out ‘my own ideas 13. Making use of my abilities 14. Having status in my community 15. Job security mummnwww F1 11 III! III! Least Necessary Relatively less Desirable in in a job necessary in a job a job Highly desirable Absolutely necessary inajob in a job 118 The following series of questions will relate to your impressions of jobs you held while with the Company. The questions involve your describing what the assignments were like, what you got from them, what the rewards of hard work and effort were, and how satisfying they were to you. Please answer all the questions as carefully as possible. Thank you very much. Your First Assignment at the Company A. Relationship Between Effective Performance and Job Outcomes on your First Assignment at the Company Consider what affect your performance effectiveness had on what you would obtain from the first assignment you had at the Company. In other words, if a person on that first assignment was judged to be highly effective, how might the features of his job change? How cer- tain were you in your first assignment at the Company that a high degree of performance effectiveness (really being top notch) would lead to each of the job features or outcomes listed below? Indicate your expectations about the probable results of effective performance on that first job according to the following categories: - Circle CERT NOT if you were quite certain that highly effective performance on your first Company assignment would not lead to the occurrence of a particular job feature or outcome. - Circle PROB Not if you thought that highly effective performance on your first Company assignment probably would not lead to the job feature or outcome. - Circle ? if you weren't sure one way or the other about whether or not highly effective performance on your first Company assignment would lead to the job feature or outcome. - Circle PROB WOULD if you thought that highly effective performance on your first Company assignment probably would lead to the occurrence of a particular job feature or outcome. 119 - Circle CERT WOULD if you were quite certain that highly effective performance on your first Company assignment would lead to the job feature or outcome. On my first assignment with the Company, if my performance was judged as highly effective: 1. I would make use of my abilities CERT PROB PROB CERT NOT NOT WOUID WOUID 2. The company would administer CERT PROB PROB CERT its policies fairly NOT NOT WOUID WOUID 3 . I would enjoy the work itself CERT PROB PROB CERT NOT NOT WOUID WOUID 4. Iwould be paid well CERT PROB PROB CERT NOT NOT WOUID WOUID 5. The boss would back me up CERT PROB PROB CERT NOT NOT WOUID WOUID 6. I would have job security CERT PROB PROB CERT NOT NOT WOUID WOUID 7. I would try out my own ideas CERT PROB PROB CERT NOT NOT WOUID WOULD 8. I would do something different CERT PROB PROB CERT every day NOT NOT WOULD WOULD 9. Iwould have a high degree of CERT PROB PROB CERT responsibility NOT NOT WOUID WOUID 10. The job would have good working CERT PROB PROB CERT conditions N OT NOT WOUID WOUID 11 . I would have status in the CERT PROB PROB CERT community NOT NOT WOULD WOUID 12. Iwould get a feeling of CERT PROB PROB CERT achievement from the job NOT NOT WOULD WOUID 13. I would tell others what to do CERT PROB PROB CERT in their jobs NOT NOT WOUID WOUID 14. Iwould have good advancement CERT PROB PROB CERT possibilities NOT NOT WOULD WOULD 15. I would get full recognition for CERT PROB PROB CERT the work I did NOT NOT WOULD WOULD 120 B. A Description of Your First Assignment at the Company We'd now like you to describe your first Company assignment at the following factors. disagree with the following statements. DD - means you definitely disagree D - means you probably disagree ? - ‘means you neither disagree nor agree A — means you probably agree DA - 'means you definitely agree Workers on that first job . . . 1. 2 3. 4 5 \OOOVO) 10. 11. 12. 13. 14. 15. 16. 17. 18. 19. 20. 21. made use of their individual abilities got a feeling of accomplishment were busy all the time had opportunities for advancement told other workers what to do had a company which administered its policies fairly were paid well in comparison with other workers had co-workers who were easy to make friends with tried out their own ideas did their work alone had good working conditions received recognition for the work they did made decisions on their own had steady employment had work where they did things for other people had the position of "somebody" in the community had bosses who backed up their men (with top management) had bosses who trained their men well had something different to do every day planned their work with little supervision enjoyed the work itself DD DD DD DD DD DD DD DD DD DD DD DD DD DD DD DD DD DD DD DD DD UUUUU UUUUU U UUUUU UUUUU nu ox) 3‘) ug v-Q ~13 "Q "J .v I-Q “0 ‘KJN'Q “Q "J ‘0 "J "0 ‘Q 'N) >ZI>II>I>ZI> 21>>II>II>II> 11> >3>II>D>II> II>IJ>II>3>II> To do this simply indicate whether you agree or DA DA DA DA DA DA DA DA DA DA DA DA DA DA DA DA DA DA DA DA DA 121 C. Your Degree of Satisfaction With Your First Assignment at the Company Ask yourself: How satisfied were you with each aspect of your first assignment at the Company? VS - means you were very satisfied with this aspect of your fir st job. S - means you we re satisfied with this aspect of your first job. N - means you couldn't decide whether you were satisfied or not with this aspect of your first job. DS - means you were dissatisfied with this aspect of your first job. VDS - means you were very dissatisfied with this aspect of your first job. Circle the appropriate category; On 'my first assignment at the Company, this is how I felt about: Being able to keep busy all the time The chance to work alone on the job The chance to do different things from time to time The chance to be "somebody" in the community The way my boss handled his men The competence of my supervisor when he made decisions Being able to do things that didn't go against my conscience The way my job provided for steady employment The chance to do things for other people The chance to tell people what to do The chance to do something that made use of my abilities The way company policies were put into practice My pay and the amount of work I did The chances for advancement on the job The freedom to use my own judgment The chance to try my own methods of doing the job The working conditions The way my co-workers got along with each other The praise I got for doing a good job The feeling of accomplishment I got from the job Enjoying the work itself DS DS DS DS DS DS DS DS DS DS DS DS DS DS DS DS DS DS DS DS DS 222222 22222 22222 22222 (15(00)ch (DMUJMU) mmmmm MMMMMU} $5515 VS VS VS VS VS 122 D. Description of the Work, People, Pay, Promotions and Supervision on Your First Assignment with the Company Below are five groupings of items. Each group represents some aspect of your first assignment. We'd like you to indicate your feelings about these aspects by circling HYH (yes) if the item is descriptive of that job assignment, "N'l (no) if it is not descriptive and H? H if you cannot decide. Again, we appreciate your cooperation. WORK PEOPLE, CON'T Fascinating Y N ? Boring Y N Routine Y N ? Slow Y N Satisfying Y N ? Ambitious Y N Boring Y N ? Stupid Y N Good Y N ? Responsible Y N Creative Y N ? Fast Y N Respected Y N ? Intelligent Y N Hot Y N ? Easy to make enemies Y N Pleasant Y N ? Talk too much Y N Useful Y N ? Smart Y N Tiresome Y N ? Lazy Y N Healthful Y N ? Unpleasant Y N Challenging Y N ? No privacy Y N On your feet Y N ? Active Y N Frustrating Y N ? Narrow interests Y N Simple Y N ? Loyal Y N Endless Y N ? Hard to meet Y N Gives sense of accomplishment Y N ? PAY SUPERVISION Income adequate for Asks my advice Y N ? normal expenses Y N Hard to please Y N ? Satisfactory profit sharing Y N Impolite Y N ? Barely live on income Y N Praises good work Y N ? Bad Y N Tactful Y N ? Income provides luxuries Y N Influential Y N ? Insecure Y N Up-to-date Y N ? Less than I deserve Y N Doesn't supervise enough Y N ? Highly paid Y N Quick-tempered Y N ? Underpaid Y N Tells me where I stand Y N ? A nnoying Y N ? PROMOTIONS Stubborn Y N ? Good opportunity for advance Y N Knows job well Y N ? Opportunity somewhat limited Y N Bad Y N ? Promotion on ability Y N Intelligent Y N ? Dead-end-job Y N Leaves me on my own Y N ? Good chance for promotion Y N Around when needed Y N ? Unfair promotion policy Y N Lazy Y N ? Infrequent promotions Y N Regular promotions Y N PEOPLE Fairly good chance for Stimulating Y N ? promotion Y N 'N) "0 'Q "0 "0 "\J '9 '0 "O "J "\J '5) "0 '0 "Q "0 "J "0 "Q "\J “‘0 "Q "0 'Q "0 "0 w -o n: n; -o v-o w w 123 E. Your Success on Your First Assignment With the Company Comparing yourself to others with similar jobs and qualifications, how did you feel about your success on this first assignment? Circle the appropriate category. Inthe top: 1. 10% 3. 75% 2. 25070 4. 9570 Rate how you felt about your success according to the Company rating system. 1. Sat - 4. Excellent 2 . S at 5 . Outstanding 3. Sat + Imagine a ladder with 10 rungs. The top rung, No. 10, represents high success on the job and the bottom rung, No. 1, represents very poor success on the job. On what rung were you when you were on your first job assignment? rung on first job assignment How did you feel that the company rated your success on this first assignment? Circle the appropriate category. In the top: 1. 10% 3. 75% 2. 25% 4. 95% Using the Company rating system: 1. Sat - 4. Excellent 2 . Sat 5 . Outstanding 3. Sat + On what rung of the ladder do you feel that the Company would have placed you during your first job assignment? rung on first assignment. 124 F. Receipt of a Performance Review Did you ever have a performance review with your supervisor on your first job assignment? Circle: 1. Yes 2. No. If yes, tell us about it briefly (in two or three sentences). We'd now like you to describe your present job on the following factors. To do this simply indicate whether you agree or disagree 125 PART III. CURRENT ASSIGNMENT A. Description of Your Present Job with the following statements. DD - means you definitely disagree D - means you probably disagree ? - means you neither disagree nor agree A - means you probably agree DA — means you definitely agree Workers on your present job . . . mt-P-OJNI-s KOWVO’) 10. 11. 12. 13. 14. 15. 16. 17. 18. 19. 20. 21. make use of their individual abilities get a feeling of accomplishment are busy all the time have opportunities for advancement tell other workers what to do . have a company which administers its policies fairly are paid well in comparison with other workers have co-workers who are easy to make friends with try out their own ideas do their work alone have good working conditions receive recognition for the work they do make decisions on their own have steady employment have work where they do things for other peOple have the position of "somebody" in the community have bosses who back up their men (with top management) have bosses who train their men well have something different to do every day plan their work with little supervision enjoy the work itself DD DD DD DD DD DD DD DD DD DD DD DD DD DD DD DD DD DD DD DD DD UUUUU UUUUU UUUUU UUUUUU 0‘) 0g 7‘) 0" lv "0 no mac "0 I‘) "0 "0 'x) "\J W) "0 "O "0 N) '\J '0 II>>II>3>D> >3>3>3>3> 3>3>3>3>3> Il>tt>3>3>3>fl> DA DA DA DA DA DA DA DA DA DA DA DA DA DA DA DA DA DA DA DA DA 126 B. Relationship Between Effective Performance and Job Outcomes on Your Present Job Consider what effect your performance effectiveness has on what you would obtain from your current job. In other words, if a person on your job is judged to highly effective, how might the features of his job change? How certain are you in that a high degree of per- formance effectiveness (really being top notch) will lead to each of the job features or outcomes listed below? Indicate your expectations about the probable results of effective performance on your job according to the following categories. - Circle CERT NOT if you are quite certain the job feature would not occur in your present job. - Circle PROB NOT if you thought the job feature probably would not occur in your present job. - Circle ? if you weren't sure one way or the other about whether or not the job feature would occur in your presentjob. — Circle PROB WOULD if you thought the job feature probably would occur in your present job. — Circle CERT WOULD if you are quite certain the job feature would occur in your present job. I will have job security CERT PROB PROB CERT NOT NOT WOUID WOUID I will have status in the community CERT PROB PROB CERT NOT NOT WOUID WOULD I will be able to make use of my CERT PROB PROB CERT abilities NOT NOT WOULD WOULD I will be able to try out my own ideas CERT PROB PROB CERT NOT NOT WOUID WOUID I will get a feeling of achievement CERT PROB PROB CERT from the job NOT NOT WOULD WOULD The company will administer its CERT PROB PROB CERT policies fairly NOT NOT WOUID WOUID I will be able to do something CERT PROB PROB CERT different every day NOT NOT WOULD WOULD 10. 11. 12. 13. 14. 15. I will have good advancement possibilities I will enjoy the work itself I will tell others what to do in their jobs I will have a high degree of responsibility I will get full recognition for the work I do I will be well paid The job will have good working conditions The boss will back me up 127 CERT NOT CERT NOT CERT NOT CERT NOT CERT NOT CERT NOT CERT NOT CERT NOT PROB NOT PROB NOT PROB NOT PROB NOT PROB NOT PROB NOT PROB NOT PROB NOT PROB WOULD PROB WOUID PROB WOULD PROB WOUID PROB WOULD PROB WOUID PROB WOUID PROB WOUID CERT WOUID CERT WOULD CERT WOUID CERT WOUID CERT WOUID CERT WOUID CERT WOULD CERT WOULD 128 C. Your Satisfaction with Your Present Job Ask yourself: How satisfied you are with this aspect of your present job? VS - 'means you are very satisfied with this aspect of your present job S - means you are satisfied with this aspect of your present job N — means you can't decide whether you are satisfied with this aspect of your present job or not DS - 'means you are dissatisfied with this aspect of your presentjob VDS - means you are very dissatisfied with this aspect of your present job On my present job, this is how I feel about: 1 . Being able to keep busy all the time VDS DS N 5 VS 2. The chance to work alone on the job VDS DS N S VS 3. The chance to do different things from time to time VDS DS N S VS 4. The chance to be "somebody in the commtmity VDS DS N 8 VS 5. The way my boss handles his men VDS DS N 8 VS 6. The competence of my supervisor in making decisions VDS DS N S VS 7. Being able to do things that don't go against my conscience VDS DS N S VS 8. The way my job provides for steady employment VDS DS N 8 VS 9. The chance to do things for other people VDS DS N 8 VS 10. The chance to tell people what to do VDS DS N 8 VS 11 . The chance to do something that makes use of my abilities VDS DS N 8 VS 12. The way company policies are put into practice VDS DS N 8 VS 13. My pay and the amount of work I do VDS DS N 8 VS 14. The chances for advancement VDS DS N S VS 15. The freedom to use my own judgement VDS DS N 8 VS 16. The chance to try my own methods of doing the job VDS DS N 8 VS 17. The working conditions VDS DS N 8 VS 18. The way my co-workers get along with each other VDS DS N 8 VS 19. The praise I get for doing a good job VDS DS N 8 VS 20. The feeling of accomplishment I get from the job VDS DS N 8 VS 21 . Enjoying the work itself VDS DS N 8 VS 129 D. Description of the Work, People, Pay, Promotions and Supervision on Your Present Job Below are five groupings of items. Each group represents some aspect of your present job. We'd like you to indicate your feelings about these aspects by circling l'Y” (yes) if the item is descriptive of your present job, ”N” (no) if it is not descriptive and H? " if you cannot decide. Again, we appreciate your cooperation. WORK PEOPLE, CON'T Fascinating Y N ? Boring Y N Routine Y N ? Slow Y N Satisfying Y N ? Ambitious Y N Boring Y N ? Stupid Y N Good Y N ? Responsible Y N Creative Y N ? Fast Y N Respected Y N ? Intelligent Y N Hot Y N ? Easy to make enemies Y N Pleasant Y N ? Talk too much Y N Useful Y N ? Smart Y N Tiresome Y N ? Lazy Y N Healthful Y N ? Unpleasant Y N Challenging Y N ? No privacy Y N On your feet Y N ? Active Y N Frustrating Y N ? Narrow interests Y N Simple Y N ? Loyal Y N Endless Y N ? Hard to meet Y N Gives sense of accomplishment Y N ? PAY SUPERVISION Income adequate for Asks my advice Y N ? normal expenses Y N Hard to please Y N ? Satisfactory profit sharing Y N Impolite Y N ? Barely live on income Y N Praises good work Y N ? Bad Y N Tactful Y N ? Income provides luxuries Y N Influential Y N ? Insecure Y N Up-to-date Y N ? Less than I deserve Y N Doesn't supervise enough Y N ? Highly paid Y N Quick-tempered Y N ? Underpaid Y N Tells me where I stand Y N ? Annoying Y N ? PROMOTIONS Stubborn Y N ? Good opportunity for advance Y N Knows job well Y N ? Opportunity somewhat limited Y N Bad Y N ? Promotion on ability Y N Intelligent Y N ? Dead-end-job Y N Leaves me on my own Y N ? Good chance for promotion Y N Around when needed Y N ? Unfair promotion policy Y N Lazy Y N ? Infrequent promotions Y N Regular promotions Y N PEOPLE Fairly good chance for Stimulating Y N ? promotion Y N "0 NJ '0 '\J NJ "J '0 "J 'x) "\J "\J '\J "\J “J '\J "\J "\J "0 "J "\J "J "\J ’\J "\J "\J "\J 0" no 0‘) 'x) 0-0 3‘) "0 no 130 E. Your Success on Your Present Job Comparing yourself to others with similar jobs and qualifications, how do you feel about your success in your present job? Circle the appropriate category. In the 1:01): I. 1070 3. 5070 2. 25% 4~ 75% Rate how you feel about your success according to the Company Rating System. 1 . Sat - 4. Excellent 2 . Sat 5 . Outstanding 3. Sat + Imagine a ladder with 10 rungs. The top rung, No. 10, represents high success on the job and the bottom rung, No. 1, represents very poor success on the job. On what rung are you in your present job? rung in present job. How do you feel that the company rates your success in your present job? Circle the appropriate category. In the top: I. 10070 3. 75070 2. 25% 4. 95% Using the Company Rating System: 1. Sat - 4. Excellent 2 . Sat 5 . Out standing 3. Sat + On what rung of the ladder do you feel that the company would place you in your present job? rung in present job. 131 F. Receipt of a Performance Review Have you had a performance review with your supervisor in your presentjob? Circle: 1. Yes 2. No. If yes, tell us about it briefly in two or three sentences. APPENDIX B Factor Analysis APPENDIX B Factor Analysis This appendix describes the procedures used for the forming of general factors among the items in three sections of the question- naire: Job Needs, Job Expectations, and Job Experiences. The procedures will be explained. And the tables that were produced in this analysis are also shown in this appendix. Job Expectations and Experiences. Two procedures were used to form the general variable factors among the Job Expectations and Job Experiences items. The first of these procedures was a factor analysis. The second involved testing the identified factors for reliability. The Statistical Package for the Social Sciences (SPSS, Nie, et a1. , 1975) was used for these statistical procedures. _S_P_S_§ contains a number of options for its factor analysis technique. All of these options contain similar steps: initial correlation 'matrix among all the items; preparation of initial factor loadings; weights for estimating factor scores from among the variables; and a correlation matrix for the terminal factors. The following is a short description of these steps (see chapter 24 of SPSS, Nie, et al. , 1975) which are then tied to the tables which provide the necessary matrixes for this factor analysis. 132 133 Step 1. The first step in factor analysis involves the calculation of a correlation matrix among the relevant variables as defined by the researcher. Table B-1 shows the correlation matrix for the items contained in the section of the questionnaire about Job Expectations. Table B-4 shows the coefficients for the Job Experiences items. These variables are grouped in the order that was later defined by the factor determinations. Step 2. The second step in factor analysis was to explore the data reduction possibilities by constructing a new set of variables on the basis of items which are orthogonal, or independent, of the other items. This procedure used the classical technique of factor analysis. That is, factors are defined to be uncorrelated to all com'mon factors in the data (shared determinants) as well as to the unique factors associated with the other variables. These factors are extracted in the order of their importance, in terms of explaining variance in the data. Step 3. In this step, the axes of the first factor loadings are rotated so as to separate the positive from the negative item loadings on the separate factors. Thus, the rotated factor loadings are conceptually simpler than the unrotated ones. The specific rotational procedure used, here, was the Varimax procedure, which, in essence, maximizes the variance of the squared loadings in each 134 factor column. This method of rotation is the most widely used (Nie, et a1, 1975, p. 485). Table B—2 shows the factors identified by these two steps. As can be seen in this table, the factor items do have conceptual consistency. The first two of these factors were labelled Job Challenge and Work-Setting, in accordance with the item contents of the factors. The third factor was not used in the testing of hypotheses. Factors 1 and 2 explained 91. 2 per cent of the total variance in the Expectations data. Step 4. Table B-3 reports the correlations between each variable and a composite factor score. These coefficients--of the highly loaded variables--can be used as weights for determining the factor-scale variable score. Step 5. Once the terminal factors had been determined, they were tested for reliability with coefficient alpha. Coefficients alpha-- a measure of internal consistency—-we re determined for all factors which came from this factor analysis. The alpha coefficient is the most appropriate measure of reliability when no test-retest or equivalent-form alternatives are available (Nunnally, 1967). (All of the reliability scores are reported in Table II-8 and discussed in Chapter II.) §P_S_§_'s reliability procedure tests the variables in a factor for their individual impact on the factor's overall reliability coefficient. It then indicates when a factor's reliability would be increased by deleting a particular item (or items). As indicated in 135 Table B-5, items 7 and 8 were deleted from the Job-Challenge factor using this procedure and items 12 and 13 were deleted from the Work-Setting factor for the same reason. Step 6. The last step in this analysis of factors involved creation of a correlation matrix for all the factors used in the research. Table B-8 reports these coefficients. Typically, factors of similar constructs (such as the two needs factors or the two expectations factors) correlated more highly with each other than with factors of different constructs. For example, nSec correlates -. 46 with nAch, yet neither correlates above .11 with any other variable or factor. Where a factor correlates fairly highly with a different construct, it was because of the relationships between the two. For example, respondents' first-job experiences with Job Challenge correlated . 63 with Satisfaction with their work. This was an expected relationship. The results, then, of this factor analysis produced the factors shown in Tables B-Z, B-3, B-5, and B-6. As indicated on those tables, the four factors used in the testing of hypotheses were Job- Challenge (Expectations for and Experiences with) and Work-Setting (Expectations for and Experiences with). The Experiences with the Work-Setting factor was changed slightly from the original factor- analysis results. Items 14 and 15 (pay and Job security) were added to the original Work-Setting factor in order to provide a factor 136 similar to the Expectations for the Work—Setting factor. This lowered the overall reliability coefficient but enabled a more con- sistent analytical framework. All of the remaining factors were dropped from further analysis and testing of the hypotheses. The four factors used allowed the hypotheses to be tested with direct comparisions between respondents' expectations and their job experiences in the areas of job challenge and work-setting. Job Needs. Individuals' Needs were obtained by asking respondents to rank fifteen job facets. Because of the ipsative nature of ranked data, regular factor analysis and other statistical techniques cannot be used (Hicks, 1970). To eliminate these problems, the ranked items mu st somehow have their pure ranking form removed. In order to do this--and to see if some of the items grouped together—-Spearman- Rho correlations were determined between all combinations of paired rankings. Items with positive correlations and similar con- tent were grouped to form Need factors. These items were then added together (to remove the purely ipsative nature of the data) to create factors which were used in the hypotheses testing. Table B-7 shows the Spearman-Rho coefficients and identifies the three factors which were found. Only items 1, 2 and 3 (a nAch factor) and items 6, 7 and 8 (a nSec factor) were used in the later analysis. 137 Using Nunnally's (1967) formula for reliabilities based on a scale's average interitem correlations, nAch had a reliability of . 33 and nSec had a reliability of .17. Because of the few items in each scale and the ipsative original data, these are not very high reliabilities, and they put limits on finding any significant relation- ships with these scales. 138 ..Houbmm mo upmmnwmon 83.83 0» popofiop Eofl * 0% 0“ «New? ”—0630 awn—n. .MH B. 202 oouwom Awa .3 mm. 3. hoarse 5a. .9 mm. ma. mm. .302 go hang .2 mm. 3. am. 2.. as: so 5. .2 3. km. 8. mm. me. has 9.8% .2 mm. .3. we. 8. mm. mm. base. to as one: .o. 8. om. mm. mm. m... «.4. mm. as: 82 nonsmooom .w 8. mm. .8. mm. it 2.. m4. .8. son $3 .k 8. 8. mm. mm. am. 8. mm. 8. mm. 32958 E museum .8 2. 8. R. 2. 3. mm. mm. mm 8. mm. 230 manag» 800 .m mo. 2. 2. mo. 8. E. 3. mm. mm. ON. .8. 32.98... 82 .... ma. 8. mm. S. em. 8. 8. me. me. ON. 8.. ca. a: as; non .m 2. 8. mm. 2. 4N. mm. «N. am. 3.. am 3. H. mm. use :03 .N mo. 8. am. 2. mm 8. mm. mm em. mm. mm. mm. mm. 8. as Hon 53. .H 2. .3 2 2 S 8 m m s e m a. m N «canning .noh BE. .maomugoomxm "30332.80 Eoflnopflnufium 631C. mafia manta 59a 3:595 * 139 mu. 8. 8. ow 8 “£3 aofio =8. .3 E. 3. mm. busunomwa mo 023w nwfi .fl 2. No. 3.. #83 Sm noufiwooom .3 2. cm. 3. 32” >3 .2 3. mm 3. Bmfiafioo a 83m .2 ma . : Hm . wm. mnofiquoo manic? @000 .m .8. mm. 8.- goon pom .w mo. cm. .8. as an; 30m .u 3. mm. 8. Ba :03 .o 3. mm. 3. >23 Hog q§< .m mm. 8. mm. mg 52a :2 J S. 8. mm. 282 Bo is .m 8. RN. E. 3% :83 .N 3. ON. on. 2% mo a: 9:2 .H *m “30mm N non—own H .3me mogwmamxr wnEow 1x33 ownonmaounoH do.” “and 690330098 “nomumnmwfiuon .8me HE? 8330.“ “can xmbwfi 38am @330.“ §§m>nnm m 2an 583QO 3:83 59a vommoa * 140 S. 8.- NH .- om. 8 “£3 aufio =3- .3 8. 8. - 8. - 3238883“ mo 8&8 63m .8 mo . - mm . oo . #33 no“ nomuwnwooom . NH 8. ON. 8.- “88%.... .S 8. S. 8.- £635.28 3 823m .2 S . - 8. 8. 30888 8283 880 .m 8. E. 8.- 55833 .w 8.- cm. 8.- m: Enzaom .u 8. 2. 8.- 38 :03 o 8.- E. 8.- 3%“ Hon flag .m 8.- 8.. - mm. 8.H 89¢ :3. ..v 8. 8. 8. 303 go 5. m E . - 8. - 8. :83.” 853 N 8.- 8.- 8. we... mo 8: 834 .H *m accowm N 38mm . H acuowm mmfinfiuflr mam-flow -483 ownmfiuwAUunoH do.” “mum“ .mnoflwaoumxm aunomommwvoo nomufiofloo 200m neuowmnumum 2an 141 2.6333 30¢ @3330 803$ ...... .80wa H0 333038 080.63 0... @3230 ago”: ... mO. HH.- wO. OH. NH. OO. HO. NO..- ON. no. #0. mO. mO. mH. mH. HN. AH. NH. NN. RH. HN NH. HN. OH. OH. HO... mo. “H. OH. mN. OH. OH. OO... mN. wH. HuH. HVH. mH. vH. ON ON. OH. NH. ON. mm. NH. me Om. HH. wO. HqH. mH. mO. mH wH. ON. 50. HH. VH. ON. NN. wN. OH. OH.: AN. HH. OH. OH. NH. mH ON. HH. mO... HO. \-H. .3. AH. mN. mH. mO. Hum. HN. OH». ON. ON. OH. NH wO.u mO... HO. mO. 8. 8. 8. we.- 8. HO. OH. NO. mO.u HH. HH. OO. OH. OO. 50. HO... no. OH. NH. NH. NH. OH. 00. HO. mO. NO.: HO. wH ON. NN. Om. mm. Om. mm. Om. NHu. mHV. ww. mO. OH. OH. .vH. mN. OO... mO. OO. no... HO; OH. Om. HHq. mm. 3.. mO. mN. mH. mH. NN. OO. NN. ON. ON. hm. wO. ON. ON. vN. hm. OH. Hm. mm. Hm. ow. mH. mN. Nm. ON. Hm. mH NH HH OH m mo. Nm. ON. NN. ON. NN. NN. O OO. ON. ON. mN. NH. HN. mm. Ow. 3.. ice: 3. 5m .3 288 .60 any: on .8 3038000 wag-bio? @000 .3 **mwnvflm 0:3: 0... 80 8910300 .wH Om. mm. mm. Hm. OHV. mw. ON. hm. ww. Om. £8382 8 8&8 88 .2 $80: :8: 30 .8 .898. pa .8 B8 :03 .3 .333 fig £83. .8 £89 >3. .8 =03 QUE magma-Ha £3 «flung . “H 8 as; $8 .8 #83 now now—Hnwooom *Bflsfiaoo 3 88m . on 3 ”:33 8050 =09 «H83 #83 \O[\.OOO\ 30“ no fioflwxw 030 no aommmooa 2.33 ”50 Eh. . 0.0.H 59a fivEc>oEo< . mam m0 on: 932 Hmméus moSmE> . non “mam .moonoflomxmu "unoflfiohoo Sofiuqu-nw-m 03mg. 142 29:33 50.2 Oouflmv 230mm .3. .8922 Ho 3233?.“ 03203 0”. “03ng «53H * m2 8.- 2. 8. 8. 2. «83:... 5m .3 mo. 8. 2. 8. 2. 2. 328 .82 any: on .8 2.- 2.. 2. 2. 8. 8. .8888 8263 Row .2 8. 8. 2. 2. 2. 2. .83.... 088 8 an... 292.8on .2 8. 2. 8. 8. 8. 3. 3228.88... 3&8 82 .2 .8. 8. 3.. 8.- 8. 8.- 28?. x83 20 .2 8. 2. no. «N. 8. 8.- 3508 aoH .2 8. oo. 2.- 2.. 2. 8.- 28 :03 .2 8.- 2. 8.- mm. 3.. 8. End-.222 282 .2 2. 2. 8. 2. mm. 2. ......oAH >3. .2 8. 2. 8. 8. 8. mm. :2\. 5a 8395 23 3.8m .2 8. 2. 2. 8. m2 2. a: an; «mom .2 8.- E. 2. 2 . mm. mm. .83 am 832.80% .m 8. 8. 8. 2. 8. 2: 325.888 3.55% .w 8. 2m; 8.- 8. 2 . - 8. *8 8 “£3 288 :8. <- 8. 2.. 8. 2 .- 8. 8. :83 .283 .m 2. 2. 8. 8.- 8. 2.. no.2 no but; .m 8.- 2.- 8. 2. 2. No. 58 d6 80280 .2. 8.- S.- 2. 8. 2. o2 .32 Bo .5. ...- 2. E. 8.- 8.- 8. 8. 8.2802 :3. .m 2. 8. 8.- 8.- mm. 8. 32% mo 8.. 082 .2 b 890mm m 390mm Huhafififlh .0- ...—090mm N .HOqum H .HOqum mmfifiwmnwxw 0E3 Eompquoo **>§ono§< goom mam-flow 1&3 3 omquHSHU ..OOH 2: $5.83 22.5...” 5.0m 2m moonuflmmxo Bofiwumwgon .20me A23 «8330a .820 02.53: .2322 H0338 xu§w>uumsm oBmB 143 .xnogufimum EON-.335 Hofimmqoo 0.85 can nouawfi w wuwyoa “Eh. 283$ 303300me math—omuxao; 2.3 3 Hwoflaovm 982“? .883 mooqoflmnxm wnfluow-xnog a new .N 38mm fits @8388 203 «Eon: $05 £8»me 303300me 3 fiflwmfiu 38 “93:00 mo 3.23 may a0 .33.. «magma. E8“ @333 Ecuowm ** .833 m0 ~353me 030.85 3 @333. ago”: * mu. 8.- 8. mo. 8.. 8.- 28.5 E... 5m .8 3. 2. No. No. No.- 2,- £38 .8. “was“. on .8 2 .- cm. .8. mo. 8. .3.- aouaqoo ways; 88 .3 S. 3. 3. 8. mo. - 8.- €33 9:8 8 .53 3:838 .3 8. mo. mm. 5. .8.- 8.- bananas.“ mo mama“. awn-H .2 8. mo. 3. 8.- 8. 8.- 8on :83 Ba .3 8. mo. No. 3. mo. - 8.- 3358 n2 .3 8. 8.- 2.- mm. 8. 8.- Ba :03 .3 8.. 8. mo: 2. 2. 8.- .323 go.“ 5&3. :3 no. 5.- mo: 2. mo. 8. *mmom >3. .2 8. mo: 8.- 8.- mm. 8.- :2> 85 3&3 9:» 8.8m .2 «0. mo; mo. 8.- cm. 2.- as as: $8 .2 8.- No. 8. NH. 2. 8. x83 3% nompflwooum .m 8.- 2. 3.- 3. 8.- mo. *fifisaaoo 3 «3% .m 8. 3.- S.- B. 3.- NH. *8 8 “£3 338 :09 .n 8.- mm. 8.- E..- 8: $2 “—03:83 .0 we. 8. 8.- 8.- mo: 3. €35 bang .m 2 .- 3..- mm 8. 8; mm. 8.6 no 80333 w 2.- 8..- S. 3.- 3.- mm. sagas .5. .m 8. 8. 2.- 2.- .8. 2. page. :3. .N 8. 8.- 2.- B.- 3. 2. 323308: 832 .fi 0 “Baum m 38mm w acuomm m non—0mm N nouoam H acuowm mflawflmxw 053 303%qoo v.0." >§ono§< **uwfimnsoom ward—31x33 owqoflwaauaoh 93 image; .EE-asm .non “ma moonoflomxv "manomomumoo nomuflohoo Boa-acuomm-noum 2an 144 32503 new womz View Ammmiwqw Sauna 89¢ wmumfififlmv 330m new @002 ** unoau>oflo< 3m vooz * ma... mo? ma; mo... mm... mo. No.1 8.- 3.- 8.. 8.- 3... ma mo... Ho. mH... mo... v0... 8.- 2.- 2.- 2.- 3 m0.. m0. 0H.I NH.: #0.: v0. mo. wo.: wo. mo. mH.u AH.I mH.u mo.u oo. ¢N.u mo.n ©H.n Ho.: mo.| ha. mH.u oo. HN.I OH.I NN.: mo.u 50.: mm.: wo.a ©N.n $0.: VH.: mo. mo. ma. 5H.I No.1 ON.I «H.u wH.| mo.: 50.: 0H. ofi m w h w m w m Emgfifioo 3 $388 .3 mowoflom ham :3 fiuflflw .mH fiomfi x33 .NH qoflmnwooom . 3 283238 $383 88 .2 AD 32 mowm 055 30m .m ***3§oam 32 .w ***Eofiooqw>v< .n *fifim wooo .o i on 8 “£3 3&0 :09 .m **Bmsmaommum 4V Ewflfi 8: .m *302 55 a: .N no. *Boao>oao< .H 83a5> .Afiofifl vvoa wqfigouow 8...: mwoon pom @933 new munowofiooo aoflflofioo oéunwgomm Ecumnwufluunlm 2an 145 “9555p .mH 3. 2805 Ho wnflmm 282200 wofioofivm .3 2. on. 3803. 32022.28 .2 2. 2. 2. 828an £3 528325 .2 2.- 3.- 8.. 5. >2 22382823...- .2 2. 2. 2. 2.. 2. «Roam H2% 82.623me .2 2. 2. 2. 2.. 2. 2m. aoqumsm 22383032“... .2 2. 2. 2. 3.. 2. 2.. 2.. V2.63 .2: 828223 .2 o2- wo. No. «o. 8. mo. No. 8.. 32 20.9.25 magnum-.233 238082222 .2 2.. mo. 3. No. 8. 3. mo: 8.- 8. 32 2823 25:96 nozgamooqouamxm .2 om: 8. 3. mo. 8. 8. No. 8.- mm. mm. SoSnaoEV magma-Vac; .52 303.822 .m .3.- mo. 8. 8. 8. No. 8.- 8. mm. 8. 2. 32 2883 25:20 A22 ...2 822825 .w 2. 2m. 8. 2.. 2. 2. mm. 2.. S. .3.- mo. 8.. 3255 mat-.2203 23805225 .5 2. 2. 2. 2. 8. mm. 2. 2. mo: 8.. 8.. 2.0.- 2.. 323232220 833388325 6 B. 2. 2. 2.2 2. E. 2. R. 8.. 8: mo. 8. mm. mm. 32%3232-283 32 86338.5 .m 2. mo. mo. 2. 8. 2. E. 2.. .3.- 8: 8.- 8. 2. 2.. v2 Scramvuwaonfio 822 303382..“ .2. S.- B. 8. 8.- mo. 8 mo. 8. mo. 8. No. 8. 8. mo. 8. .8. “$5522. .2 302 .m 2. .8.- oo.- no. 3. 8. 8.- .8. mo: 8.- 8.- 8... 8. mo. 8. 8.- 2..- bwaoomuom “.82 .N 8.. 2. mo. 8. 2.0.- 8.- S. .8.- 8. 8. mo. 8. 8.- 8.- .- 8.- 8. 2.- 2.52933 uBaHom-ioz .2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 m m n o m ... m m ”882 .5.”me 28322.80 88“..“ HmfifiuoH-nw-m £an APPENDIX C Analyses of Variance Summary Statistic s Table C-1--Analyses of variance summary statistics for effects on different aspects of satisfaction (Hl). I. Satisfaction with Work df SS f p A . Work-Related Background 1 32. 427 . 241 .623 B. nAch 1 119.715 1.140 .286 C. Job-Challenge Expectations 1 7270. 576 69.205 .001 D. Job-Challenge Experiences 1 33395. 099 317. 870 . 001 A x B 1 29. 876 . 284 .594 A x C 1 284. 738 2. 710 . 100 A x D 1 3.593 .034 .853 B x C 1 2.478 .024 .878 B x D 1 584.580 5.564 .019 C x D 1 501 . 158 4. 770 .029 A x B x C 1 37.031 .352 .553 A x B x C 1 10.582 .101 . 751 A xCx D 1 122.413 1.165 .281 B xCxD 1 1.711 .016 .898 AxB xCxD 1 2.839 .027 .869 Explained 15 58950. 486 37. 408 . 001 Residual 993 1043 23 . 714 II. Satisfaction with Supervision df SS f p A . Work-Related Backgrmmd 1 31 . 793 . 220 . 639 B. nAch 1 215.934 1. 232 .267 C. Job-Challenge Expectations 1 1374.235 7.841 .005 D. Job-Challenge Experiences 1 16431.759 93. 752 .001 A x B 1 .487 .003 .958 A x C 1 98.103 .560 .455 A x D 1 242.305 1. 382 . 240 B x C 1 524. 962 2. 995 .084 B xD 1 200.951 .1.47 .285 Cx D 1 377.289 2.153 .143 A x Bx C 1 62.673 .358 .550 A x B x D 1 168.376 .961 .327 A xCxD 1 51.915 .296 .586 B x Cx D 1 17.580 . 100 . 752 A xB xCxD 1 215.046 1.227 .268 Explained 15 25715. 160 9. 781 . 001 Residual 993 1 74040. 751 146 Table C- 1 - - Continued I47 III. Satisfaction with People df SS f p A . Work- Related Background 1 48. 919 . 355 . 552 B. nAch 1 422. 144 3.072 .080 C . Job-Challenge Expectations 1 298. 946 2. 175 . 141 D. Job-Challenge Experiences 1 14897.461 108. 399 .001 A x B 1 401. 328 2. 920 .088 A x C 1 102. 619 . 747 .388 A x D 1 162.464 1.182 .277 B x C 1 439. 381 3. 197 .074 B x D 1 323.667 2.355 .125 Cx D 1 110.238 .802 .371 A x B x C 1 293.306 2.134 .144 A x B x D 1 306.509 2.230 . 136 AxCxD 1 31.699 .231 .631 B xCxD 1 148.819 1.083 .298 A xB xCxD 1 72.849 .530 .467 Explained 15 21511 . 609 10. 435 . 001 Residual 993 136469. 527 IV. Satisfaction with Pay df SS f p A. Work-Related Background 1 226.013 7.430 .007 B. nAch 1 68.447 2.176 . 141 C. Job-Challenge Expectations 1 5. 308 . 169 . 681 D. Job-Challenge Experiences 1 80. 278 2. 552 . 110 A x B 1 167.157 5.314 .021 A x C 1 11.292 .359 .549 A x D 1 9.615 .306 .580 B x C 1 42.577 1 .353 . 245 B x D 1 95.625 3.040 .082 Cx D 1 71.404 2.270 .732 A xB xC 1 34.912 1.110 .292 A x B x D 1 27.237 . 966 .352 A x CxD 1 8.423 .268 .605 B xCxD 1 6.428 .204 .652 Explained 15 1060. 829 2. 248 .004 Residual 993 31237. 831 148 Table C-1--Continued V. Satisfaction with Promotion df SS f p A . Work-Related Background 1 13. 971 . 230 . 632 B. nAch 1 72.775 1.060 .302 C. Job-Challenge Expectations 1 557.407 8. 180 .004 D. Job-Challenge Experiences 1 5755.060 84.453 . 001 A x B 1 13.806 .203 .653 A x C 1 13.172 .193 .660 A x D 1 4.679 .069 .793 B x C 1 27.555 .404 .525 B x D 1 107. 263 1 . 574 . 210 C x D 1 199.510 2.928 .087 A x B x C 1 36.233 .532 .466 A xB xD 1 4.663 .068 .794 AxCxD 1 51.274 .752 .386 B x C x D 1 12.386 .182 .670 AxB xCxD 1 55.258 .811 .368 Explained 15 9003 . 502 8 . 808 .001 Residual 993 67668 . 488 149 Table C-2--Analysis of variance summary statistics for effects on different aspects of satisfaction (HZ). I. Satisfaction with Work df SS f p A . Work-Related Background 1 32.427 . 241 .623 B. nSec. 1 148. 537 1 . 105 . 294 C. Work-Setting Expectations 1 3790. 564 28. 187 .001 D. Work-Setting Experiences 1 17154.505 127.565 .001 A x B 1 21.021 . 156 .693 A x C 1 88.293 .657 .418 A x D 1 199.977 1.487 .273 B x C 1 159.471 1. 195 . 277 B xD 1 1.171 .009 .976 C x D 1 44.758 .333 .564 AxB xC 1 181.269 1.348 .746 A x B x D 1 24.951 .186 .667 A x C x D 1 365.223 2.716 . 100 Bx C x D 1 422.221 3.940 .077 AxBxCxD 1 125.802 .935 .334 Explained 15 29742. 896 14. 745 . 001 Residual 991 1 33266 . 51 1 II. Satisfaction with Supervision df SS f p A . Work-Related Background 1 31 . 793 .220 . 639 B. nSec. 1 66.679 .461 .497 C. Work-Setting Expectations 1 2204. 896 15. 253 .001 D. Work-Setting Experiences 1 42360.482 293.034 .001 A x B 1 415.388 2.873 .090 A x C 1 .010 .000 .993 A x D 1 33. 713 . 233 .629 B x C 1 153.243 1.060 .303 B x D 1 108.545 . 751 .386 C x D 1 630.490 4.361 .037 A xB xC 1 5.335 .037 .848 A x B x D 1 4.027 .028 .867 A x C x D 1 4.629 .032 .858 B x C x D 1 406.691 2.813 .094 AxBxCxD 1 130.758 .905 .342 Explained 15 56062. 598 25. 855 . 001 Residual 991 143257. 110 Table C-2--Continued 150 III. Satisfaction with People df 88 f p A . Work-Related Background 1 48. 919 .355 .552 B. nSec. 1 11 . 322 . 082 . 775 C. Work- Setting Expectations 1 3085. 201 22. 378 .001 D. Work-Setting Experiences 1 10979. 763 79.640 .001 A x B 1 529. 987 3.844 .050 A x C 1 6. 103 .044 .833 A x D 1 .001 .000 . 998 B x C 1 111.857 .811 .368 B x D 1 . 843 .006 938 C x D 1 925.294 6.711 .010 A x B x C 1 120.961 .877 .349 A xB xD 1 .669 .003 .944 A x C x D 1 45.305 .329 .567 B xCxD 1 96.065 .697 .404 A xB xCxD 1 476.210 3.453 .063 Explained 15 21169. 281 10. 237 . 001 Residual 991 136627. 146 IV. Satisfaction with Pay df SS f p A . Work-Related Backgromd 1 226.013 7.430 .007 B. nSec. 1 2. 961 .097 .755 C. Work—Setting Expectations 1 167. 298 5.500 .019 D . Work-Setting Experiences 1 1003 . 122 32. 977 . 001 A x B 1 102.529 3.371 .067 A x C 1 2.044 .067 .796 A x D 1 70. 689 2.324 . 128 B x C 1 .032 .001 . 974 B x D 1 54.238 2.783 .182 C x D 1 28.642 .942 .332 A xB xC 1 .356 .012 .914 A x B x D 1 29.184 .959 .328 AxCxD 1 55.000 1.808 .179 BxCxD 1 .030 .001 .975 AxBxCxD 1 60.207 1.979 .160 Explained 15 21 25 . 066 4. 657 . 001 Residual 991 30145. 246 Table C-2-—Continued 151 df SS V. Satisfaction with Promotion 1‘ p A . Work-related Background 1 13 . 971 . 230 . 632 B. nSec 1 307. 948 5.066 .025 C . Work-Setting Expectations 1 1446. 160 23. 789 .001 D . Work- Setting Experiences 1 10048. 324 165. 296 . 001 A x B 1 9.169 .151 .698 A x C 1 16. 793 . 276 .599 A x D 1 10. 739 . 177 .674 B x C 1 170.075 2.798 .095 B xD 1 31.196 .513 .474 C x D 1 190. 516 3. 134 .077 A x B xC 1 32.423 .533 .465 A x B x D 1 180.596 2.971 .085 AxCxD 1 5.812 .096 .757 B xCxD 1 6.681 .110 .746 A x B x C x D 1 134.454 2.212 .137 Explained 15 16264. 662 17. 837 .001 Residual 991 60242. 746 152 Table C-3--Analysis of variance summary statistics for effects on aspects of perceived success (H3). I. Self-Perceived Success df 88 f p A . Work-Related Background 1 68. 129 9. 100 . 003 B. nAch 1 4.179 .547 .460 C . Job-Challenge Expectations 1 10. 178 1 . 332 . 249 D. Job-Challenge Experiences 1 18. 712 2.448 . 118 A x B 1 30.547 3.996 .046 A x C 1 52.960 6.929 .009 A xD 1 7.869 1.029 .311 B x C 1 4.903 .641 .423 B x D 1 .532 .070 . 792 CxD 1 1.634 .214 .644 AxBxC 1 11.685 1.529 .217 A xB xD 1 13.373 1.750 .186 AxCxD 1 1.832 .240 .625 B xCxD 1 .913 .119 .730 A xBxCxD 1 5.080 .665 .415 Explained 15 243 . 066 2 . 120 . 008 Residual 993 7590. 066 II. Perceived Company Rating df SS f p A . Work- Related Background 1 67. 588 8. 859 .003 B. nAch 1 18.166 2.272 .132 C. Job—Challenge Expectations 1 29.002 3.628 .057 D. Job-Challenge Experiences 1 34. 312 4. 292 .039 A x B 1 29. 263 3.660 .056 A x C 1 24.897 3. 114 .078 A x D 1 4.201 .525 .469 B x C 1 2. 148 . 269 .604 B x D 1 3.091 .387 .534 CxD 1 3.299 .413 .521 A xB xC 1 2.183 .273 .601 A xB xD 1 3.525 .441 .507 A xCxD 1 7.283 .911 .340 BxCxD 1 1.514 .189 .664 AxB xCxD 1 .537 .067 .796 Explained 15 276. 252 2. 304 . 003 Residual 993 7938 . 850 153 Table C—4- -Analysis of variance summary statistics for effects on different aspects of perceived success (H4) . I. Self-Perceived Success df SS f p A . Work-Related Background 1 68. 129 9. 100 .003 B. nSec 1 2.368 .316 .574 C . Work- Setting Expectations 1 2. 314 . 309 . 578 D. Work-Setting Experiences 1 194. 367 25. 962 .001 A x B 1 . 022 .003 . 957 A x C 1 2.786 .372 .542 A x D 1 26.643 3.559 .060 B x C 1 .121 .016 .899 B x D 1 12.430 1.660 .198 CxD 1 8.539 1.141 .286 AxBxC 1 .625 .084 .773 A xBxD 1 .580 .078 .781 A x Cx D 1 10.860 1.451 .229 BxCxD 1 13.226 1.767 .184 A xBxCxD 1 15.407 2.058 .152 Explained 15 387. 994 3. 455 .001 Residual 991 7419. 140 II. Perceived Company Rating df SS f p A . Work-Related Background 1 67. 588 8. 859 .003 B. nSec 1 8. 119 1.064 .303 C. Work- Setting Expectations 1 17. 735 2. 325 . 128 D. Work- Setting Experiences 1 394.516 51. 712 .001 A x B 1 1.496 . 196 .658 A x C 1 2.140 .280 .597 A x D 1 16.285 2.135 .144 B x C 1 3.368 .441 .507 B x D 1 7.977 1.046 .307 Cx D 1 .211 .028 .868 A x B x C 1 19.735 2.587 .108 A xB xD 1 .095 .012 .911 AxCxD 1 4.077 .534 .465 B xCxD 1 1.326 .174 .677 AxBxCxD 1 1.378 .181 .671 Explained 15 654. 682 5. 721 .001 Residual 991 7560. 374 154 Table C—5--Ana1ysis of variance summary statistics for effects on turnover. (H5). Turnover df SS f p A . Work-Related Background 1 . 345 1 .415 . 234 B. nAch 1 1.022 4.285 .039 C. Job-Challenge Expectations 1 .001 .004 . 947 D. Job-Challenge Experiences 1 8. 169 34. 236 .001 A .- B 1 .167 .698 .404 A x C 1 .301 1.260 .262 A xD 1 .283 1.187 .276 B x C 1 .571 2.394 . 122 B x D 1 .077 . 321 .571 C x D 1 .021 .088 . 766 AxB xC 1 .169 .706 .401 AxBxD 1 1.522 6.377 .01 A xCxD 1 .473 1.982 .160 Bx CxD 1 .766 3.210 .073 AxBxCxD 1 .107 .449 .503 Explained 15 15. 032 4. 200 . 001 Residual 993 236. 948 Table C-6--Ana1ysis of variance summary statistics for effects on tm'nover (H6). Turnover df SS f p A . Work-Related Background 1 . 345 1.415 . 234 B. nSec 1 2. 260 9.284 .002 C. Work- Setting Expectations 1 . O36 . 147 . 702 D. Work-Setting Experiences 1 4. 290 17. 619 .001 A x B 1 .269 1.107 .293 A x C 1 .008 .034 .854 A x D 1 .027 . 113 . 737 B x C 1 .846 3.474 .063 B x D 1 .247 1.014 .314 C x D 1 .008 .033 . 856 AxB xC 1 .021 -085 .770 AxBxD 1 .046 .188 .665 AxCxD 1 .023 .093 .761 B xCxD 1 .061 .250 .617 AxBxCxD 1 1.021 4.194 .041 Explained 15 10. 177 2. 787 .001 Residual 991 241 . 269 Table C-7--Analysis of variance summary statistics for the effects on different aspects of 155 satisfaction (H9) . I. Satisfaction with Work df SS f p A . Performance Review 1 1454. 693 10. 952 .001 B. nAch 1 111.274 1.070 .301 C. Job—Challenge Expectations 1 7036. 923 67. 674 . 001 D Job-Challenge Experiences 1 32194.332 309.611 .001 A x B 1 143.846 1.383 .240 A xC 1 25.723 .247 .619 A x D 1 7.635 .073 .786 B x C 1 3.251 .031 .860 B x D 1 483.453 4.649 .031 C x D 1 584.495 5.621 .018 AxB xC 1 72.991 .702 .402 A x Bx D 1 184.554 1.775 .183 AxCxD 1 3.817 .037 .848 BxCxD 1 11.460 .110 .740 A xB x CxD 1 269.203 2.589 .108 Explained 15 59594. 416 38.208 . 001 Residual 987 102631 . 249 II. Satisfaction with Supervision df SS f p A . Performance Review 1 868. 302 6. 058 .014 B. nAch 1 295.039 1.683 . 195 C. Job-Challenge Expectations 1 1205.502 6.878 .009 D Job-Challenge Experiences 1 15453.304 88.170 .001 A x B 1 16.737 .095 .757 A x C 1 468. 171 2.671 . 102 A x D 1 221.069 1.261 .262 B x C 1 508.710 2.902 .089 B x D 1 322.074 1.838 176 Cx D 1 385.382 2.199 .138 AxB xC 1 9.156 .052 .819 A x B x D 1 16.167 .092 .761 A x C x D 1 96.775 .552 .458 B xCxD 1 23.815 .136 .712 AxBxCxD 1 17.982 .103 .749 Explained 15 26318. 266 10.011 .001 Residual 987 172989. 495 156 Table C-7—-Continued 111. Satisfaction with People df SS f p A . Performance Review 1 27.912 . 202 . 653 B. nAch 1 423.135 3.065 .080 C. Job-Challenge Expectations 1 292. 332 2.118 . 146 D. Job-Challenge Experiences 1 14755.566 106. 883 .001 A x B 1 46.479 .337 .562 A x C 1 442.253 3.203 .074 A x D 1 23.808 .172 .678 B x C 1 423.066 3.064 .080 B x D 1 415.817 3.012 .083 C x D 1 69. 753 .505 .477 A x B x C 1 52.623 .381 .537 A x B x D 1 318.059 2.304 . 129 A xCxD 1 353.322 2.559 .110 B xCxD 1 196.440 1.423 .233 A xB xCxD 1 397.618 2.880 .090 Explained 15 21 679 . 858 10. 469 . 001 Residual 987 136259. 127 IV. Satisfaction with Pay df SS f p A. Performance Review 1 2. 823 .092 . 762 B. nAch 1 67. 932 2. 146 . 143 C. Job-Challenge Expectations 1 8.028 .254 . 615 D . Job-Challenge Experiences 1 65. 220 2.060 . 152 A x B 1 31.279 . 988 . 320 A x C 1 186.777 5.900 .015 A x D 1 12.469 .394 .530 B x C 1 42.845 1.353 .245 B x D 1 121.926 3.851 .050 C x D 1 49.216 1.555 .213 AxB xC 1 .019 .001 .980 A xB xD 1 6.057 .191 .662 A xCxD 1 .809 .026 .873 B x CxD 1 6.468 .204 .651 A xBxCxD 1 36.055 1.139 .286 Explained 15 709. 363 1 . 494 . 100 Residual 987 31 246 . 079 Table C-7--Continued 157 V. Satisfaction with Promotion SS P A. Performance Review 1 183. 716 3.014 .083 B. nAch 1 39.021 .576 .448 C. Job-Challenge Expectations 1 499.267 7.365 .007 D. Job-Challenge Experiences 1 5542.882 81. 763 .001 A x B 1 85.735 1.265 .261 A x C 1 91 .722 1.353 . 245 A x D 1 66. 159 .976 .323 B x C 1 19.225 .284 .594 B x D 1 119.175 1.758 .185 C x D 1 187.632 2.768 .096 A x B x C 1 .006 .000 .992 A xB xD 1 23.792 .351 .554 AxCxD 1 6.904 .102 .750 B x C x D 1 22.810 .336 .562 A xB xCxD 1 93.982 1.386 .239 Explained 15 9361 . 731 9. 206 . 001 Residual 987 66910. 793 ............... Table C-8- -Ana1ysis of variance smnmary statistics for the effects on different aspects of satisfaction (H10) . 158 I. Satisfaction with Work df SS f p A . Performance Review 1 1454. 693 10. 952 . 001 B. nSec 1 210.408 1.584 . 208 C. Work-Setting Expectations 1 3723.224 28.031 .001 D. Work-Setting Experiences 1 16298.885 122. 707 .001 A x B 1 131.951 .993 .319 A x C 1 2. 125 .016 . 899 A x D 1 30. 248 . 228 . 633 B x C 1 129.906 .978 .323 B x D 1 38.831 .292 .589 C x D 1 54.390 .409 .522 A x B x C 1 100.008 .753 .386 A x B x D 1 .290 .002 . 963 A x C x D 1 626.120 4.714 .030 B x C x D 1 276.321 2.080 .150 AxBxCxD 1 20.900 .157 .692 Explained 15 31125 . 989 15. 622 . 001 Residual 985 130834. 898 II. Satisfaction with Supervision df SS f p A . Performance Review 1 868.302 6.058 .014 B. nSec 1 76.051 .531 .467 C. Work-Setting Expectations 1 2146. 165 14. 973 .001 D. Work-Setting Experiences 1 40797. 548 284.620 .001 A x B 1 185.271 1.293 .256 A x C 1 266.514 1.859 .173 A x D 1 456.422 3.184 .075 B x C 1 195.683 1.365 .243 B x D 1 178.303 1.244 .265 C x D 1 497. 773 3.473 .063 A x B x C 1 321.321 2.242 .135 A x B x D 1 25.426 .177 .674 A x C x D 1 836.282 5.834 .016 B x C x D 1 277.434 1.935 .164 A x B x C x D 1 66.558 .464 .496 Explained 15 57681 . 543 26 . 827 . 001 Residual 985 141190. 327 159 Table C-8--Continued IH. Satisfaction with People df SS f p A . Performance Review 1 27. 912 . 202 . 653 B. nSec 1 26. 276 . 190 . 663 C. Work-Setting Expectations 1 3078. 941 22. 288 .001 D. Work-Setting Experiences 1 10782.033 78.050 .001 A x B 1 48.208 .349 .555 A x C 1 485.464 3.514 .061 A x D 1 594.905 4.306 .038 B x C 1 135.391 .980 .322 B x D 1 .007 .000 . 995 C x D 1 778.378 5.635 .018 A x B x C 1 133.836 .969 .325 A x B x D 1 93.096 .674 .412 A x C x D 1 301.115 2.180 .140 B x C x D 1 43.483 .315 .575 AxB xCxD 1 245.448 1.777 .183 Explained 15 21683. 975 10. 465 . 001 Residual 985 136070. 077 IV. Satisfaction with Pay df SS f p A . Performance Review 1 2. 823 .092 . 762 B. nSec 1 15.917 .518 .472 C. Work-Setting Expectations 1 151.408 4. 927 .027 D. Work-Setting Experiences 1 940. 542 30. 609 . 001 A xB 1 12.922 .421 .517 A x C 1 45.100 1.468 .226 AxD 1 1.960 .064 .801 B x C 1 .870 .028 . 866 B x D 1 27.641 .900 .343 C x D 1 19.343 .629 .428 AxBxC 1 1.228 .040 .842 A xB xD 1 4.106 .134 .715 AxCxD 1 8.832 .287 .592 B x C x D 1 24.318 .791 .374 AxB xCxD 1 15.934 .519 .472 Explained 15 1659. 686 3. 601 . 001 Residual 985 30267. 149 Table C-8--Continued. 160 _\‘-u:e ' -:- V. Satisfaction with Promotion SS f p A . Performance Review 1 183. 716 3.014 .083 B. nSec 1 254.901 4.182 .041 C. Work-Setting Expectations 1 1413.292 23.188 .001 D. Work-Setting Experiences 1 9666. 925 158.609 .001 A x B 1 .333 .005 .941 A x C 1 213.046 3.496 .062 A x D 1 . 161 .003 .959 B x C 1 179.035 2.937 .087 B x D 1 37.757 .619 .431 C x D 1 127.590 2.093 . 148 A xB xC 1 5.738 .094 .759 AxBxD 1 .144 .002 .961 A x C x D 1 24. 254 .398 . 528 B xCxD 1 2.740 .045 .832 AxBxCxD 1 56.326 .924 .337 Explained 15 16074. 114 17. 582 . 001 Residual 985 60034. 108 161 Table C~-9--Ana1ysis of variance summary statistics for the effects on aspects of perceived success (HII). I. Self-Perceived Success df SS f p A . Performance Review 1 36. 672 4. 871 .028 B. nAch 1 6.527 .845 .358 C. Job-Challenge Expectations 1 6.536 .846 .358 D. Job-Challenge Experiences 1 13. 281 1 . 719 . 190 A x B 1 2.470 .320 .572 A xC 1 3.139 .406 .524 A x D 1 .881 .114 .736 B x C 1 6. 152 . 796 .372 B xD 1 1.476 .191 .662 C x D 1 4.835 . 626 .429 A x B x C 1 39.896 5.165 .023 AxBxD 1 1.711 .221 .638 AxCxD 1 2.848 .369 .544 BxCxD 1 1.443 .187 .666 A x B x C x D 1 33.235 4.302 .038 Explained 15 188. 123 1 . 624 . 062 Residual 987 7624. 288 II. Perceived Company Rating df SS f p A . Performance Review 1 8.064 1.042 .308 B. nAch 1 23.891 2. 948 .086 C. Job-Challenge Expectations 1 23.556 2. 907 .089 D. Job-Challenge Experiences 1 28.841 3.559 .060 A x3 1 12.412 1.531 .216 A x C 1 3.806 .470 .493 A x D 1 5.520 .681 .409 B x C 1 . 836 . 103 . 748 B x D 1 5.536 .683 .409 CxD 1 5.125 .632 .427 A x Bx C 1 10.109 1.247 .264 AxBxD 1 2.690 .332 .565 AxCx D 1 .907 .112 .738 B xCxD 1 3.022 .373 .542 AxBxCxD 1 10.200 1.259 .262 Explained 1 5 1 83 . 354 1 . 508 . 095 Residual 987 7998 . 914 Table C-10—-Ana1ysis of variance summary statistics for effects on aspects of perceived success (H12). 162 I. Self-Perceived Success df SS f p A . Performance Review 1 36.672 4.871 .028 B. nSec 1 6.053 .804 . 370 C. Work-Setting Expectations 1 2. 164 . 288 . 592 D. Work-Setting Experiences 1 178. 849 23. 758 .001 A x B 1 10.816 1.437 . 231 A x C 1 11.563 1.536 .216 A x D 1 15.032 1.997 .158 B x C 1 .840 . 112 . 738 B x D 1 5.359 .712 .399 C x D 1 10.437 1.386 .239 AxBxC 1 9.724 1.292 .256 A xBxD 1 4.246 .564 .453 A x Cx D 1 8.215 1.091 .296 B x Cx D 1 14.551 1.933 .165 A xBx CxD 1 12.037 1.599 .206 Explained 15 371 .429 3 . 289 . 001 Residual 985 7415 . 087 II. Perceived Company Ratings (If SS f p A . Performance Review 1 8.064 1.042 .308 B. nSec 1 17.409 2. 250 . 134 C. Work-Setting Expectations 1 20. 321 2. 626 . 105 D. Work-Setting Experiences 1 369.036 47.687 .001 A x B 1 8.732 1.128 .288 A x C 1 9.891 1.278 .259 A x D 1 .133 .017 .896 B x C 1 2.360 .305 .581 B x D 1 6.069 . 784 .376 C x D 1 .329 .042 .837 A xBx C 1 .717 .093 .761 AxB x0 1 .750 .097 .756 AxCxD 1 .707 .091 .763 B x Cx D 1 2.707 .350 .554 A xB xCxD 1 21.405 2.766 .097 Explained 15 559. 642 4. 821 . 001 Residual 985 7622 . 579 163 Table C 11--Ana1ysis of variance summary statistics for effects on levels of turnover (H13). Turnover df SS f p A . Performance Review 1 1 . 921 7. 988 .005 B. nAch 1 .816 3.440 .064 C. Job—Challenge Expectations 1 .000 .001 . 981 D. Job-Challenge Experiences 1 7.721 32.544 .001 A x B 1 .121 .512 .474 A x C 1 .350 1.476 .225 A x D 1 1.631 6.876 .009 B x C 1 .202 .853 .356 B x D 1 . 149 .630 .428 C x D 1 .006 .025 . 874 AxB xC 1 .649 2.736 .098 A xB xD 1 .006 .027 870 AxCxD 1 .135 .570 .451 B x C x D 1 1.156 4.873 .028 AxBxCxD 1 .000 .000 .999 Explained 15 16. 198 4.552 .001 Residual 987 234. 1 73 Table C-12--Ana1ysis of variance summary statistics for effects on levels of turnover (H14). Turnover df SS f p A . Performance Review 1 1 . 921 7. 988 . 005 B. nSec 1 2.438 10.140 001 C. Work-Setting Expectations 1 .071 .295 .587 D. Work-Setting Experiences 1 3. 788 15. 754 .001 A x B 1 .001 .006 . 938 A x C 1 .064 . 265 . 607 A x D 1 .170 .709 .400 B x C 1 .932 3.875 .049 B xD I .242 1.005 .316 C x D 1 .005 .023 .880 A xB xC 1 .342 1.424 .233 A x B x D 1 1.313 5.462 .020 A xCxD 1 .847 3.522 .061 B xCxD 1 .020 .083 .773 AxBxCxD 1 .365 1.517 .218 Explained 15 12. 972 3. 596 . 001 Residual 985 236. 858 RE FERENC ES AND BIBLIOGRAPHY REFERENCES AND BIBLIOGRAPHY Adams, J. S. ,HInequity in Social Exchange, H in L. Berkowitz, ed. , Advances in Experimental Social Psychology, New York: Academic Press, Inc. , 1965,157-189. HA Home in Business for the Radical Generation, H Business Week, Oct. 5, 1974, 78-81. Albrook, R. C. , HWhy It's Harder to Keep Good Executives, H Fortune, November, 1968, 78, 136-139+. Alderfer, C. P. , HAn Empirical Test of a New Theory of Human Needs, H Organizational Behavior and Human Performance, 1969, 4, 142-175. , Existence, Relatedness, and Growth: Human Needs in Organizational Settings, New York: The Free Press, 1972. Andre, G. P. , ”How to Keep Staff Men from Leaving Your Firm, H Practical Accountant, September/October, 1968, 28-30. Andrews, J. D. W. , "The Achievement Motive and Advancement in Two Types of Organizations, H Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 1967, 6, 163-169. Argyris, C. , Integrating the Individual and the Organization, New York: Wiley, 1964. Athos, A. G., ”From Campus . . . to Company . . . to Company,H Journal of Gouge Placement, December, 1963, 24, 22-Z3+. Atkinson, J. W. , An Introduction to Motivation, Princeton, N. J. : Van Nostrand, 1964. Barnard, C. I. , The Functions of the Executive, Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press, 1938. Barnowe, J. T., T. W. Mangione, and R. P. Quinn, ”Quality of Employment Indicators, Occupational Classifications, and Demographic Characteristics as Predictors of Job Satisfaction, H Proceedings, 80th Annual Convention, American Psychological Association, 1972, 437-438. 164 165 Bergen, F. H., D. J. Weiss, H. E. A. Tinsley, R. V. Davis, and L. H. Lofquist, HThe Measurement of Occupational Reinforcer Patterns, N Minnesota Studies in Vocational Rehabilitation, Bulletin 49, Minneapolis: University of Minnesota, 1968. Berlew, D. E., and D. T. Hall, ”The Socialization of Managers: Effects of Expectations on Pe rformance, H Administrative Science Quartelfi, September, 1966, 11, 207-223. Betz, E. , ”Need-Reinforcer Correspondence as a Predictor of Job Satisfaction, H Personnel and Guidance Journal, 1969, 47, 878-883. Blood, M. R. and C. L. Hulin, HAlienation, Environmental Characteristics, and Worker Responses, H Journal of Applied Psychology, 1967, 51, 284-290. Bowles, S. , HSchooling and Inequality from Generation to Generation, H Journal of Political Economy, May/June, 1972, S219—S251 . Boyd, J. B. , HInterests of Engineers Related to Turnover, Selection, and Management, M Journal of Applied Psychology, 1961, 3, 143-149. Bray, D. W. , HThe Management Progress Study, H Paper presented at the 74th Annual Meeting of the American Psychological Association, New York, September, 1966. , R. J. Campbell, and D. L. Grant, Formative Years in Business: A Long-Term AT&T Study of Managerial Lives, New York: Wiley, 1974. HBright Young Men Choose Business Careers, H Nation's Business, June, 1966, 46-47, 109, 112, 114. Bryon, J. F. and E. A. Locke, "Goal-Setting as a Means of Increasing Motivation, II Journal of Applied Psychology, 1967, 51, 274—277. Burton, J. F., Jr. and J. E. Parker, HInterindustry Variations in Voluntary Labor Mobility, H Industrial and Labor Relations Review, 1969, 22, 199-216. Byham, W. C. , HThe Assessment Center as an Aid in Management Development, H Training and Development Journal, December, 1971. 166 Campbell, D. T. and J. C. Stanley, Experimental and Quasi- Experimental Designs for Research, Chicago: Rand McNally, 1963. Campbell, J. C., M. D. Dunnette, E. E. Lawler, III, and K. W. Weick, Jr., Managerial Behavior, Performance, and Effectiveness, New York: McGraw-Hill Book Co., 1970. Campbell, R. J. , ”Career Development: The Young Business Manager, H in J. R. Hackman, chm. , Longitudinal Approaches to Career Development, Symposium presented at the Annual Meeting of the American Psychological Association, San Francisco, Cal., August, 1968. Capin, R. S. , ”How to Cope with the Staff Man Shortage, H Practical Accountant, March/April, 1969, 18-24. Carlson, R. E., P. W. Thayer, E. C. Mayfield, and D. A. Peterson, ''Improvements in the Selection Interview, H Personnel Journal, 1971, 4, 268-275, 317. Carroll, S. J., Jr. and H. L. Tosi, Jr., Management by Objectives, New York: MacMillan Co. , 1973. Cofer, C. N. and M. H. Appley, Motivation: Theory and Research, New York: John Wiley and Sons, 1964. De Pasquale, J. A. and R. A. Lange, HJob-Hopping and the MBA, H Harvard Business Review, 1971, 49. Downey, H. K., D. Hellriegel, and J. W. Slocum, Jr., "Congruence Between Industrial Needs, Organizational Climate, J ob Satisfaction and Performance, H Academy of Management Journal, 1975, 1, 149-155. DuBrin, A. J. , Fundamentals of Organizational Behavior, New York: Pergamon Press, 1974. Dunnette, M. D., R. D. Arvey and P. A. Banas, HWhy Do They Leave?‘l Personnel Journal, May/June, 1973, 25-39. HEngineers Tailor Made for GM, H Business Week, July 1, 1961, 49. Evan, W. M. , ”Peer-Group Interactions and Organizational Sociali- zation: A Study of Employee Turnover, N American Sociological Review, 1963, 28, 436-440. 167 Evans, M. G. , "Conceptual and Generational Problems in the Measurement of Various Aspects of Job Satisfaction, H Journal of Applied Psychologg, 1969, 53, 93-101. Farris, G. F. , HA Predictive Study of Turnover, H Personnel Psychology, 1971, 24, 311-328. Ferrari, M. R. , "Origins and Careers of American Business, Government and Academic Elites, N California Management Review, 1970, 4, 26-32. Fetyko, D. F. , An Analysis of Needs, Job Satisfaction, and Turn- over in Public Accounting Firms, Unpublished Doctoral Dis- sertation, East Lansing, Michigan: Michigan State University, 1972. Flamholtz, E. , Human Resource Accounting, Enico, California: Dickenson Publishing Co. , Inc. , 1974. Ford, R. N. , Motivation Through the Work Itself, New York: American Management Association, 1969. Fox, D. J., L. K. Diamond, and R. C. Walsh, Satisfying and Stressful Situations in Basic Programs in Nursing Education, New York: Institute of Research and Service in Nursing Education, Teachers' College, Columbia University, 1960. French, W. , The Personnel Mgpagement Process: Human Resources Administration, 3rd Ed. , Boston: Houghton Mifflin Co. , 1 974. Friedlander, F. , HComparative Work Value Systems, H Personnel Psychology, 1965, 18, 1-20. , and N. Marguiles, HMultiple Impacts of Organizational Climate and Industrial Value Systems Upon Job Satisfaction, H Personnel Psychology, 1969, 22, 171-183. Gallaway, L. E. , ”On the Importance of 'Picking One's Parents',H The QuarterlgReview of Economics and Business, 1966, 2, 7—15. Gay, E. G., D. J. Weiss, D. D. Hendel, R. V. Davis and L. H. Lofquist, "Manual for the Minnesota Importance Questionnaire, N Minnesota Studies in Vocational Rehabilitation, Bulletin 54, 1971, Minneapolis: University of Minnesota. 168 Ghiselli, E. E. , Explorations in Managerial Talent, Pacific Palisades, Calif. : Goodyear Publishing Co. , 1971. Gibson, J. L., J. M. Ivancevich and J. H. Donnelly, Jr., Organizations: Structure, Processes, Behavior, Dallas: Business Publications, Inc. , 1973. Golden, R. R. and D. J. Weiss, Relationships of Vocational Satisfaction to the Correspondence of Job Reinforcement and Vocational Needs (Work Adjustment Project, Research Report 11), Minneapolis: University of Minnesota, 1968. Grusky, O. , HCareer Mobility and Organizational Commitment, H Administrative Science Quarterly, 1966, 10, 488-503. Guion, R. M. , HA Note on Organizational Climate, H Organizational Behavior and Human Performance, 1973, 9, 120-125. , "Open a New Window: Validities and Values in Psycho- logical Measurement, H American Psychologist, May, 1974, 287-296. Gutteridge, T. C. and J. C. Ull‘man, HAn Analysis of the Reemploy- ment Aspirations of Displaced Engineers and Scientists, H paper presented at the 34th Annual Meetings of the Academy of Management, August 18-21, Seattle, Washington. Hackamack, L. C. and C. R. Iannone, HSelecting, Recruiting, Retaining Today's College Graduate, H Personnel Journal, 1969, 12, 988-991. Hackman, J. R. and E. E. Lawler, III, HEmployee Reactions to Job Characteristics, H Journal of Applied Psychology, 1971, 55, 259-286. Hackman, J. R., G. Oldha'm, R. Janson and K. Purdy, HA New Strategy for Job Enrichment, H California Management Review, 1975, 4, 57-71. Hall, D. T. , HA Theoretical Model of Career Subidentity Develop- ment in Organizational Settings, H Organizational Behavior and Human Performance, 1971a, 6, 50-76. , HPotential for Career Growth, H Personnel Administrator, May/June, 1971b, 18-30. 169 Hall, D. T. , and F. S. Hall, HWhat's New in Career Management, H Organizational Dynamics, 1976, 5, 17—33. , and E. E. Lawler, III, HJob Characteristics and Pressures and the Organizational Integration of Professionals, H Administrative Science Quarterly, 1970, 3, 271-281. , and E. E. Lawler, III, HUnused Potential in Research and Development Organizations, H Research Management, 1969, 12, 339-354. , and K. E. Nougaim, HAn Exa‘rnination of Maslow's Need Hierarchy in an Organizational Setting, H Organizational Behavior and Human Performance, 1967, 3, 12-35. Hamner, W. C. , HHow to Ruin Motivation With Pay, H Compensation Review, 1975, 7, , HReinforcement Theory and Contingency Management in Organizational Settings, H in H. L. Tosi and W. C. Hamner, Eds. , Organizational Behavior and Managgment: A Contingew Approach, Chicago: St. Clair Press, 1974. Hand, H. H., M. D. Richards and J. W. Slocum, HOrganizational Climate and the Effectiveness of a Human Relations Training Program, H Academy of Management Journal, 1973, 16, 185— 195. Harlow, D. N. , HProfessional Employees' Performance for Upward Mobility, H Journal of Applied Psychology, 1973, 2, 137-141 . Hellriegel, D. and J. W. Slocum, Jr. , HOrganizational Climate: Measures, Research and Contingencies, H Academy of Manag- ment Journal, 1974, 17, 255-280. Herzberg, F. , Work and the Nature of Man, Cleveland: World Book, 1966. , "One More Time: How Do You Motivate Employees? H Harvard Business Review, 1968, 1, 53-62. , B. Mausner, and B. B. Snyderman, The Motivation to Work, New York: Wiley, 1959. Hicks, L. E., HSome Properties of Ipsative, Normative, and Forced- Choice Normative Measures, H Psychological Bulletin, 1970, 74, 167-1840 170 Hinrichs, J. R. , HMeasurement of Reasons for Resignation of Professionals: Questionnaire versus Company and Consultant Exit Interviews, H Journal of Applied Psychologh 1975, 4, 530-532. Holland, J. L. , The Psychology of Vocational Choice, Waltham, Mass.: Blaisdell Press, 1966. Holstrum, .V. L., and L. R. Beech, HSubjective Expected Utility and Career Preferences, H Organizational Behavior and Human Performance, 1973, 10, 201-207. Hrebiniak, L. G. and J. A. Alutto, HPersonal and Role-Related Factors in the Development of Organizational Commitment, H Administrative Science Quarterly, 1972, 17, 555-573. Hulin, C. L. and M. R. Blood, HJob Enlargement, Individual Differences, and Worker Responses, H Psychological Bulletin, 1968, 69, 41-55. Imparato, N. , HRelationship Between Porter's Need Satisfaction Questionnaire and the Job Descriptive Index, H Journal of Applied Psychology, 1972, 56, 397—405. Jacobs, T. O. , Leadership and Exchange in Formal Orgnizations, Alexandria, Virginia: Human Resources Research Organization, 1971 . Jaques, E. , HEquity in Compensation, H Paper delivered at the McKinsey Seminar on Managerial Motivation and Compensation, Tarrytown, N.Y. , 1967, reprinted in H. L. Tosi, R. J. House, and M. D. Dunnette, eds. , Managerial Motivation and Compensation, East Lansing, Michigan: Michigan State University Press, 1972, 170-206. Jennings, E. E., The Mobile Manager, New York: McGraw-Hill, 1967. , Routes to the Executive Suite, New York: McGraw- Hill, 1971. , Unpublished research project, East Lansing, Michigan: Michigan State University, 1974. I! I'll 171 Jeswald, T. A. , HThe Cost of Absenteeism and Turnover in a Large Organization, H in W. C. Hamner and F. L. Schmidt, eds. , Contemporary Problems in Personnel, St. Clair Press, 1974. Johanesson, R. E. , HSome Problems in the Measurement of Organi- zational Climate, H Organizational Behavior and Human Per- formance, 1973, 10, 118-144. Kahn, R. L., D. M. Wolfe, R. P. Quinn, J. D. Snock, and R. A. Rosenthal, Organizational Stress: Studies in Role Conflict and Ambiguity, New York: Wiley, 1964. Katzell, M. E. , HExpectations and Dropouts in Schools of Nursing, H Journal of Applied Psychology, 1968, 52, 154-157. Keys, A., J. Brozek, A. Henschel, O. Mickelsen, and H. Taylor, The Biology of Human Starvation (Vol. 11), Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press, 1950. Kilwein, J. G. , HTurnover as a Function of Cormnunication During Employment Procedure, H Personnel Journal, Oct. , 1962, 458. Kim, J. , Effect of Feedback on Performance and Job Satisfaction in an Organizational Setting, Unpublished Doctoral Dissertation East Lansing, Michigan: Michigan State University, 1974. King, A. G. , HOccupational Choice, Risk Aversion and Wealth,H Industrial and Labor Relations Review, 1974, 4, 586-596. Kirk, R. E. , Experimental Design: Procedures for the Behavioral Sciences, Belmont, Calif.: Brooks/Cole, 1968. Korman, A. K. , HSome Correlates of Satisfaction as Moderated by Self-Esteem, H Paper presented at the Meeting of the Eastern Psychological Association, Boston, 1967. , HToward a Hypothesis of Work Behavior, H Journal of Applied Psychology, 1970, 54, 31-41. , Industrial and Organizational Psychology, Englewood Cliffs, New Jersey: Prentice-Hall, 1971. Kraut, A. I. , HPredicting Turnover of Employees from Measured Job Attitudes, H Organizational Behavior and Human Performance, 1975, 13, 233-243. 172 Kropowski, E. J. , HWhich Ones to Look for Where, H Management Review, June, 1967, 13-17. Kyte, A. , HPersonnel Administration Revisited--In One Company, H Management Record, 1961, 10, 7. LaFollette, W. R. and H. P. Sims, Jr. , HIs Satisfaction Redundant with Organizational Climate? H Organizational Behavior and Human Performance, 1975, 13, 257-278. Lancashire, R. , HOccupational Choice Theory in Occupational Guidance Practice, H in P. B. Warr, ed. , Pchhology at Work, Harmondsworth, England: Penguin Books, Ltd. , 1971, 194- 207. Lawler, E. E., III, Motivation in Work Organizations, Monterey, Calif.: Brooks/Cole Publishing Co. , 1973. , Pay and Oganizational Effectiveness: A Psychological View, New York: McGraw-Hill, 1971. , and D. T. Hall, HThe Relationship of Job Characteristics to Job Involvement, Satisfaction, and Intrinsic Motivation, H Journal of Applied Pchhology, 1970, 54, 305-312. , D. T. Hall and G. R. Oldham, HOrganizational Climate: Relationship to Organizational Structure, Process, and Per- formance, H Organizational Behavior and Human Performance, H 1974, 11, 139—155. , W. J. Kuluk, Jr., J. G. Rhode, and J. E. Sorensen, HJob Choice and Post Decision Dissonance, H Organizational Behavior and Human Performance, 1975, 13, 133-145. , and J. L. Suttle, HA Causal Correlational Test of the Need Hierarchy Concept, H Organizational Behavior and Human Performance, 1972, 7, 265-287. Leathers, P. E. , The Staff Retention Problems in Public Accounting: Background and Questions for Discussion, A report submitted to the Subcommittee on Staff Retention of the Committee on Educa- tion of the American Institute of Certified Public Accountants, January 15, 1970. Lewin, K., T. Dewbo, L. Festinger, and P. Sears, HLevel of Aspiration,H in J. M. V. Hunt, ed., Personality and the Behavior Disorders, New York: Ronald Press, 1944, 333-378. 173 Litwin, G. and R. Stringer, Motivation and Organizational Climate, Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard Business School, 1968. Livingston, J. S. , HPygmalion in Management, H Harvard Business Review, 1969, 47, 81-89. Locke, E. A. , HPerformance Goals as Determinants of Level of Performance and Boredom,H Journal of Applied Psychology, 1967, 51, 120—130. , and J. F. Bryan, HKnowledge of Scores and Goal Dif- ficulty as Determinants of Work Rate, H Journal of Applied Psychology, 1969, 53, 59-65. McClelland, D. C., The Achieving Society, Princeton: Van Nostrand Reingold, 1961. McGregor, D. , The Human Side of Enterprise, New York: McGraw- Hill Book Co. , 1960. Mainstone, L. , The Impact of Selected Individual Difference and Organizational Variables on Expectancy Theory Cognitions and Performance for Salaried Employees, Unpublished Doctoral Dissertation, East Lansing, Michigan: Michigan State University, 1976. Manhardt, P. J. , HJob Orientation of Male and Female College Graduates in Business, H Personnel Psychology, 1972, 25, 361-368. March, J. G. and H. A. Simon, Organizations, New York: Wiley, 1958. Margeson, A. H. , HCollege Graduates: How To Keep Them Once You've Got Them, H Management Review, 1967, 6, 18-22. Marion, B. W. and S. E. Trieb, HJob Orientation-—A Factor in Employee Performance and Turnover, H Personnel Journal, October, 1969, 799-804. Maslow, A. H. , HA Theory of Human Motivation, H Psycholological Review, 1935, 50, 370-396. , Motivation and Personality, New York: Harper and Row 1954; Motivation and Personality (Second Edition), New York: Harper and Row, 1970. 174 Meyer, H. , and S. Cuomo, Who Leaves? A Study of Background Characteristics of Engineers Associated with Turnover, Crotonville, New York: General Electric Co. , Behavioral Science Research, 1962. Miller, D. C. and W. H. Form, Industrial Sociology, New York: Harper and Row, 1964. Miller, G. A. and L. W. Wager, HAdult Socialization, Organiza- tional Structure, and Role Orientations, H Administrative Science Quarterly, 1971, 2, 151—163. Miner, J. B. , The Human Constraint, Washington, D. C.: The Bureau of National Affairs, 1 97 4. Mitchell, T. R. and B. W. Knudsen, HInstrumentality Theory of Predictions of Students' Attitudes Toward Business and Their Choice of Business as an Occupation, H AcademLof Manage- ment Journal, 1973, 1, 41-52. Morgan, J. S. , HCollege Graduates: What They Want, What They Have To Offer, H Management Review, 1967, 6, 4-12. Morse, J. and J. Lorsch, HBeyond Theory Y, H Harvard Business Review, 1970, 48, 61-68. Morse, N. C. and R. Weiss, HThe Function and Meaning of Work and The Job, H American Sociological Review, 1955, 20, 191- 198. Murray, H. A., Explorations in Personality, New York: Oxford University Press, 1938. Myers, M. S. , Every Employee a Manager, New York: McGraw— Hill Book Co. , 1970. , and S. S. Myers, HToward Understanding the Changing Work Ethic, H California Management Review, 1974, 3, 7-19. Nie, N. H., C. H. Hull, J. G. Jenkins, K. Steinbrenner, and D. H. Bent, Statistical Package for the Social Sciences (second edition), New York: McGraw—Hill Book Co. , 1975. 175 Nord, W. R. , HBeyond the Teaching Machine: The Neglected Area of Operant Conditioning in the Theory and Practice of Manage- ment, H Organizational Behavior and Human Performance, 1969, 4, 375-401. Nunnally, J. C., Pflchometric Theory, New York: McGraw-Hill, 1967. Ondrack, D. A. , HAttitudes Toward Authority, H Personnel Adminis- tration, May-June, 1971, 8-17. , HEmerging Occupational Values: A Review and Some Findings, H Academy of Management Journal, 1973, 3, 423—432. Pares, S. H. , HFactors Which Influence Careers at General Electric, H General Electric, Behavioral Research Service, 1966. Parsons, F., ChoosingA Vocation, Boston: Houghton Mifflin, 1909. Patten, T. H. , Jr. , HThe College Graduate Trainee: Behavioral Science Perspectives on Management's Prime Personnel Problem,H Personnel Journal, August, 1969, 48, 581-592. Pearson, A. E. , HSales Power Through Planned Careers, H Harvard Business Review, 1966, 44, 105. Pennings, J. M. , HWork Value Systems of White-Collar Workers, H Administrative Science Quarterly, 1970, 15, 397-405. HPlotting a Route to the Top, H Business Week, October 12, 1974, 127-130+. Porter, L. W. , HJob Attitudes in Management: Perceived Deficiencies in Need Fulfillment as a Function of Job Level, H Journal of Applied Psychology, 1962, 6, 375-384. , HJob Attitudes in Management: Perceived Importance of Needs as a Function of Job Level, H Journal of Applied Psychology, 1963, 2, 141-148. , Oganizational Patterns of Mangerial Job Attitudes, New York: American Foundation for Management Research, 1964. , and E. E. Lawler, III, Managerial Attitudes and Perfor- mance, Homewood, Illinois: Irwin, 1968. 176 , E. E. Lawler, III, and J. R. Hackman, Behavior In Organizations, New York: McGraw—Hill Book Co., 1975. , and R. M. Steers, HOrganizational, Work and Personal Factors in Employee Turnover and Absenteeism, H Psychology Bulletin, 1973, 2, 151-176. , J. Van Meanen, F. Yeager, W. J. Crampon, HContinuous Monitoring of Employees' Motivational Attitudes During the Initial Employment Period, H Technical Repprt No. 4, ONR Contract NR 151—315, Irvine, California: University of California, 1971. Presthus, R. , The Organizational Society, New York: Vintage Books, 1965. Price, K. F., quoted in Tosi, H. L. and H. Sims, Jr. , HPerceptual Correlates of Managerial Turnover, H Journal of Business Research (forthcoming, 1977). Pritchard, R. , and B. Karasick, HThe Effects of Organizational Climate on Managerial Job Performance and Job Satisfaction, H Organization Behavior and Human Performance, 1973, 9, 110-119. Pryor, M. W. , and B. M. Bass, HSome Effects of Feedback on Behavior in Groups, H Technical Report 1 3, Contract N70NR 35609, Baton Rouge, Louisiana: Louisiana State University, 1957. Ronan, W. W. , HA Study of and Some Concepts Concerning Labor Turnover, H Occupational Psychology, 1967, 41, 193-202. Ross, I. E. and A. R. Zander, HNeed Satisfaction and Employee Turnover,H Personnel Psychology, 1957, 10, 327-338. Salek, S. D., J. L. Lee, and E. P. Prien, HWhy Nurses Leave Their Jobs-~An Analysis of Female Turnover, H Personnel Administration, January/February, 1965, 25-28. Schein, E. H. , HManagement Development as a Process of Influence, H Industrial Management Review, May, 1961, 59-77. , "How to Break in the College Graduate, H Harvard Business Review, 1964, 42, 68-76. 177 , HAttitude Change During Management Education: A Study of Organizational Influences on Student Attitudes, H Adminis- trative Science Quarterly, 1967, 11, 601—628. , "Organizational Socialization and the Process of Management, Industrial Management Review, Winter, 1968, 1 ~16 . Schmidt, F. L. , HImplications of a Measurement Problem for Expectancy Theory Research, H Organizational Behavior and Human Performance, 1973, 10, 243-251. Schneider, B. , HThe Perceived Environment: Organizational Climate, H Technical Report 2, College Park, Maryland: University of Maryland, Department of Psychology, June, 1 973. , HOrganizational Climate: Individual Differences and Organizational Realities Revisited,H Journal of Applied Psychology, 1975, 4, 459-465. , and C. Bartlett, HIndividual Differences and Organiza— tional Climate: I. The Research Plan and Questionnaire Development, H Personnel Psychology, 1968, 21, 323-334. , and D. T. Hall, HToward Specifying the Concept of Work Climate: A Study of Roman Catholic Diocesan Priests, H Journal of Applied Psychology, 1972, 56, 447-455. , and R. A. Snyder, HSome Relationships Between Job Satisfaction and Organizational Climate, H Journal of Applied Psychology, 1975, 3, 318-328. Schuh, A. J. , HThe Predictability of Employee Tenure: A Review of the Literature, H Personnel Psychology, Summer, 1967, 20, 133-152. Schwab, D. P. and L. L. Cummings, HTheories of Performance and Satisfaction: A Review,H Industrial Relations, 1970, 4, 408- 430. , and L. D. Dyer, HTurnover as a Function of Perceived Ease and Desirability: A Largely Unsuccessful Test of the March and Simon Participation Model, H paper presented at the 34th Annual Meetings of the Academy of Management, August 18-21, 1974, Seattle, Washington. 178 Scott, R. D. , HJob Expectancy-~An Important Factor in Labor Turnover, H Personnel Journal, 1972, 51, 360-363. Seiler, D. A. , HJob Needs of the Newly Hired Professional, H Personnel Journal, 1970, 11, 923-925. Sheard, J. L. , HIntrasubject Prediction of Preferences for Organiza- tional Types, H Journal of Applied Psychology, 1970, 54, 248- 252. Shruger, J. S. and S. E. Rosenberg, HSelf-Esteem and the Effects of Success and Failure Feedback on Performance, H Journal of Personality, 1970, 38, 404-417. Silverman, I. , HSelf-Esteem and Differential Responsiveness to Success and Failure, H Journal of Abnormal and Social Psychology, 1964, 69, 115-119. Simons, H. , Education for Accountancy, Los Angeles: University of California, Bureau of Business and Economic Research, 1960. Skinner, B. F. , Contingencies of Reinforcement, New York: Appleton-Century Crofts, 1969. Slater, P. , The Pursuit of Loneliness: American Culture at the Breaking Point, Boston: Beacon Press, 1970. Smith, P. C. , HThe Development of a Method of Measuring Job Satisfaction: The Cornell Studies, H in E. A. Fleishman and A. R. Bass, eds. , Studies in Personnel and Individual Psychology, Homewood, Illinois: Dorsey Press, 1974, 272-279. Smith, P. C., L. M. Kendall, and C. L. Hulin, The Measurement of Satisfaction in Work and Retirement, Chicago: Rand McNally and Co. , 1969. Steers, R. M. and L. W. Porter, Motivation and Work Behavior, New York: McGraw-Hill, 1975. Stoikov, B. and R. L. Raimon, HDeterminants of Differences in the Quit Rate Among Industries, H American Economic Review, 1968, 58, 1283-1298. 179 Storey, R. , The Contingency Theory of Organizations: An Examina- tion of the Relationships of Climate and Personality with Per- formance and Satisfaction in a Stable Environment, Unpublished Doctoral Dissertation, East Lansing, Michigan: Michigan State University, 1974. Stotland, E. , HThe Effects of Group Expectations and Self- Esteem Upon Self-Evaluation, H Journal of Abnormal and Social Psy— chology, 1957, 54, 55-63. Strong, E. K. , Jr. , Vocational Interests of Men and Women, Stan- ford, California: Stanford University Press, 1943. , Vocational Interests 18 Years After College, Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press, 1955. Super, D., The Psychology of Careers, New York: Harper, 1957. Super, E. E. and M. J. Bohn, Occupational Psychology, Belmont, California: Wadsworth, 1970. Taguiri, R. , ”Comments on Organizational Climate, H paper presented at a Conference on Organizational Climate, Foundation for Research on Human Behavior, Ann Arbor, Michigan, March, 1966. Taylor, J. C. and D. G. Bowers, Survey of Organizations: A_ Machine Scored Standardized Instrument, Ann Arbor, Michigan: Institute for Social Research, University of Michigan, 1972, 61 ~74. Tingey, S. , and G. Inskeep, ”Job Satisfaction and Mobility Among Scientific and Engineering Personnel, H Journal of College Placement, 1974, 34, 58—64. Tolman, E. C. , HPrinciples of Purposive Behavior, H in Koch, S. , ed. , Psychology: A Study of Science, 2nd ed. , New York: MCGraw-Hill, 1959, 92-157. Tosi, H. L. and H. Sims, Jr., HPerceptual Correlates of Managerial Turnover, H Journal of Business Research (forthcoming, 1977). Turner, A. N. and P. R. Lawrence, Industrial Jobs and the Worker: An Investigation of Response to Task Attributes, Boston: Harvard University of Press, 1965. 180 Vroom, V. H., Work and Motivation, New York: Wiley, 1964. , HOrganizational Choice: A Study of Pre and Post Decision Processes, H Organizational Behavior and Human Performance, 1966, 1, 212-225. , and E. L. Deci, HThe Stability of Post-Decision Dis- sonance: A Follow-Up Study of the Job Attitudes of Business School Graduates, H Organizational Behavior and Human Per- formance, 1971, 6, 36-49. Wanous, J. P. , An Experimental Test of Job Attraction Theory in an Organizational Setting, Unpublished Doctoral Dissertation, Yale University, 1972. ' , HIndustrial Differences and Reactions to Job Character- istics, H Journal of Applied Psychology, 1974, 59, 616-622. , HOrganizational Entry: The Transition from Outsider to Newcomer to Insider, H Unpublished Working Paper No. 75-14, New York University, 1975a. , HTell It Like It Is in Realistic Job Previews, H Personnel, July/August, 1975b, 50-60. , HOrganizational Entry: Newcomers Moving from Outside to Inside, H Psychological Bulletin (forthcoming, 1977). Warner, W. L. and J. C. Abbegglen, Occupational Mobility in American Business and Industry, Minneapolis: The University of Minnesota Press, 1955. Webber, R. A. , HCareer Problems of Young Managers, H California Management Review, Summer, 1976, 18, 19-33. Weitz, J. , HJob Expectancy and Survival, H Journal of Applied Psychology, 1956, 40, 245. , J. Antoinetti, and S. R. Wallace, HThe Effect of Home Office Contact in Sales Performance, H Personnel Psycholcgy, 1954, 7, 381-384. , and R. C. Nuckols, "Job Satisfaction and Job Survival, H Journal of Applied Psychology, 1955, 39, 294. 181 White, W. S. , HWhat Can Management Do About Professional Personnel Turnover, H Pager Trade Journal, 1970, 26, 62-64. Winer, B. J. , Statistical Principles in Experimental Design, New York: McGraw-Hill, 1962. Wolfe, A. V. , Thirst: Physiology of the Urge to Drink and Problems of Lack of Water, Springfield, Illinois: Charles C. Thomas, 1958. Yankelovich, D. , HAngry Workers, Happy Grads: Turbulence in the Working World, H Psychology Today, 1974a, 8, 81 -87. , ”The Meaning of Work, H in J. M. Rosow, ed. , The Worker and the Job, Englewood Cliffs, New Jersey: Prentice- Hall, 1974b. , and R. Clark, HCollege and Non-College Youth Values, H Change, 1974, 7, 45-46, 64. Zajonc, R. B. , ”The Effects of Feedback and Group Task Difficulty on Industrial and Group Performance, H Technical Report 15, Contract NONR 1224 (34), Ann Arbor, Michigan: University of Michigan, 1961. WWWlllHlllllllllflllillWNWHIHIIIIHIWHII