Citation
Work satisfaction and group differences

Material Information

Title:
Work satisfaction and group differences full-time and part-time faculty in community colleges
Portion of title:
Full-time and part-time faculty in community colleges
Creator:
Bowman, Linda Speier
Publication Date:
Language:
English
Physical Description:
xi, 225 leaves : illustrations, forms ; 29 cm

Thesis/Dissertation Information

Degree:
Doctorate ( Doctor of Philosophy)
Degree Grantor:
University of Colorado Denver
Degree Divisions:
School of Public Affairs, CU Denver
Degree Disciplines:
Public Administration
Committee Chair:
Gage, Robert
Committee Members:
Boyd, Kathy
Buechner, John C.
deLeon, Linda
Smith, Gregory P.
Clifton, Robert

Subjects

Subjects / Keywords:
Community colleges -- Faculty -- Colorado ( lcsh )
College teachers -- Job satisfaction -- Colorado ( lcsh )
Part-time employment -- Colorado ( lcsh )
College teachers -- Job satisfaction ( fast )
Community colleges -- Faculty ( fast )
Part-time employment ( fast )
Colorado ( fast )
Genre:
bibliography ( marcgt )
theses ( marcgt )
non-fiction ( marcgt )

Notes

Bibliography:
Includes bibliographical references (leaves 215-225).
General Note:
Submitted in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree, Doctor of Philosophy, Public Administration.
General Note:
School of Public Affairs
Statement of Responsibility:
by Linda Speier Bowman.

Record Information

Source Institution:
University of Colorado Denver
Holding Location:
Auraria Library
Rights Management:
All applicable rights reserved by the source institution and holding location.
Resource Identifier:
34233600 ( OCLC )
ocm34233600
Classification:
LD1190.P86 1995d .B69 ( lcc )

Downloads

This item has the following downloads:


Full Text
WORK SATISFACTION AND GROUP DIFFERENCES:
FULL-TIME AND PART-TIME FACULTY IN COMMUNITY COLLEGES
by
Linda Speier Bowman
B.A., University of South Alabama, 1973
M.A., University of New Orleans, 1981
M.P.A., University of Colorado at Denver, 1992
A thesis submitted to the
Faculty of the Graduate School of the
University of Colorado at Denver
in partial fulfillment
of the requirements for the degree of
Doctor of Philosophy
Public Administration
1995


1995 by Linda Speier Bowman
All rights reserved.


i
This Thesis for the Doctor of Philosophy
degree by
Linda Speier Bowman
has been approved for the
Graduate School of Public Affairs
Ann! h, /ff-S
Date


Bowman, Linda Speier (Ph.D., Public Administration)
Work Satisfaction and Group Differences: Full-Time and
Part-Time Faculty in Community Colleges
Thesis directed by Professor Robert Gage
ABSTRACT
Research on work satisfaction generally has focused on
the full-time worker. The role of the part-time worker is
emerging in significance as organizational membership is
redefined. This research was designed to contribute to the
knowledge base on work satisfaction by testing for group
differences among full- and part-time faculty in overall
work satisfaction, in the importance of work satisfaction
variables, and in work values, using a theoretical
construct posited by Mottaz in 1985.
Full- and part-time faculty from four community
colleges were surveyed and interviewed. Faculty were asked
to self-classify according to a taxonomy of faculty
published by Biles and Tuckman in 1986. The objectives were
to examine work satisfaction and group differences; to
ascertain the relative importance of work satisfaction
factors as they contribute to overall work satisfaction; to
iv


explore the relationships between work values and
satisfaction; and to test the theoretical framework that
ascribes satisfaction factors to three clusters, intrinsic
(task autonomy, task involvement, and task significance),
extrinsic/organizational (general working conditions,
promotion, and salary), and extrinsic/social (co-workers
and supervisors). Two additional work satisfaction
variables, overall work satisfaction and organizational
commitment, were measured.
The findings revealed that community college faculty
were generally satisfied with and committed to their work.
Community college faculty differed little in their levels
of overall work satisfaction and organizational commitment,
in the role that contributing variables play in overall
satisfaction, and in their values. However, where
significant differences existed, full-time faculty were
less satisfied than part-time faculty. While satisfaction
levels for intrinsic and extrinsic/social factors were
generally high, satisfaction with extrinsic/organizational
factors was generally low.
Weak relationships were discovered between overall
satisfaction and values, and overall satisfaction and
extrinsic/organizational variables. Commitment and
involvement emerged as the most significant predictors of
v


1
overall work satisfaction. The 1985 Mottaz theoretical
constructs, while not refuted, were not wholly supported.
This abstract accurately represents the content of the
candidates thesis. I recommend its publication.
Signed
vi


DEDICATION
The journey towards a goal of great magnitude may be
solitary. However, once in a great while, that journey
may be shared with those who are closest.
This thesis is dedicated to my family, whose
emotional support, patience, belief, and love enabled me
to attain a goal for which I had longed for two decades.
To Rob, whose love of the written and spoken word
enriched his understanding of this process and deepened
his pride in what I was doing.
To Rachel, who continually supported me, even giving
up a part of her room for the dissertation office and
tolerating the lights shining behind the curtain at four
o'clock in the morning.
To T.C., who countless mornings before school would
come down to the dissertation office to read, keeping me
company and sharing his stories.
To my parents, John and Rosemary Speier, who
instilled in me the love of learning, respect for
education, and drive to achieve my goals.
And to my husband, Roger, my friend, my soulmate, my
partner, whose work is reflected in the data tables, in
the format, in the details of this document, and whose
love and incredible support are reflected in the
countless hours spent working together in the attainment
of this goal.
vii


CONTENTS
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS ................................. xi
CHAPTER
1. INTRODUCTION ............................... 1
The Importance of Adjunct Faculty
to Fulfilling the Community
College Mission .......................... 3
Nature of the Current Literature
on Motivation, Satisfaction,
and Related Variables .................... 6
The Juxtaposition of the Part-time
Faculty Member and the Community
College Culture .......................... 7
Part-time Employees ................. 8
Community Colleges ................. 10
Part-time Faculty in
Community Colleges ................. 16
Research Objectives ..................... 26
Limitations of the Study................. 27
Significance of the Study................ 27
2. LITERATURE REVIEW ........................... 30
Untangling the Knot: Definitional
Clarification of the Dependent
Variables................................ 32
Selected Typologies for Organizing
the Literature........................... 40
The Foundation: Herzberg ................ 49
viii


Need/Content Approaches ............. 49
Seeking to Explain the
Relationships Among Variables:
Expectancy/Process Theories ........... 66
From a Variables Perspective................ 76
Motivation as Dependent Variable . 77
Commitment as Dependent Variable . 78
Person-Organization Fit as
Dependent Variable .................... 86
Job Selection as Dependent Variable . 89
Work Satisfaction as Dependent
Variable............................... 91
Conclusion ....... .................... 99
3. RESEARCH DESIGN.................................101
General Method ............................ 101
Specific Procedures .................. 103
Quantitative Methodology ............. 104
Qualitative Methodology .............. ill
Research Questions ........................ 113
4. FINDINGS........................................115
Introduction .............................. 115
Work Satisfaction and Group Differences . 116
Relationships Among the Variables .... 138
The Clustering of Variables.................144
Values and Group Differences .............. 154
The Relationship Between Values and
Work Satisfaction ...... .................. 161
ix


5. CONCLUSIONS...................................167
Introduction .............................. 167
Work Satisfaction and Group Differences . 168
Full- and Part-time Differences . . 168
Differences Among Faculty Groups . 170
The Clustering of Variables ................173
Values and Group Differences .............. 175
Full- and Part-time Differences . . 175
Differences Among Faculty Groups . 177
The Relationship between Values and
Satisfaction .............................. 178
Satisfaction and Commitment ............... 180
Conclusions and Connections to Earlier
Research....................................182
Limitations of This Study...................183
Recommendations for Further Research ... 184
Summary and Implications for Practice . 185
APPENDIX
A. SURVEY AND COVER LETTERS....................189
B. CORRELATION MATRICES ...................... 201
LIST OF SOURCES CONSULTED............................215
X


ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
There are many people who contributed to the
completion of this thesis and to whom I am indebted. I
cannot name every one of them.
I especially want to thank the members of my
committee. My chair, Dr. Bob Gage, provided both
professional guidance and unwavering encouragement. The
committee members, Dr. Kathy Boyd, Dr. John Buechner, Dr.
Linda deLeon, and Dr. Gregory P. Smith, shared their time
and expertise, responding to my needs and offering
invaluable suggestions. Thanks to Dr. Xing Cheng, who
provided statistical support, working with me and with
Dr. Smith to challenge the data.
I want to thank the members of the staff of the
Colorado Community College and Occupational Education
System, who provided financial support for this research.
I would like to particularly thank Dr. Jerry Wartgow, Mr.
Rich Allen, Mr. Clay Whitlow, and Dr. Richard Voorhees.
Thanks go to my friends and colleagues at Red Rocks
Community College. I especially want to thank Dr. Dorothy
Horrell and Dr. Merna Saliman, who tolerated, cajoled,
encouraged, and accommodated me during this journey. And
thanks to my colleagues and friends at the college, who
listened and who praised and who shared their wisdom.
Finally, I want to thank all those who participated
in the research, who completed the survey or who agreed
to be interviewed, for sharing thoughts fundamental to
their work and for demonstrating the beauty of the
learning process.
xi


CHAPTER ONE
A basic approach to study the complexities of any
organization is to understand the experience of
those who comprise and carry out its processes
(Seidman 1985, 14).
INTRODUCTION
This thesis has been designed to probe the
complexities of work satisfaction, examining group
differences for faculty in community colleges; to explore
the relationships among work satisfaction variables,
based upon the work satisfaction theoretical constructs
posited by Mottaz (1985); and to further the
understanding of the organizational role of community
college faculty in order to inform policy and
administrative decision-making.
The concept of work satisfaction is fascinating in
its complexity, diversity of approaches, and
contextuality. Often loosely woven beneath the rubric of
motivation, and positioned uneasily among the concepts of
commitment, values, involvement, and expectations, work
satisfaction emerges as a comparative dimension, an
orientation that in effect measures perceptions against
1


values. According to Mottaz (1985), work satisfaction is
based upon a "congruency between the worker's perception
of the work situation. . and his/her work values
regarding those same dimensions" (366). Mottaz posits a
theoretical framework for work satisfaction as a three-
factor construct; intrinsic variables are those derived
from the content of the task itself; extrinsic/
organizational variables are provided by the organization
for the purpose of facilitating or motivating task
performance; extrinsic/social variables represent
interactions with others on the job (Mottaz 1985, 366).
Many studies have been conducted that explore the
influence of demographic variables, such as gender, age,
and ethnicity, on work satisfaction. Generally, research
has demonstrated that such variables have little
significance in the worker's assessment of satisfaction.
Other studies have examined the satisfaction of different
occupational groups, and have demonstrated some
congruency of the effects of work satisfaction variables.
Further research is needed to probe the complexities of
satisfaction, the relative importance of identified
factors, and the interaction of values and measures of
satisfaction. A significant gap exists in the literature:
part-time workers, a growing segment of the workforce,
2


have been given scant attention. Specifically, research
is needed to ascertain if the same or different factors
predict work satisfaction fo
workers. It is particularly interesting to focus on part-
time faculty for four major reasons: (1) the studies on
work satisfaction have been by-and-large limited to full-
time employee groups; (2) part-time faculty are inclusive
of a broad spectrum of workers, from hopeful full-timers
to the semi-retired; (3) the part-time faculty is a
professional population that can be compared to full-time
professionals; and (4) from a practical standpoint, a
significant amount of the instruction for most
institutions of higher education is entrusted to the
part-time faculty.
The Importance of Adjunct Faculty
to Fulfilling the Community College Mission
The adjunct faculty member occupies a role
characterized by dichotomies: as one highly educated, but
not highly paid; trusted with curriculum and students,
but often not well integrated into the organization;
committed to the profession, but sometimes excluded from
the unit; diverse in background and needs, but often
eager to be integrated into the organization. This
complexity is juxtaposed against the complexity of the
3


community college, where teaching supersedes research,
although academic credentials are essential; where
occupational education struggles to be integrated with
and to be respected by academic education; where open
access competes with the inherent importance of
successful outcomes. What emerges is an ambiguous subject
in an ambiguous setting, but a clear practical as well as
theoretical need for understanding of the organizational
implications of work satisfaction.
Anecdotally, the part-time faculty in community
colleges are variously portrayed as discontented,
frustrated, excluded, indifferent, nonparticipatory,
exploited, essential, flexible, committed, professional,
and more. Increasingly, in Colorado, part-time faculty
members are joining together, forging informal
associations on campus to champion part-time issues,
vying for representation in faculty governance bodies,
and seeking legislative attention. The groups are meeting
with mixed results, struggling to have adequate
participation, to sort out the diverse needs of the
membership, and to have a voice in institutional and
professional issues. Increasing percentages of courses
are delivered by part-time instructors, though precise
numbers are elusive because numbers include full-time
4


faculty teaching overloads. Some see these increasing
percentages as an academic crisis, while others point to
the fiscal realities that to some extent must drive
employment decision-making and to inconclusive data
regarding differences in quality of instruction.
It is generally agreed that part-time faculty in
community colleges enable the institutions to fulfill
their missions to be democratic, responsive, and broadly
accessible. The employment of part-time faculty allows a
temporary infusion of narrow expertise, the rapid
response to a community employment need, the opportunity
to pull a new technology into the curriculum, and the
ability to respond to enrollment surges.
The statistics describing the pervasiveness of the
institutional dependence on part-time faculty are often
elusive. A 1994 request to the Colorado Commission on
Higher Education met with mixed results, with numbers of
part-time faculty for community colleges incorrect and
incomplete. According to the National Center for
Education Statistics (1989), 35 to 38 percent of all
faculty members in higher education are part-time, and
this number does not include instruction delivered by
graduate teaching assistants in universities. In public
two-year institutions, over 50 percent of faculty are
5


part-time.
With the great amount of instruction delivered by
part-time faculty, it is important to understand their
level of work satisfaction, to identify the sources of
satisfaction and dissatisfaction, and to be able to
predict what initiatives merit an allocation of scarce
resources. It is necessary to examine faculty groups and
to discover group differences if they exist. How do the
groups differ as to, for example, demographics and
values, as well as to satisfaction? Are there basic
tenets of work satisfaction that are the same for all
groups, full- and part-time? Where there are
differences, do these differences dictate a bifurcated
institutional policy?
Nature of the Current Literature
on Motivation. Satisfaction, and Related Variables
The literature on work satisfaction reveals a
complexity that is somewhat obscured by definitional
confusion. At times the term satisfaction is used
interchangeably with motivation. Elsewhere, it is loosely
associated with but not clearly distinguished from
commitment, involvement, values, and expectations.
Clearly, one must make an attempt at discrete definition
of terms in order to make sense of the status of the
6


research. The following, drawn from a variety of sources
which will be examined in chapter two, will serve as
working definitions for the purposes of this study:
Work satisfaction: an orientation toward work
based upon the interaction between one's values
and one's perceived work situation;
Motivation: a broad psychological construct for
the stimuli that initiate responses or
behaviors. In an organizational context,
motivation may be inferred based upon
consequent activities or behaviors;
Commitment: an affective response to the whole
organization, an exchange relationship;
Involvement: the direction and intensity of the
worker's attachment to the organization;
Expectations: what a worker believes he or she
will receive from an organization in exchange
for work behaviors; and
Values: the relative importance to the worker
of factors associated with the organizational
experience.
The Juxtaposition of the Part-time Faculty Member
and the Community College Culture
The following examination of work satisfaction is
enriched by two contextual layers: the issues of part-
time employment for the faculty member in higher
education, and the diversity of the community college
setting.
7


Part-time Employees
In general, one finds gaps in the literature on
part-time employees, particularly those in public
employment. Jackofsky, Salter, and Peters (1986)
investigated turnover among part-time employees. They
noted that between 1965 and 1980, the "number of
employees who chose [emphasis added] to work part-time
almost doubled, and the demand for part-time work
continues to increase" (41). They argued that
organizations must design new management strategies, as
part-time workers differ from full-time in more than just
hours worked. They addressed what they termed "partial
inclusion":
Part-time and full-time workers are different
because organizations treat them differently.
Part-time employees are less involved in the
more subtle organizational politics and
workings than are full-time employees, and
part-time employees do not receive the same
benefits that full-time employees receive (42).
The context of part-time employment offers another
layer necessary for critical examination. The assumptions
upon which Jackofsky et al. built their conclusions,
i.e., that workers choose to work part time, may not fit
the part-time workers who find themselves unable to
secure full-time employment. The "part-time employment as
only in-field option" is particularly salient to higher
8


education, where often hundreds of well-credentialed
applicants will apply for a single advertised faculty
position.
Turner and Phillips (1981) concentrated upon the
increasing numbers of part-time faculty in higher
education. While it is readily acknowledged and widely
known that part-time faculty outnumber full-time faculty
in community colleges, in fact, if universities include
graduate teaching assistants as part-time faculty, then
universities also allocate a significant proportion of
teaching to part-time ranks. According to Turner and
Phillips:
Such data emphasize the great importance of
this class of employees to every post-secondary
institution and should underscore the necessity
of taking a careful look at this class of
employees. . (x-xi).
Interestingly, part-time is not the same as
temporary, for, according to the American Association of
University Professors (1993), on the average part-time
faculty members spend 6.5 years with the same institution
(41). The Association identified the conditions for part-
timers that hinder a professional quality of work as lack
of office space or basic equipment; ineligibility for
research or travel funds; lack of review processes;
absence of incentives or rewards for performance; and
9


lack of input to governance structures (43). This is
juxtaposed against the importance of employee
satisfaction. As Baird, Hartnett, and Associates (1980)
noted, "important aspects of a college's environment are
the perceptions, expectations, satisfactions, and
dissatisfactions of the people who make up the college
community" (2).
Community Colleges
The examination of this context for work
satisfaction requires an understanding of the unique
characteristics of the community college and its place in
higher education. The community college is a twentieth
century phenomenon, with marked growth in the 1960s, a
product of several social forces: the need for workers to
be trained for expanding industries; the lengthened
period of adolescence; and the drive for social equality
(Cohen and Brawer 1989, l). Higher education has been and
continues to be seen as a vehicle for solving societal
problems, and community colleges, specific to their open-
access mission, clearly have been asked to fulfill that
role.
As a society we have looked to the schools for
racial integration. . The schools are
expected to solve problems of unemployment by
preparing students for jobs. . The list
10


could be extended to show that the
responsibility for doing something about drug
abuse, alcoholism, teenage pregnancy,
inequitable incomes, and other individual and
societal ills has been assigned to the schools
soon after the problems were identified" (Cohen
and Brawer 1989, 2).
Vaughn and Associates (1983) identified the
challenges of the community college as "provider of
vocational, collegiate, and adult education to the
students who come to it from virtually all segments of
society" (xv). They further identified the community
college "as the single institution capable of salvaging
opportunity for the large numbers of Americans whose
academic and occupational skills have prepared them
neither to participate in society nor to achieve any
measure of success" (241). The open-access philosophy
contributes to the complex culture of the community
college.
This backdrop for faculty issues is particularly
relevant to the examination of work satisfaction.
According to Roueche, Baker, and Rose (1989):
No institution of higher education has ever
undertaken a more challenging and difficult
educational mission than the open-door college.
The open-admissions policy admits the most
heterogeneous and diverse student body to be
found in any educational setting in the world.
Providing quality educational programs and
excellent instruction to students who need the
most structured support, while at the same time
maintaining strong academic programs for well-
11


qualified students and responding effectively
to the needs of local communities, is the
leadership challenge of the 1990's for
community college executives (40).
The complexity of mission and open-access philosophy
pose a difficult scenario for the faculty in the
community college. According to Cheney (1990), the
community college mission is a "countertrend to
academia's current culture," where community colleges'
strong teaching mission is juxtaposed against a system of
higher education "that does not place a high value on
teaching" and where "community colleges rank low in
prestige" and "command fewer resources" (30).
Community colleges are the embodiment of
democratized education, where, as Hollinshead wrote in
1936, the college is "'meeting community needs, providing
adult education and educational, recreational, and
vocational activities and placing its cultural facilities
at the disposal of the community"' (Cohen and Brawer
1989, 16). While the community college vision has in some
sense shifted, with emphasis in the 1990s placed more on
academic preparation as the vocational aspects recede in
demand by students, nevertheless the community college
continues to strive to fulfill the breadth of mission
articulated in the 1930s. As Cohen and Brawer (1989) put
it:
12


Overall, the community colleges have suffered
less from goal displacement than have most
other higher education institutions. They had
less to displace; their goals were to serve the
people with whatever the people wanted (22-23).
Vaughn and Associates (1983) described the community
colleges as social synthesizers, as mirrors to broad
movements in society:
[The community college] has encompassed a
number of social, political, economic, and
educational movements within its comprehensive
philosophy and shaped them into a profound
statement about American democracy. The results
probably qualify the development of the
nation's community colleges to be viewed as a
'movement'" (1).
The role of the community college manifests in some
conflict for all community college faculty, full- and
part-time. According to Seidman (1985), "the conditions
of community college teaching reflect an absence of
shared assumptions about its intellectual nature" (253).
Seidman identified six issues facing community college
faculty: the conflict between vocational and liberal
education; powerlessness in the face of hierarchical
arrangements; isolation from colleagues; students' lack
of basic skills; pressures for accessibility; and the
double edge of student-centeredness, which exerts
pressure on faculty to nurture student success and which
is balanced against academic standards. Seidman believes
that these conditions result in the submersion of common
13


experiences, to the detriment of collegiality. Faculty
become increasingly divorced from their disciplines:
I sense now that I am further and further away
from the things that I studied in college and
graduate school. I think less and less about
them and teach them less and less (113).
Seidman saw consequences from separating research from
teaching, which
plague their teaching efforts, affect their
aspirations and sense of themselves, undermine
their intellectual energy, and conflict with a
major source of satisfaction and renewal that
should be available to all teachers as part of
their work (253).
Seidman concluded that the conflict between high
standards and underprepared students and the conflict
among competing expectations rest against a context of
"fragmented curricula, inequitable collegial relations,
and low status in the hierarchy of higher education"
(270).
Another piece of this complex puzzle has to do with
the disciplinary identification of faculty in community
colleges. According to Cohen and Brawer (1989), an
argument can be made that allegiance to a profession, and
the inherent cosmopolitanism it engenders, ill suits a
community-centered institution. They believe that a
professionalized community college faculty need not
follow the university model that has encouraged interest
14


in research, scholarship, and academic disciplinary
concerns at the expense of teaching (87).
These ideas provoke discussions of the possible
conflict between the scholarly preparation of the faculty
at community colleges and the realities of the role of
the faculty. The discipline-oriented training gives way
to a different focus:
Community college instructors rarely write for
publication, but when they do, and when they
speak at conferences or are polled in surveys,
they often reveal persistent concerns about
their workplace (Cohen and Brawer 1989, 65).
Differences among the disciplines surface as
salient. According to Seidman (1985), faculty from
traditional disciplines are most likely to feel out of
place. McGrath and Spear (1991) described the problem as
the "phenomenon of the practitioners' culturewhich
plays so strongly against rigorous analysis and public
debate of important educational issues" (157). McGrath
and Spear emphasized a need for faculty to encounter one
another again as intellectuals, rather than just as
"fellow practitioners" (157). They described community
college faculty as isolated intellectually, socially, and
institutionally (162).
McGrath and Spear additionally articulated what they
termed the "central professional challenge," "to render
15


the disciplines intelligible to outsiders, to initiate
them into its mysteries" (157). But this charge is
coupled with what Seidman (1985) described as the
dichotomy of teaching and research, "imposed upon and
finally accepted by many community college faculty."
Seidman saw this as a false dichotomy (254-55). McGrath
and Spear (1991) evaluated community colleges as having
an ambiguous position within higher education, in a
profession that is new, with unclear rules (139).
McGrath and Spear (1991) and Seidman (1985) have
criticized community college faculty for moving too far
from their disciplines, from research and scholarly
debate, into teaching that is weighted too heavily to
imparting knowledge, forsaking the scholarly task of
augmenting and reshaping knowledge. This drifting away
from the disciplines has, in fact, isolated community
college faculty from university faculty and from the
disciplines, with negative implications for the faculty,
for the disciplines, and for the institutions.
Part-time Faculty in Community Colleges
Each of the key elements, the shifting mission of
the community college, the precarious placement of the
community college faculty member between the university
16


and secondary faculty, the tension between the academic
training and scholarly education and the practical
teaching demands, and the relationship of the part-time
faculty member to the institution, provides the dynamic
for an understanding of work satisfaction factors for
faculty groups in community colleges.
Complicating the examination further is the breadth
of the adjunct faculty in terms of not only discipline
but circumstance surrounding their part-time role. Gappa
and Leslie (1993) decried the bifurcated employment
system in higher education that "lump[s] all tenure-track
faculty in one class and all part-time faculty in
another." They described the part-time faculty:
Part-time faculty come from enormously varied
backgrounds and life situations. They need a
far more flexible set of options, rewards,
incentives, and recognitions for their work.
Some depend almost completely on their part-
time teaching to survive, but others are
primarily committed to other professional
careers in which they are well-compensated.
Some part-time faculty aspire to academic
careers, but others have no interest in them at
all. Yet most institutions treat all part-time
faculty alike (63).
Biles and Tuckman (1986) proposed two useful
taxonomies, one based upon demographics, the other upon
employment, for classification of part-time faculty. The
first classification divides the group among seven
categories: semi-retired (ex-full-time academics and ex-
17


full-timers outside of academe); students (teach part-
time while working on advanced degrees); hopeful full-
timers (teach part-time because they cannot find a full-
time position); full-mooners (hold another job of 35 or
more hours per week); part-mooners (hold two or more
part-time jobs of less than 35 hours per week);
homeworkers (work part-time to allow time to care for
family members); and part-unknowners (reasons for
teaching part-time are unknown). This taxonomy is adopted
for the current research. The other classification
proposed by Biles and Tuckman characterizes faculty as
moonlighters (employed in another full-time job);
twilighters (not otherwise employed); sunlighters (have
regular, but part-time, faculty appointments); and
persons on occasional part-time leave (on leave from
regular full-time faculty appointment) (11-13).
Leslie, Kellams, and Gunne (1982) also began to
address the diversity among part-time faculty, focusing
upon the complexity of the subgroups:
[T]he part-time faculty population itself
demonstrates severe divergences of interest
among subgroups. In other words, there can be
no general or integrated statement made about
the interests of part-time faculty (3).
Biles and Tuckman (1986) agreed, in that
part-time differ in terms of their motivations
for being part-time, and, as a consequence, in
18


what they expect from their employing
institution. This makes it difficult to
formulate a single policy that meets the needs
of all of the part-timers employed at that
institution (10-11).
These challenges emerge in policy formulation,
administration, and management. While on the one hand,
the part-time faculty is entrusted with a large
proportion of the instruction at the community colleges,
on the other hand the needs of this population are
neither well articulated nor well addressed.
Rajagopal and Farr (1989) characterized two separate
faculties in higher education: the full-time faculty, who
have substantial control over their work and the part-
time faculty, "whose work is marked by curricular
routinization of courses, standardized pedagogy, course
replication, piecework payment, and managerial
coordination (272). According to Gappa and Leslie
(1993), part-timers have little security, continuity, or
incentive to remain at an institution (152).
Nevertheless, studies of the quality of instruction
of part- and full-time faculty, e.g. Lowther et al.
(1990), have found little difference between the groups.
And Leslie, Kellams, and Gunne (1982) believe that while
"conventional wisdom suggests that part-timers detract
from the overall quality of an institution's instruction.
19


. such an assumption is probably invalid. Rather, there
is more likely little difference between the quality of
instruction as performed by part-timers. . and full-
timers" (16). Acknowledging the dearth of studies on
comparative quality between full- and part-time faculty,
Leslie, Kellams, and Gunne cite Grymes (1977) and
Friedlander (1979). Grymes found no difference in quality
of instruction, while Friedlander found differences in a
variety of instruction-related variables, but no evidence
of a quality difference. Leslie, Kellams, and Gunne
concluded that both full- and part-time faculty vary
widely in the quality of instruction (16).
Without definitive data regarding differences in
instructional quality, why is it important to examine
part-time faculty? One reason derives from the perception
that part-time faculty are dissatisfied with their
employment situation. According to the Ad Hoc Committee
on Adjunct Faculty (Colorado 1992), a "disparate, multi-
tiered employment situation. . takes advantage of those
on the bottom [and] has detrimental effects on students"
(4). Further, the Committee stated:
For the great majority of part-timers, lack of
job security, disproportionately low salaries,
demeaning status, and denial of benefits and
perquisites result in a loss of professionalism
and self-esteem. The most damaging impact,
however, is the loss of talented and qualified
20


teachers who, because of the demeaning and
insufficient compensationboth economic and
professionalare forced to abandon the
teaching profession altogether (3).
The assertions of the Ad Hoc Committee on Adjunct
Faculty have been variously portrayed as representative
of part-time faculty throughout Colorado and as self-
interested and parochial. Perhaps the true importance of
the Committee lies in the urging to address the many
issues surrounding the reliance on part-time faculty for
the delivery of higher education. As Gappa and Leslie
(1993) pointed out, various groups and agencies, from
accrediting commissions, state boards, and program
reviewers to faculty organizations, advocate controlling
the level of part-time faculty employment, i.e. the
proportion of instruction delivered by part-time faculty.
However, budget realities in most states appear to
mandate that substantial proportions of courses be
delivered by part-time faculty (91). In fact, the reasons
for employing part-time faculty are almost as diverse as
the faculty themselves. According to a study conducted by
the Office of the Chancellor, California Community
Colleges, Sacramento (1987), part-time faculty are "often
employed for their specific knowledge, to provide
staffing flexibility, to teach odd-hours and off-campus,
and because their pay is less than that of full-time
21


faculty" (l).
Gappa and Leslie (1993) positioned the trend in the
broader context:
Campuses in the 1990s are faced with a national
economic recession, the prospect of
dramatically increasing enrollments,
prospective retirements of large cohorts of
senior faculty in a short period of time, the
wearing out of infrastructures, and a host of
other problems (1).
Concerns aside, the role of part-time faculty in the
delivery of undergraduate education in the United States
promises to continue to be significant, if not
predominant. In fact, the trend toward part-time faculty
appears to be on the increase, as institutions work to
address the reality of reduced resources, increased
enrollments, less-prepared students, volatile career
market trends, shifting student demographics, and
increased demand for lifelong education.
Leslie, Kellams, and Gunne (1982) began to address
work satisfaction for part-time faculty by examining the
multiple and complex interests and motives for any given
part-timer: "Most part-timers work for a combination of
intrinsic, professional, careerist, and economic
reasons," with intrinsic and professional motives
emerging as the most important (46). According to Gappa
and Leslie (1993), although part-timers receive pleasure
22


from their teaching, they are dissatisfied with many
aspects of their employment. Gappa and Leslie found part-
timers who work at other jobs to be the most critical of
how they are treated:
They have broad experience in the real world of
corporate, government, and artistic life, and
they can compare the way they are treated in
academe with what they are accustomed to
elsewhere. Many offer a cynical assessment of
the petty and thoughtless treatment they
receive and are often highly aware of the
inequities in their employment despite their
academic backgrounds and their stature in other
arenas (42).
In contrast, others have seen the hopeful full-timer
as the most dissatisfied, in that often they are striving
to earn a living, piecing together a "full-time,, position
by teaching at multiple institutions. Gappa and Leslie
(1993) found dissatisfaction among all groups, "whether
they were aspiring to an academic career or teaching one
night a week as specialists, part-timers constantly
alluded to their status in a bifurcated academic career
system" (43). The messages from the faculty members
themselves are mixed.
This research proposes to probe the complexities of
work satisfaction for full- and part-time workers,
specifically community college faculty, testing for
group differences and looking for what Mottaz (1985)
described as the three factors that contribute to
23


satisfaction or dissatisfaction: the intrinsic, which is
widely touted as the most important, and which includes
the factors associated with the work itself; the
extrinsic/organizational, which includes working
conditions, pay, benefits, office space; and the
extrinsic/social, which includes the interpersonal side,
the enculturation into the organization and the
relationships with colleagues, supervisors, and others in
the organization.
Beman (1980), an adjunct faculty member himself,
mused:
It is time to ask why an otherwise sane person
would be an adjunct. It is clearly not a road
to riches or prestige. I can only respond to
the question in a very personal way: I like to
teach. More specifically, I find a significant
degree of satisfaction in the belief, however
questionable, that I have something worthwhile
to share with students. This belief is
occasionally reinforced by a response from a
student which indicates he has gained something
of interest and value (83).
Kellams and Gunne (1982) emphasized the intrinsic
and asserted that the satisfaction felt by part-time
faculty "probably emerges from the narrow elements of the
job associated with performing as a teacher" (6). And
Gappa and Leslie (1993) agreed that "despite their
frustrations and unhappiness with their career choices or
life-styles or with the employment policies or practices
24


at their institutions, part-timers remain very committed
to teaching at the college level" (41).
Turner and Phillips (1981) focused upon the
extrinsic/social aspects:
We must make some changes which are
advantageous to everyone. We need to keep these
people happy, satisfied, and a part of the
team; for theymore than any other one group
have enabled the community college to
accomplish its missions through the diversity
of their backgrounds and experience (x).
Making part-time faculty "a part of the team," as
Turner and Phillips termed it, is a particular challenge
for higher education in general and community colleges in
particular. Studies find that campuses vary widely in
their policies and practices regarding inclusion,
orientation, acculturation, and socialization. What may
be termed a "valuing" of personnel varies, as revealed in
an interview conducted by Seidman (1985):
The part-timers weren't even asked to turn in
requests of what they would like to teach. You
were simply given what was left. And then there
was even somewhat of a hierarchy there. Those
of us who were around the longest were asked
first (114).
What is missing here is a sense of the whole, of what
Beman (1980) called "a unifying spirit" (81). Gappa and
Leslie (1993) found that part-timers identify first with
their departments, and secondly with their institutions
(185). In certain departments, there is less bifurcation
25


of the faculty:
Departments that care deeply about education,
about teaching and learning, seem to foster an
atmosphere in which faculty members talk with
each other about these issues. Such departments
also appear to involve part-timers in their
talk and seem open to what the part-timers have
to say" (185).
Further, Gappa and Leslie found, the greater presence of
the extrinsic/social aspects helps to address the
concerns with the extrinsic/organizational issues:
Even where there is universal dissatisfaction
with pay, benefits, and other tangible support,
part-timers who feel as if they are part of a
collaborative faculty seem to have more
positive feelings about their work and about
their involvement with the institution (186).
Gappa and Leslie (1993), Beman (1980), and Turner
and Phillips (1981) have made the assumption that
connectedness to the institution, to the department, and
to one's colleagues is an important issue for work
satisfaction, for effectiveness, and for commitment. The
issue of the extrinsic/social elements of work
satisfaction has been explored in this research.
Research Objectives
This research explores work satisfaction, probing
what variables predict satisfaction and whether these
variables are the same or different for various groups.
Among the questions to be answered:
26


How generally satisfied are both full- and part-time
faculty?
Do the full- and part-time faculty differ in their
reported levels of satisfaction?
Are there significant differences in satisfaction
responses when the part-time faculty is disaggregated
into the Biles and Tuckman (1986) taxonomy categories,
i.e. hopeful full-timer, full-mooner, part-mooner, semi-
retired, homeworker, and student?
How do work satisfaction variables interrelate and
contribute to overall work satisfaction?
Limitations of the Study
The study is limited by its quasi-experimental
design in that the findings can identify relationships
but not causes. Further, the research may be limited in
its generalizability by the specifics of the faculty
population and community college setting.
The study is delimited by the choice of faculty, and
specifically of part-time faculty as the part-time worker
under consideration. The characteristics of faculty
positions, most notably the autonomy in the classroom,
may not be generalizable to other part-time positions.
Significance of the Study
The dissertation is at once theoretical and
practical in orientation. This research contributes to
27


the body of theoretical knowledge in organizational
literature on work satisfaction, serves to aid in filling
the void of literature on the part-time worker, and
assists in augmenting the literature on part-time
faculty. The results will assist in informing
administrative practice in an environment of scarce
resources, increasingly diverse student populations,
predicted enrollment increases, and demands for market
responsiveness.
This research begins to explore the work
satisfaction of the part-time worker. It offers a
starting point for the comparison of salient issues for
full- and part-time employeesfor the discovery of the
commonalities and the differences. It is hoped that this
study will contribute to the overall understanding of
work satisfaction and the implications for organizations.
The apparent diversity of the adjunct faculty and
the complexity of the community college setting provide
an interesting vehicle for the examination of the
relative importance of work satisfaction factors. While
both the population and the setting are specific, the
heterogeneity of each adds a richer dimension for study.
The question for research is on three levels: what is the
relative importance of different variables in
28


contributing to work satisfaction; does group membership
impact work satisfaction levels; and how can an
understanding of work satisfaction inform administrative
practice in the community college setting?
29


CHAPTER TWO
LITERATURE REVIEW
Work satisfaction is treated for the
most part as if it were
unidimensional, somehow amenable to
measurement and representation by a
single number, and a potpourri of
theories exist from which one may
choose to locate the source or
sources of satisfaction (Katz and Van
Maanen 1977, 470).
The literature search was conducted as an exercise
in framing and giving structure to the objectives for the
research: to further the understanding of work
satisfaction by focusing upon independent and dependent
variables that may or may not vary in the role they play
for full- and part-time worker populations. The works
chosen for review were selected based upon definite
criteria: their recognized contribution to the state of
theory; their ability to aid in distinguishing among the
dependent variables; their testing of earlier theory; or
their innovative approach to the questions.
The selection of literature was impacted by the
organizational focus of the research questions. Rather
than attempting to "fully explain and predict behavior"
30


(Lawler 1973, 3), the goal was to interpret group
differences, to understand levels of satisfaction, to
uncover the interrelated role of variables that affect
satisfaction, and to synthesize these answers such that
there can emerge recommendations for policy and
administrative decision-making.
The concepts of work satisfaction, commitment, work
values, organizational involvement, and expectations are
loosely woven beneath the rubric of motivation in the
literature on organizational behavior. A search yields
clues to defining these terms and differentiating them
from one another. In order to explore and begin to
explain group differences and the contributory
relationship among variables to the theoretical construct
of work satisfactiona focus of this researchone must
attempt to make sense of a vast literature on motivation,
specifically as it is examined in an organizational
context. It is not the objective of this review to be
exhaustive, but rather to discover the intersections
among the theoretical constructs in order to
differentiate work satisfaction as the focus. This task
is complicated by the not uncommon interchangeability
among terms but is important to an understanding of work
satisfaction and its role in organizational participation
31


or nonparticipation, and cooperation or noncooperation.
Untangling the Knot: Definitional Clarification
of the Dependent Variables
McClelland (1985, 4) explained that "motivation has
to do with the what of behavior, as contrasted with the
how or whv of behavior." Steers and Porter (1983, 3-4)
discussed motivation as primarily concerned with "(1)
what energizes human behavior; (2) what directs or
channels such behavior; and (3) how this behavior is
maintained or sustained."
Gortner, Mahler, and Nicholson (1987) described
motivation as a "hypothetical construct; it is based on
what we infer about internal needs and the activity or
behavior consequent to them" (342). Katzell and Thompson
(1990) focused upon motivation for work performance:
"Work motivation is defined as a broad construct
pertaining to the conditions and processes that account
for the arousal, direction, magnitude, and maintenance of
effort in a person's job" (144). Rainey (1991) described
motivation as a broad topic, rather than a precise
variable, a general topic with many subtopics (122). Mohr
(1982) asserted that "it is not possible to report a
consensus on the theoretical status of motivations and
motivated behavior" (72).
32


The complexity of motivation as a topic is
exacerbated by possible tension between psychological and
organizational perspectives. As Lawler (1973) stated, it
is
important to distinguish between theories of
motivation and theories that concern themselves
with specifying the nature of human needs or
drives. Acceptable theories of human needs or
drives have to deal only with why outcomes such
as pay, promotion, and job security are sought
while other outcomes are avoided. This kind of
theory should not be confused with a theory of
motivation that tries to fully explain and
predict behavior. To explain and predict
behavior, a theory must state not only why some
outcomes are sought while others are avoided
but also the factors that influence how they
are sought (3).
The focus for this research is the specification of
human needs and a contribution toward a deepened
understanding of the factors that contribute to
satisfaction. Again, rather than fully explaining and
predicting behavior, the objective is to explore
satisfaction, the relationships among the factors that
contribute to satisfaction, and group differences.
Graham and Hays (1993) attempted to summarize what
is known about worker motivation:
The truth of the matter is that, while light
has been shed on some of the most obscure
aspects of the motivational process, few
irrefutable answers have been found; some
evidence supports each of the theories of
motivation, but other evidence refutes them. .
. the safest assumption is that no one theory
33


is adequate to explain a phenomenon as complex
as employee motivation (172) .
Work or job satisfaction seems to shift too easily
within and without the motivation rubric. As the central
theoretical construct for this research, the concept of
work satisfaction requires consideration of the
definitions offered in the literature. Kalleberg (1977)
detailed the definition of what it is and is not:
Job satisfaction refers to an overall affective
orientation on the part of individuals toward
work roles which they are presently occupying.
It must be distinguished from satisfaction with
specific dimensions of those work roles. This
conceptualization implies that job satisfaction
is a unitary concept and that individuals may
be characterized by some sort of vaguely
defined attitude toward their total job
satisfaction. To say that job satisfaction is a
unitary concept, however, does not imply that
the causes of this overall attitude are not
multidimensional. Obviously, a person may be
satisfied with one dimension of the job and
dissatisfied with another (126).
This research explores work satisfaction multi-
dimensionally. Additionally, there is an attempt to
determine an overall level of satisfaction, as well as to
discover the role of group differences.
Vroom (1964, 80) stated simply that job satisfaction
should be viewed in terms of the degree to which a job
provides the person with positively valued outcomes. Kerr
and Rosow (1979) define job satisfaction as how well a
person likes his or her job, which
34


depends on the discrepancy between the
individual's work values (what is wanted,
needed, and/or expected from the job) and what
the job deliversor at least what he or she
thinks it delivers. Changes in job satisfaction
can therefore result from changes in either or
both of those termschanges in workers' values
and/or in the jobs themselves (42).
Mottaz (1985) cautioned that there is no agreed upon
definition of work satisfaction, as the definition is
shaped by the theoretical slant of the writer (365-66).
Mottaz chose to define work satisfaction as "a positive
orientation toward work based upon a congruency between
the worker's perception of the work situation (along a
variety of work dimensions) and his/her work values
regarding those same dimensions (366).
For purposes of this research, work satisfaction, as
the pivotal concept, will be defined as an orientation
toward work, which may be based upon the interaction
between one's values and one's perceived work situation.
Several other definitional clarifications are
required. Commitment was distinguished from satisfaction
by Welsch and LaVan (1981) as a dependent variable
(although it can act as independent or as intervening),
consequent to the independent variables of demographic
characteristics, job satisfaction, job characteristics,
professional behavior, and organizational climate (1080-
81). Mowday, Porter, and Steers (1979) argued that
35


commitment differs from the concept of job satisfaction:
[Commitment as a construct is more global,
reflecting a general affective response to the
organization as a whole. Job satisfaction, on
the other hand, reflects one's response either
to one's job or to certain aspects of one's
job. Hence, commitment emphasizes attachment to
the employing organization, including its goals
and values, while satisfaction emphasizes the
specific task environment where an employee
performs his or her duties (226).
Mottaz (1988) defined commitment as an exchange
relationship that is enhanced by work rewards, both
intrinsic and extrinsic, and work values (469-71).
Organizational involvement is another concept that
appears throughout the literature. Romzek (1985)
described organizational involvement as reflecting "the
direction and intensity of the psychological attachment
employees are likely to develop toward their work
agencies" (283).
Ott (1989) characterized still another salient
concept, expectations, as what people believe it should
be like to work in an organization (47). The concept of
expectations may overlap the concept of values, dependent
upon the theoretical positioning of the researcher.
The final concept pertinent to this delineation is
work values. Katzell (1979) defined work values as "what
is wanted, needed, and/or expected from the job" (42).
Mottaz (1985) stated that "[w]ork values refers to the
36


relative importance assigned to the various aspects of
work by the individual" (367).
One further perspective is needed to inform this
examination. The conceptual frame of the interactionist
perspective is relevant to the examination of work
satisfaction and related concepts. Schneider (1987)
asserted that persons cause environments at least as much
as environments cause persons (438). Schneider drew these
assertions from interactional psychology: people are not
randomly assigned to real organizations; people select
themselves into and out of real organizations; people and
human settings are inseparable; people are the setting
because it is they who make the setting (439-40).
Schneider thus posited his central, and narrow, thesis:
attributes of people, not the nature of the external
environment, or organizational technology, or
organizational structure, are the determinants of
organizational behavior.
Chatman (1989) also concentrated upon the effects
that persons have on situations. Chatman argued that the
traditional methodologies in organizational research have
focused upon two approachesindividual difference and
situationaland have failed to simultaneously consider
the effects that the interaction of person and situation
37


characteristics have on the situation (333). Chatman
stated that individuals may differ in the way their
values, traits, abilities, and motives are related to
each other. What is a relevant trait for one person may
not be for another. Therefore, there is a need for
comparisons among individuals and of an individual over
time. According to Chatman, people are not passive
agents subject to environmental forces, but there is
evidence that people actively choose their situations and
perform best in situations that are most compatible to
themselves (337-38).
With this focus, Chatman defined person-organization
fit as an interactional model, or "the congruence between
the norms and values of organizations and the values of
persons" (338-39). The contribution to organizational
research is the enhancement of the ability to predict the
extent to which a person's values will change as a
function of organizational membership and the extent to
which he or she will adhere to organizational norms based
upon the extent to which a person's values are similar to
an organization's shared values (342). In Chatman's model
values are the appropriate construct for assessing fit.
Turban and Keon (1993) built upon the concept of
person-environment fit and its impact on employment
38


decisions. While applicants are attracted to firms that
have certain characteristics, Turban and Keon focused
upon the moderating effects of individual characteristics
(186). They discovered some support for the hypothesis
that individual characteristics moderate the influence of
organizational characteristics on attraction to firms.
Citing the literature, they noted that different kinds of
people are attracted to different organizations, that
people are attracted to organizations they view as having
values and situational norms they deem important, and
that individuals' behaviors are influenced by personal
goals and their perceptions of the opportunities for goal
attainment provided by the situation (184).
Taylor and Giannantonio (1993) explored the
literature on the employment relationship from
individual, organizational, and interactionist
perspectives, focusing upon the concept of organizational
commitment. Defining the interactionist perspective as a
function of both characteristics of the individual and of
the situation, e.g. the organization, Taylor and
Giannantonio concluded that there is a need for further
research to extend the existing interactionist models
(509-10), and that it is important to choose independent
and dependent variables that reflect the involvement of
39


both the individual and the organization in the
employment relationship.
The importance of the interactionist perspective for
the current research is the focus upon variables working
in concert and in reaction to one another, upon needs
fulfillment, upon conscious and unconscious selectionby
the individual and of the organization. This perspective
informs the analysis of the components of work
satisfaction, specifically their relative importance, and
group differences, as the focus of this research.
Selected Tvooloaies for Organizing the Literature
Motivation is an important organizational
concern for several reasons: it is a factor in
determining why people participate in an
organization; and it influences whether they
strive to accomplish either personal or
organizational goals, or both, as well as the
extent to which they allow others to direct and
control their behavior (Gortner, Mahler, and
Nicholson 1987, 343).
There are numerous typologies in the literature. It
is not the intention here to examine the breadth of
theories but rather to select those concepts and
theoretical constructs most salient to this work. Several
examples for organizing the literature provide a starting
point for consideration.
Gortner et al. (1987) have categorized motivation
40


theories and models as content, cognitive, behaviorist,
and bureau-based (343). Content models of motivation
focus on identifying the substantive nature of individual
needs; cognitive process theories attempt to explain how
and why people are motivated, focusing on the interaction
of psychological variables with other factors related to
the situation or environment; the behaviorist perspective
excludes the psychological and focuses upon response to
the environment; and the bureau-based perspective
concentrates on the relationship between the motivation
patterns of bureau officials and the functioning and
policies of bureaus (343).
Katzell and Thompson (1990) have delineated two
broad areas, which are subsequently divided among
categories: exogenous theories, i.e. motive/need theory,
incentive/reward theory, reinforcement theory, goal
theory, personal and material resource theory, group and
norm theory, and sociotechnical system theory; and
endogenous theories, i.e. expectancy-valence theory,
equity theory, attitude theory, intention/goal theory,
attribution/self-efficacy theory, and other cognitive
theories (145-46). The Katzell and Thompson template is
broadly inclusive, spanning organizational and
psychological literature.
41


Gruneberg (1979) focused upon job satisfaction,
categorizing theories as content theories and process
theories (9). Content theories are concerned with the
factors which influence job satisfaction, while process
theories seek to give an account of the process by which
variables such as expectations, needs, and values
interact with the characteristics of the job to produce
job satisfaction (9).
The literature is vast and formidable, and the
purpose here is simply to ascertain the status of theory
in order to build upon it. To distinguish among the
theoretical contributions while acknowledging the
complexity and overlapping properties of the research,
one must make some rather arbitrary decisions in order to
organize the vast body of literature. The proposed
typology borrows from Mottaz, as well as others, focusing
upon classification of the variables examined as the
literature framework rather than a comprehensive
classification of theoretical contributions.
Salient is the work of Katz and Van Maanen (1977)
who addressed the complexity of work satisfaction by
examining several variables:
[Work] satisfaction may be seen to be
contingent upon: the individual's idiosyncratic
internal need structure; the specific set of
tasks performed by the individual; the
42


interpersonal norms and values generated in the
work place; the managerial processes that
direct activities; the organizational policies
regarding rewards. . (470).
Katz and Van Maanen established a framework of three
clusters: job properties, interaction features, and
organization policies (477). Similarly, Gruneberg (1979)
divided the aspects of theories of job satisfaction as
job satisfaction and the job itself; job satisfaction and
context satisfaction; and job satisfaction and individual
differences.
Mottaz (1985) further addressed this framework and
provided some definitional clarity, by focusing upon two
broad areas, work rewards and work values. Each of these
broad areas is divided into three groups. Building upon
the work of Katz and Van Maanen (1977), Mottaz described
three conceptual and empirically distinct clusters: task,
social, and organizational rewards. The task dimension
refers to intrinsic rewards, those associated with doing
the job:
They are derived from the content of the task
itself and include such factors as interesting
and challenging work, self-direction and
responsibility, variety, creativity,
opportunities to use one's skills and
abilities, and sufficient feedback regarding
the effectiveness of one's efforts (366).
Mottaz described the second dimension as the social
dimension, the extrinsic rewards that are derived from
43


interaction with others and are dependent upon the
quality of interpersonal relationships. These rewards
include "friendly, helpful, and supportive co-workers and
supervisors" (366). The third is the organizational
dimension or the extrinsic rewards provided by the
organization "for the purpose of facilitating or
motivating performance. They are the tangible rewards
that are visible to others and include such factors as
pay, promotions, fringe benefits, security. ..."
(366).
The work values are also characterized by the three
clusters: intrinsic, extrinsic/social, and extrinsic/
organizational. The congruency between the values and the
rewards contributes to work satisfaction.
In the following selective examination of important
research on work satisfaction and interrelated concepts,
each work is analyzed regarding the way the author
observes and interprets the interaction among the
intrinsic, extrinsic/organizational, and extrinsic/social
satisfaction and value factors.
The discussion begins with an examination of the
work of Herzberg, Mausner, and Snyderman (1959),
considered one of the pivotal works to bring attention to
the intrinsic factors of work satisfaction, and
44


McClelland (1985), an important content/need theorist.
Next expectancy/process theories are examined, with a
focus on Vroom (1964, 1984) and on Porter and Lawler
(1968). Expectancy theories continue to hold a
significant place in work satisfaction literature and to
expand the thinking regarding the complex interaction
among the variables. It should be noted that the labels
content/need and expectancy/process are not mutually
exclusive.
The rest of the literature discussion builds upon
these foundations and focuses upon the treatment of
variables and their interactions. Some works are more
content/need-focused, while others may be more process-
oriented; however, many align with both traditions. The
selection of literature for inclusion was based upon how
relevant the research is to the research questions; how
important the research is to understanding the status of
the theory; how the research helps clarify the
relationships among the variables; and how the research
impacts knowledge regarding group differences. The
examination of the literature focuses upon the way the
contributors address the interaction among variables
extrinsic/organizational, extrinsic/social, and
intrinsicand the interaction between rewards and
45


values. This process will set out to discover the
foundations for further exploration of the relative
importance of the independent variables and the
clarification of the dependent variables.
46


Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
Table 2.1.
Selected Research on Work Satisfaction and Related Concepts
Indeoendent Variables Intervening Variables Dependent Variables
Intrinsic Extrinsic/ Organizational Extrinsic/ Social
Herzberg Et Al. (1959) 1st level factors Motivators 1st level factors Hygienes 1st level factors Hygienes Values Attitudes 2nd level factors Effects / Outcomes
McClelland (1985) Achievenent motive Power motive Affiliative motive Achievement motive Power motive Affiliative motive Actions
Vroom (1964) Personality variables Work role variables Motives Values Abilities Outcomes Rewards
Porter & Lauler (1968) Performance AnticiDation Rewards Satisfaction
Deci & Rvan (1985) Self-determinationlRewards I Motivation
Farrell & Rusbult (1981) Cost values Job rewards Commitment
Job Cost Alternative Investment rewards values values size Satisfaction
Mouday, Porter, & Steers (1985) Personal influences Attitudes Organizational influences Pay Job characteristics Work group Coami tment
Mottaz (1988) Task rewards values Organizational rewards Social rewards Commi tment
Romzek (1990) Organizational culture Shared values Coami tment
Guzley (1991) Goals Alternatives Behavioral coami tment
Values Goals internalization Self-esteem Personal characteristics Rewards Rewards Job characteristics Attitudinal coami tment
Huselid & Day (1991) Goal congruence Attitudinal coami tment
Exchange factors Continuance coamitment


Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
Table 2.1. (Cont.)
Indeoendent Variables Intervening Variables Dependent Variables
Intrinsic Extrinsic/ Organizational Extrinsic/ Social
Chatman (1989) Person- organization values congruence Person-organization fit
Individual values and behaviors Organizational norms
Vancouver & Schmitt (1991) Goal congruencv Fit
Judge & Bretz (1992) Fairness Achievement Pay Promotional ODOortunities Concern for others Job choice
Turban & Keon (1993) Organizational characteristics Individual characteristics Job selection
Katz & Van Maanen (1977) Core job dimensions Policy measures Interaction features Work satisfaction
Kalleberg (1977) Intrinsic characteristics Creature comforts Resource adequacy Career oooortunities Relations Perceived job characteristics Job satisfaction
Heglino, Ravlin & Adkins (1989) Value congruence Satisfaction
Value congruence Commitment
Hemmasi, Graf, & Lust (1992) Attitudinal variables Satisfaction with organization Pay satisfaction Benefit satisfaction
Hottaz (1985) Task itself Pay Benefit Promotion Supervisors Co-workers Values Work satisfaction


The Foundation: Herzbera
If such intrinsic job satisfaction or
identification with the work is to be aroused
and maximized, then the job itself must provide
sufficient variety, sufficient complexity,
sufficient challenge, and sufficient exercise
of skill to engage the abilities of the worker
(Katz and Kahn 1966, 363).
Need/Content Approaches
What follows is a critical discussion of Herzberg,
Mausner, and Snyderman's (1959) two-factor theory and
McClellands (1985) motive and values research. These
need/content approaches serve as a touchstone for further
discussion of motivation in an organizational context.
Content or need models of motivation, according to
Gortner et al. (1987), "focus on identifying the
substantive nature of individual needs; in other words,
they attempt to determine what motivates individuals"
(343) .
The following section will examine two contributors:
Herzberg et al. and McClelland. Herzberg et al. receives
particular attention because their two-factor theory
continues to provide the basis for research into the
intrinsic and extrinsic aspects of work satisfaction.
Herzbera. Mausner. and Snvderman (1959). This work
has been widely touted and criticized, but it continues
49


to stand as a benchmark in organizational research. Since
1959, critics and researchers have heralded and condemned
the methodology of Herzberg et al. and confirmed and
repudiated their findings. Since so much subsequent
research finds its roots in Herzberg et al., or is in
some way in reaction to it, this theory deserves
particular attention in this study. In addition, Herzberg
et al.'s findings are pivotal in the study of work
satisfaction, particularly in the shift to an emphasis on
intrinsic factors.
Herzberg et al. focused on what they termed job
attitudes, variously called job satisfaction, setting out
to answer three questions in the research: How can you
specify the attitude of any individual toward his/her
job? (i.e. attitude measurement); What leads to these
attitudes? (i.e. attitude formation); and What are the
consequences of these attitudes? (i.e. relationship of
attitudes to behavior) (1959, 5).
Herzberg, et al. provided a practical rationale for
the research, citing a "payoff" for industry, the
community, and the individual in increased productivity,
decreased turnover, decreased absenteeism, and smoother
working relations; an increase in overall productive
creativity and utilization of human resources; and
50


greater happiness and self-realization, respectively
(ix).
Building upon the works of Maslow (1943, 1954), and
Mayo (1933), Herzberg et al. interpreted these earlier
works as the discovery that the relationships between
workers and their supervisors "lead to a more potent
influence on output than any manipulation of
environmental conditions" (1959, 8-9).
Seeking a more comprehensive and less fragmented
approach than previous research, Herzberg et al. built a
three-part construct, which they call the F-A-E or
factors-attitudes-effects complex. Herzberg et al.,
rather than specifically defining terms, wove the
definitions throughout the research and findings. The
factors and attitudes described encompass the three
clusters: intrinsic, extrinsic/social, and extrinsic/
organizational.
In essence, factors were defined as first-level, "an
objective element of the situation in which the
respondent finds a source for his good or bad feelings
about the job" (44) or "factors from which the respondent
derived his feelings" (49), and second-level, "what in
his own need and value systems led to his attitude
towards his job at the time of the events being
51


described (49) First-level factors included
recognition, achievement, possibility of growth,
advancement, salary, interpersonal relations,
supervision-technical, responsibility, company policy and
administration, working conditions, work itself, factors
in personal life, status, and job security (44-49).
Second-level factors included feelings of recognition, of
achievement, of possible growth or blocks to growth, of
responsibility or lack of or diminished responsibility,
group feelings, feelings of interest or lack of interest,
of increased or decreased status, of increased or
decreased security, of fairness or unfairness, of pride
or of inadequacy or guilt, and about salary (50).
Attitudes were described in terms of highs and lows, as
well as short and long ranges. They also served as
intervening variables, in that they impact the effects.
The effects in the F-A-E complex are specified as
"major-effect categories": performance effects, turnover,
mental health effects, effects on personal relationships,
and attitudinal effects. The effects are the dependent
variables.
The research approach was idiographic, built upon
the premise that the relationships among the components
of the "factors-attitudes-effects" complex should be
52


studied within individuals (11) The major question
before the investigators was whether different kinds of
factors are responsible for bringing about job
satisfaction as contrasted to job dissatisfaction? (57).
The hypothesis was modified at a later point: "the
satisfier factors are much more likely to increase job
satisfaction than they would be to decrease job
satisfaction but . the factors that relate to job
dissatisfaction very infrequently act to increase job
satisfaction" (80).
The researchers interviewed 200 middle-management
males, accountants and engineers, from nine different
companies in the Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania, area. The
interviews were analyzed in five parts: description of
the person speaking, overall description of the sequence
of events, description of the objective situation in the
sequence of events (identified as first-level factors), a
description of the needs, motives, and perceptions of the
person speaking (identified as second-level factors) and
a description of the behavioral and other effects of
attitudes (40).
Those factors that satisfy emerged as factors
related to tasks and performance. Herzberg et al. termed
them "motivators." They are the job factors (as opposed
53


to the extra-job factors) that reward the individual,
that reinforce the ultimate goal of "self-actualization
or self-realization" (113). Those that emerged most
frequently as associated with good feelings about the job
include achievement, recognition, work itself,
responsibility, advancement, and salary. These are the
intrinsic factors.
The factors that lead to dissatisfaction are those
that are associated with the conditions that "surround
the doing of the job" (113). Termed hygienes, they
include supervision, interpersonal relations, physical
working conditions, salary, company policies and
administrative practices, benefits, and job security
(113). These are the extrinsic/social and extrinsic/
organizational factors.
Herzberg et al. posited that an individual operates
from a neutral point toward his job, an assertion that
has stimulated controversy. "Satisfiers" are factors that
increase job satisfaction beyond the neutral point. The
absence of "satisfiers" drops the employee back to
neutral, not to dissatisfied. Other factors,
"dissatisfiers," by their existence lead to a
dissatisfied employee, but the satisfying of these
factors does not lead to job satisfaction. Both types of
54


factors are unidimensional (111-12). The motivators and
hygienes are independent and do not lie along a
continuum. Satisfaction and dissatisfaction are dual,
impacted by different factors.
In essence, Herzberg et al.'s motivators are
intrinsic factors. The hygienes may be characterized as
extrinsic/organizational and extrinsic/social. The
factors-attitudes-effects complex is interactionist, in
that the worker is moved from a position of neutrality
toward his/her job to a position along either the
satisfaction or dissatisfaction continuum.
The findings of Herzberg et al. have been criticized
as methodologically bound and therefore faulty. But the
importance of their examination of work motivation and
job satisfaction is evidenced by the fact that it is
still cited in work satisfaction literature in the 1990s,
35 years after Motivation to Work was first published.
Critical Analysis of Herzberg et al. Subsequent
research has both supported and disputed the findings of
Herzberg et al. The points of criticism center around
three basic themes: methodological issues; non-
replicability; and conclusions.
House and Wigdor (1967) argued that Herzberg's
theory is method-bound and "fraught with procedural
55


deficiencies (372). They described Herzberg et al.'s
Two-factor Theory as "an oversimplification of the
relationships between motivation and satisfaction, and
the sources of job satisfaction and dissatisfaction"
(387). House and Wigdor (1967) were most critical of the
"utilization of Herzberg*s categorization procedure to
measure job dimensions, the satisfiers and 'hygiene
factors'" (372). The rater must interpret the findings if
the respondent offers observations without evaluation,
e.g. the description of a supervisor's behavior without a
judgment about the supervisor's competence (372). House
and Wigdor (1967) called for a more objective approach,
based in more adequate operational definitions. Their
criticism included the lack of a measure of overall
satisfaction (373) .
Rainey (1991) focused upon the controversial nature
of Herzberg's methodology and the problems regarding
replicability. Calling Herzberg's theory incomplete,
Rainey cited the inability of a number of later
researchers to reproduce the two factors, "motivators"
and "hygienes," with alternative research methods. On the
other hand, Rainey cites Park, Lovrich, and Soden (1988),
who find support for Herzberg in their research on public
organizations (134).
56


Bockman (1971) countered that Herzberg et al. were
highly cognizant of the "pitfalls of investigating
attitudes" and therefore added a study of changes in job
attitudes, included a focus on experiences that included
substantive data which could be analyzed separately from
the respondent's interpretation, and avoided the use of a
scale on feelings by focusing on peak experiences (157).
Vroom (1964) cautioned that Herzberg et al.'s
interpretation of their findings may be correct, but it
is not the only possible interpretation (128). Rather,
the relative frequency with which job-content or -context
features are mentioned as sources of satisfaction or
dissatisfaction may be dependent on the nature of the
content and context of the work roles of the respondents
(128) In addition, Vroom distinguished between the
recall of satisfying events and actual observation of
motivated behavior (129).
According to Vroom (1964): "Herzberg's conclusion
that the variance in job satisfaction below some
hypothetical level can be explained in terms of one set
of variables, whereas the variance above that level
requires another set of variables, can neither be
accepted nor rejected on the basis of evidence available
at this time" (129).
57


Park, Lovrich, and Soden (1988) put a new framework
around Herzberg et al.'s concepts, updating the
"motivators" or intrinsic factors by describing them as
"the degree of challenge faced in one's work, the degree
of importance attached to one's contributions to the
organization, [and] the amount of growth in personal
abilities occasioned by one's work" (40). The Park et al.
study replicated the criteria developed in Herzberg's
1959 study, in order to answer the research question: "Is
the supposed salience of intrinsic work characteristics a
universal phenomenon of employees everywhere, or is it
as Herzberg himself speculatesan artifact of highly
industrialized and well educated workforce settings
wherein the 'lower order of needs' of employees have been
by-and-large assured by a general state of societal
affluence?" (41).
Through content analysis and statistical analysis of
the interview responses, Park et al. tested the
predictive ability of Herzberg's Two-Factor Theory in the
public sector in two countries, the United States and
Korea, among different occupational groups:
administrators, teachers/counselors, and researchers.
Among the first-level factors (those which come from a
respondent's report on objective events) leading to job
58


satisfaction and dissatisfaction, achievement and
recognition are the two factors most frequently appearing
in favorable sequences among both American and Korean
workers (49-53). In addition, all the factors Herzberg
described as hygienes occur far more often in the
unfavorable sequences (53). However, among Park et al.'s
findings, there are divergences from Herzberg et al.'s
results: two intrinsic motivators, work itself and
advancement, occur equally in favorable and unfavorable
sequences. Two hygiene factors, supervision-technical and
working conditions, show less frequency in unfavorable
sequence than reported by Herzberg, and salary appears to
play a less salient role in the formulation of work
attitudes (537). Nevertheless, Park et al. concluded that
Herzberg's theory applies across a range of occupations
in the two countries, and therefore contributes to the
development of an understanding of "fundamental workplace
dynamics independent of particular cultural settings"
(58).
Bellott and Tutor (1990) asserted that "the truths
that have evolved from [Herzberg's and Maslow's] studies
are clearly well founded," but they criticize the
findings as having been "subjected to some overly broad
generalizations and [having been] treated as being
59


totally applicable to all populations (we believe)
inappropriately" (1).
Bellott and Tutor's research supports Herzberg's
conclusions regarding the impact of the motivating
factors of advancement, recognition, achievement,
responsibility, and the job itself. In addition, their
work upholds the taxonomy of dissatisfiers associated
with the work environment and satisfiers associated with
the work itself. However, they took issue with the single
factor of salary, as did Park et al. (1988). While
Herzberg et al. placed salary in both motivator and
hygiene categories, Bellott and Tutor argued to position
salary as a hygiene rather than motivator (2).
Other studies support Herzberg's findings and the
theoretical construct of the dual-factor nature of work
satisfaction and dissatisfaction. Nussel, Wiersma, and
Rusche (1988) interpreted their findings from research on
the work satisfaction of education professors as failing
to raise doubts relative to the Herzberg model. Based
upon survey research, Nussel et al. report high levels of
satisfaction with the "work itself," while lower
satisfaction levels were associated with what they termed
work environment conditions, such as salary and
administration (49).
60


Linda Morley's (1977) findings support Herzberg's
dual-factor theory: different factors contribute to
satisfaction and dissatisfaction. Morley modified
Herzberg's critical-incident methodology, replacing the
interview with a questionnaire form. Respondents, faculty
members in higher education, were asked to write
responses to two instruments, with a total of twenty-six
questions. One instrument was a modification of
Herzberg's critical incident method; the other was a
rating system based upon Herzberg's factors.
Morley's findings, which may be challenged as to
external validity due to a small sampling frame,
nevertheless support Herzberg's dual-factor theory.
Different factors were found to contribute to
satisfaction from those that contribute to
dissatisfaction. In her conclusions, Morley alluded to
the limitations to the study, including "varying value
orientations of employees," a concept that deserves
further consideration.
Alan Rasmussen (1991) tested Herzberg's theory in a
study of middle school principals. Using structural
modeling, Rasmussen found that the motivator factors of
achievement, recognition, work itself, advancement, and
responsibility are significant indicators of job
61


satisfaction. The factors of working conditions,
interpersonal relations, company policy and
administration, supervision, salary, status, and job
security are significant indicators of job
dissatisfaction. Rasmussen concluded that his findings
support Herzberg's motivation-hygiene theory.
Others have not supported Herzberg et al.'s
construct. Ebrahim Maidani (1991) tested Herzberg's
theory of job satisfaction using a questionnaire in lieu
of Herzberg's critical incident technique. Maidani
compared public and private sector employee work
satisfaction in an effort to determine the impact on
satisfaction of differences in the work environments. He
focused upon the "valuing" of factors by the employees.
Maidani reported support for Herzberg's assertion
that satisfied employees place "greater value" on
motivators. However, he reported no significant
difference between the satisfied and dissatisfied
employees' scores for hygiene factors (444). In addition,
Maidani found that while there is no significant
difference in the mean of motivator factors for employees
in the public and private sectors, there is a significant
difference between the mean of hygiene factors. Maidani
concluded that while his research supports Herzberg's
62


theory that motivators are sources of satisfaction, it
reverses Herzberg's conclusion that hygienes are a source
of dissatisfaction (448).
Rainey (1991) acknowledged that Herzberg et al.'s
findings have been supported when his methods have been
replicated, but not when other methodologies have been
employed. He concluded that "Herzberg added another
influential voice to the calls for more emphasis on
intrinsic rewards. ..." (134).
Graham and Hays (1993) assessed the contributions of
Herzberg et al.:
Most theorists now believe that the distinction
between hygiene factors and motivators is not
as clear-cut as Herzberg suggested. ... In
Herzberg's defense, the empirical record
confirms that he was at least on the right
track. Although insufficiently elegant, the
theory does draw attention to the importance of
higher order needs to job satisfaction and
motivation. Herzberg's motivators do appear to
promote high levels of job satisfaction among a
variety of public employee groups ....
Likewise, extrinsic factors do not appear to be
as highly correlated with job satisfaction as a
general rule (174).
The evidence suggests that Herzberg et al.
contributed to the body of knowledge concerning work
satisfaction by positing a theoretical construct that
serves as a catalyst for thought and research.
Researchers continue to question and to discover support
for Herzberg et al.'s theory. Perhaps the legacy of
63


Herzberg et al. is a shift in theoretical emphasis in the
study of human behavior and motivation.
The next section is an exploration of the work by
McClelland (1985). As mentioned earlier, McClelland has
been chosen here for the clarification that he offers as
to aspects of motives and the role of values.
McClelland (1985^. McClelland has approached human
behavior from a psychologist's perspective, rather than
with an organizational emphasis, as a function of
determinants in both the person and in the environment
(4). Motives must be distinguished from values. While
values are usually measured by asking participants what
is important, motives, which McClelland defines as "a
recurrent concern for a goal state based on a natural
incentivea concern that energizes, orients, and selects
behavior," (590) are more difficult to ascertain.
Therefore, McClelland identified a misunderstanding
regarding achievement motivation theory: the failure to
distinguish between the incentives specific to the motive
and allied incentives or other values affecting the
valence of success (519). Both motives and values can
influence choices or the valence of compared outcomes.
McClelland asserted that
while it is clear that values affect choices
and shunt motivational energies in one
64


direction or another, it not yet clear that
they energize behavior. . (522) .
McClelland described three human motive systems: the
achievement motive; the power motive; and the affiliative
motive. The achievement motive "represents a recurrent
concern about the goal state of doing something better"
(595) This implies some internal or external standard of
comparison. The power motive "represents a recurrent
concern to have impact certainly on people, and perhaps
on things as well" (596). This motive appears to have
varying results, from dominance to submissiveness.
The third motive, the affiliative motive, is of
particular interest to the current study. However,
according to McClelland, it is the motive about which the
least is known. Studies, according to McClelland, have
been inconclusive. This motive aligns with the extrinsic/
social issues examined here.
McClelland has called for greater empirical testing
of the three-motive model. He posited that preliminary
investigations suggest that when multiplied, the three
variables appear to give the best prediction of actions
and that motive dispositions are more powerful predictors
of spontaneous acts than cognitive choices (600).
Gortner et al. (1987) ascribed to McClelland
prominence among content theorists (353). Rainey (1991)
65


cited McClelland's contribution as important, though not
as prominent as it once was as researchers search for a
more complete theory of motivation (135). Rainey,
however, described expectancy theory of work motivation,
which attributes to the individual the role of summing
the values of all possible outcomes that will result from
an action and weighting outcomes by the probability of
their occurrence, as the most promising theory yet
proposed for application in public organizations (136-
37).
Seeking to Explain the Relationships Among Variables;
Expectancy/Process Theories
According to Gortner et al. (1987), process theories
of motivation attempt to explain how and why people are
motivated. These models present motivation as a complex
process in which "cognitionespecially perception and
expectationis important" (343). The focus is on the
interaction of psychological variables with situational
or environmental factors. Expectancy theory retains
prominence in the literature as an examination of the
complexity of the motivation process.
Vroom (1964). Vroom's discussion of motivation was
centered around two issues: "Why is the organism active
at all? What conditions instigate action, determine its
66


duration or persistence and finally its cessation?" and
"What determines the form that activity will take? Under
what conditions will an organism choose one response or
another or move in one direction or another?" (8).
Building upon the 1930s work of Lewin, Vroom described
expectancy theory as a cognitive conceptual model, which
"assumes that the choices made by a person among
alternative courses of action are lawfully related to
psychological events occurring contemporaneously with the
behavior" (14-15). Vroom defined three concepts, valence,
expectancy, and force, as those central to the theory.
Valence is the affective orientation toward specific
outcomes. Therefore, a positive valence refers to
preference for attaining versus not attaining. A zero
valence characterizes indifference, and a negative
valence symbolizes a preference to not attaining a given
outcome (15). Motive is related to valence. A positive
motive "signifies that outcomes which are members of the
class have positive valence" (15). Vroom carefully
distinguished between valence and value. Valence is
anticipated satisfaction from an outcome; value is the
actual satisfaction the outcome provides (15). The
emphasis here is on anticipated satisfaction or
dissatisfaction, rather than on intrinsic properties.
67


"[M]eans acquire valence as a consequence of their
expected relationship to ends" (16). Vroom stated the
valence proposition (proposition one) algebraically, in
equation and nonequation (which is shown below) form:
The valence of an outcome to a person is a
monotonically increasing function of the
algebraic sum of the products of the valences
of all other outcomes and his conceptions of
its instrumentality for the attainment of these
other outcomes. (17).
Expectancy relates to the certainty or lack thereof
of the attainment of certain outcomes. Vroom defined
expectancy as "a momentary belief concerning the
likelihood that a particular act will be followed by a
particular outcome (17). Described in terms of their
strength, expectancies are action-outcome associations,
with values ranging from zero (no subjective probability
that an act will be followed by an outcome) to one
(certainty that the act will be followed by an outcome).
Vroom distinguished expectancy from instrumentality,
which he defined as outcome-outcome association, with
values ranging from -1, indicating a belief that a second
outcome is certain without a first outcome and impossible
with it, to +1, indicating that the first outcome is a
"necessary and sufficient" condition for the second
outcome (17-18).
The third essential concept is that of force, the
68


product of combining valences and expectancies
mathematically. This relationship is expressed in
proposition two:
The force on a person to perform an act is a
monotonically increasing function of the
algebraic sum of the products of the valences
of all outcomes and the strength of his
expectancies that the act will be followed by
the attainment of these outcomes. (18).
To test the theory, Vroom (1964) proposed to infer the
valence of outcomes from observed behavior. Those
valences are assumed to be manipulated by "arousing
appropriate motives" (23), though Vroom struggled with
the appropriate assumptions regarding motive arousal.
Vroom focused upon rewards which could be ascribed
to the three categories previously articulated in this
analysisintrinsic, extrinsic/organizational, extrinsic/
socialin the form of the five properties of work roles:
1. They provide wages to the role occupant in
return for his services.
2. They require from the role occupant the
expenditure of mental or physical energy.
3. They permit the role occupant to contribute
to the production of goods or services.
4. They permit or require of the role occupant
social interaction with other persons.
5. They define, at least in part, the social
status of the role occupant. (30).
In addition, Vroom addressed the role of individual
differences, focusing upon what he called the
"determinants of job satisfaction": supervision, the work
69


group, job content, wages, promotional opportunities, and
hours of work (105). "[Explanations of satisfaction
require the use of both work role and personality
variables. . there are important interactions between
these two types of variables which can be revealed only
if they receive simultaneous study" (162). Vroom
concluded that "individuals differ greatly in their
motives, values and abilities, and these differences
probably have an important bearing on the 'optimal*
characteristics of their work role" (173).
Rainey (1991) explained that research subsequent to
Vroom's delineation of his expectancy theory had mixed
results. According to Rainey, the complexity of the
theory has made testing difficult. Challenges include the
inability to represent accurately human mental processes
and the difficulty of listing on a questionnaire all
possible outcomes important to people in an organization
and measuring their valences (Rainey 1991, 137).
Porter and Lawler (1968). Porter and Lawler
approached motivation to work as the relationship between
job attitudes and job behavior, and focused upon
expectancy theory as the basis upon which to build a
model (12). They addressed the two most prevalent
criticisms of expectancy theories: that they are
70


ahistorical due to the vagueness about the kind of
previous learning that produces different expectancies"
(13) and that they do not specify how outcomes acquire
positive or negative qualities for individuals (13).
Porter and Lawler set out as their objective the
investigation of the relationship of managerial attitudes
to managerial performance. Their model includes nine
separate variables: (1) value of reward (the
attractiveness of possible outcomes to individuals); (2)
effort-reward probability (expectation concerning the
likelihood that given amounts of reward depend upon given
amounts of effort); (3) effort (the amount of energy
expended); (4) abilities and traits (long-term individual
characteristics); (5) role perceptions (direction of
effort that the individual believes he should take); (6)
performance (how much successful role achievement is
accomplished); (7) rewards (desirable outcomes or
returns); (8) perceived equitable rewards (level of
rewards an individual feels he should receive given the
level of performance); and (9) satisfaction (as a
derivative variable, the extent to which the rewards
actually meet or exceed the perceived equitable level)
(16-31). Porter and Lawler also articulated
relationships among and between the variables, in
71


particular how the value of rewards and the perceived
effort-reward probabilities combine to create effort,
which leads to performance. Performance then leads to
satisfaction if it decreases the gap between the
perceived equitable level of rewards and what rewards are
being received. The key to this theoretical system is the
degree of connection that an individual perceives between
his performance and his rewards. They hypothesized that
the greater the value of a reward and the higher the
perceived probability that effort will lead to the
reward, the greater the effort. The relationship between
effort and reward, however, is qualified by abilities and
traits, and by role perceptions. Porter and Lawler
posited satisfaction primarily as a dependent variable,
though they did not preclude the possibility that
feelings of satisfaction may influence future
performance.
Describing their study as exploratory, Porter and
Lawler administered to managers two questionnaires, one
focused upon pay and the other upon role behavior
required for success and the degree of need satisfaction
provided by the job. They investigated correlational
relationships between attitude and performance data.
Porter and Lawler focused upon patterns of results,
72


rather than singular results, in examining their model
(159). They concluded that their findings supported the
model, but could not conclude causality based upon their
methodology. However, they did settle upon two revisions
to the model based upon their results: the reward
variable should be considered as two, extrinsic rewards
(administered by the organization) and intrinsic rewards
(administered by the individual); and there is a link
between performance and perceived equitable rewards (164-
65).
In short, Porter and Lawler (1968) defined
expectancy theory as follows:
Expectancy theory argues that the anticipation
of the positively valent outcome functions
selectively on actions which are expected to
lead it. (10).
Lawler's (1973) refinements to the Porter and Lawler
expectancy theory model were based on three basic
assumptions:
1. People have many conscious, often complex
and competing goals.
2. Most behavior is consciously goal directed.
3. People have affective reactions to the
outcomes they obtain as a result of their
behavior (5).
Lawler's refinements include work on the notion of role
clarity and a practical application emphasis toward
organizational effectiveness. Lawler (1973) concluded:
73


The research evidence on the determinants of
satisfaction suggests that satisfaction is very
much influenced by the actual rewards a person
receives; of course, the organization has a
considerable amount of control over these
rewards. The research also shows that, although
not all people will react to the same reward
level in the same manner, reactions are
predictable if something is known about how
people perceive their inputs. The implication
is that organizations can influence employees'
satisfaction levels (146).
Gortner et al. (1987) have seen the work of Porter
and Lawler as advances to the thinking about satisfaction
and reward-satisfaction relationships:
A major and revolutionary element of Porter and
Lawler's theory is its proposition that
performance causes satisfactionmediated, of
course, by rewards; or in any case, that
satisfaction is more dependent on performance
than performance on satisfaction (365)
Gortner et al. cautioned, however, that the model's
complexity, which adds to its theoretical strength, is a
drawback to its practical application.
Graham and Hays (1993) viewed the practical
contribution of expectancy theory as the provision of a
checklist of variables important in the exercise of
leadership. In addition, "these variables again reflect
the interrelated nature of the management functions"
(168).
Rainey (1991) has described expectancy theory as
"one of the most prominent work motivation theories
74


(137). Rainey supports subsequent research that has
sought to relax the mathematical rigor of the theory and
to focus rather on the positive and negative values of
outcomes and their probabilities.
Steers and Porter (1983) have considered the status
of theories of motivation and the role of expectancy
theories. They identified three major areas as sources
for variables: the individual, the job, and the work
environment. According to Steers and Porter, a true
theory of motivation does not exist, as it would have to
be a unifying framework that would consider the
interactive effects of all of the variables. The success
of expectancy theory, according to Steers and Porter
(1983), is that it is specific in dealing with the role
of individual differences, that it encompasses job-
related variables, and that it focuses on work
environment influences on performance. Its weakness,
however, may be an overemphasis on individuals'
cognitions about the results of their own behavior (640).
Steers and Porter (1983) also provided a useful
sense, adapted from Hilgard and Atkinson (1967), of the
complexity of attempting to infer motives and the
challenges for expectancy and any other human behavior
theoret ica1 constructs:
75


1. any single act may express several motives;
2. motives may appear in disguised forms;
3. several motives may be expressed through
similar or identical acts;
4. similar motives may be expressed in
different behavior; and
5. cultural and personal variations may
significantly moderate the modes of
expression of certain motives (5).
Expectancy theories of human motivation and behavior
continue to receive attention and to be hailed as holding
promise for further research. Nevertheless, the results
are mixed and, in the face of such complexity, new
approaches are needed.
From a Variables Perspective
The complexity of motivation and satisfaction
research is to a major extent the result of the
interaction of numerous variables. In order to review the
literature, the decision has been made to attempt to
"sort out" the variables upon which each researcher has
focused. It is useful to adopt Mottaz's cluster typology.
Mottaz (1985) described the organizational dimension
of work rewards as what has traditionally been described
as instrumental rewards: pay, promotions, fringe
benefits, security, and so forth; the social dimension as
those extrinsic rewards derived from interacting with
others on the job; and the intrinsic as the task
76


dimension derived from the content of the task itself,
i.e. interesting and challenging work, self-direction and
responsibility, variety, creativity, opportunity (366).
The research to be examined focuses in a number of
different areas, from values to commitment, from more
easily isolated variables to interacting variables.
Nevertheless, these works have been chosen for their
contributions to the explanation of the interaction of
the variables and the distinguished nature of those
variables. The presentation is not chronological, as some
works provide greater synthesis opportunities.
Motivation as Dependent Variable
Deci and Rvan (1985). Deci and Ryan focused
attention on the intrinsic aspects of motivation, which
they defined as "the innate, natural propensity to engage
one's interests and exercise one's capacities, and in so
doing, to seek and conguer optimal challenges" (43). They
probed the interactions of intrinsically and
extrinsically motivated behavior, concluding that an
extrinsic reward may result in an instrumental proclivity
that undermines intrinsic motivation (49). They asserted
that "intrinsic motivation is based in people's needs to
be competent and self-determining" (58).
77


Deci and Ryan translated this theorizing to the
organizational setting. They asserted the importance of
self-determination for each organizational member as a
central organizational principle (294). Extrinsic/
organizational reward structures, if perceived and
experienced as controlling, will undermine intrinsic
motivation (298-99).
In this discussion, Deci and Ryan touched upon the
differences in perceptions, and in values:
It is. . not always easy to predict when a
particular structure will be experienced as
controlling, because part of the variance in
how it is experienced is a function of the
perceiver and part of the variance is a
function of the rewarder (299).
They concluded that
whatever rewards are used to motivate people
in other words, to control themit is probable
that they will have a negative effect on the
people's intrinsic motivation (310-11).
Commitment as Dependent Variable
Commitment has become an important research focus in
organizational studies in the 1980s and 1990s. The
evidence has been contradictory, as researchers have
attempted to define commitment and distinguish it from
work satisfaction.
Farrell and Rusbult (19811. Farrell and Rusbult
78


examined job satisfaction and job commitment as related
to reward and values. They described commitment as
related to the probability that an employee will leave
his job and to the employee's feeling of psychological
attachment. The relevance to the current study is the
author's use of the investment model, originally
developed by Rusbult in 1980 to be applied to romantic
relationships, but applied by Farrell and Rusbult to
commitment and satisfaction.
Farrell and Rusbult approached satisfaction and
commitment as predicted by a combination of factors:
Job satisfaction was best predicted by job
reward and cost values. Job commitment was
predicted by a combination of reward and cost
values, alternative values, and investment
size. Thus, while job satisfaction concerns the
employee's affective response to the job, and
is related to the positive and negative
characteristics of the job, job commitment is
additionally influenced by the quality of job
alternatives and the magnitude of the
employee's direct and indirect investment in
his/her job (92-93).
For these purposes, Farrell and Rusbult's findings
regarding satisfaction and commitment are of interest.
They posited that satisfaction and commitment are not
totally overlapping concepts. In fact, they viewed
commitment as a more complex phenomenon.
There are several important considerations regarding
this work by Farrell and Rusbult. The basic vehicle used,
79


the investment model, limits the exploration of work
satisfaction and commitment. In fact, the authors
articulate that the model asserts that "job satisfaction,
or positivity of affect toward one's job, is primarily a
simple function of the rewards and costs associated with
the job" (80). This narrow consideration of satisfaction,
limited to extrinsic/organizational factors, clearly
predicts the narrow scope of the research results.
Mowdav. Porter, and Steers (1982^. Often referenced
in subsequent studies, Mowday et al. provided a
significant contribution in their defining of the
conceptual framework for organizational commitment. They
defined commitment as "the relative strength of an
individual's identification with and involvement in a
particular organization" (27). They emphasized the
exchange nature of commitment, such that individuals
bring to an organization their needs, abilities, desires,
and skills, and expect the organization to provide for
satisfaction of the basics.
The breadth of topics that Mowday et al. approached
has been the basis for a research agenda for the 1980s
and 1990s: commitment, employee-organization linkages,
turnover, withdrawal. At once conceptual and practical,
Mowday et al. focused upon attitudes, perceptions, and
80


behaviors, alluding to the as yet insufficiently explored
concept of reciprocal relationships among these three.
Of importance to the current study is the
acknowledgment by Mowday et al. of multiple factors that
influence commitment: personal influences; organizational
influences; job characteristics; supervision; work group;
pay; organization characteristics; and nonorganizational
factors (56-65). Perhaps most importantly, Mowday et al.
emphasize the subtle interplay of attitudes and behaviors
over time as the process whereby commitment develops. The
basic theoretical orientation is that commitment is a
process characterized by the "reciprocal influence of
attitudes and behaviors" (47).
Mowday et al. have cautioned that viewing commitment
as a reciprocal agreement portends difficulties
empirically. Nevertheless, this work serves as an
interesting foundation for the examination of the
relative importance of work satisfaction factors.
Mottaz (1988). Mottaz explored organizational
commitment as an exchange relationship, based upon work
rewards and work values. To state it simply,
"organizational commitment is largely a function of work
rewards and work values" (470). Mottaz defined work
rewards as both intrinsic and extrinsic benefits, which
81


function as the key determinants of commitment. According
to Mottaz, demographic variables are correlates, not
determinants, of commitment.
Mottaz examined the responses by 1385 employees from
five homogeneous occupational groups. The findings
revealed that intrinsic task rewards are the more
powerful determinants of organizational commitment.
Second in importance are extrinsic/social rewards,
followed by extrinsic/organizational rewards as the least
influential (475). These findings are aligned with the
results showing that work values also rank as intrinsic
first, followed by extrinsic/social, then extrinsic/
organizational.
Mottaz concluded that:
Workers tend to enter an organization with
specific desires or work values. The more one's
experiences in the organization are congruent
with one's values, the more likely the
individual will be committed to the
organization (479).
Romzek (19901. Romzek approached commitment as the
flipside of turnover. Romzek criticized the management
emphasis on what she terms an investment approach, i.e.
inducements such as pay, benefits, and career
opportunities, as insufficient to impact employee
commitment.
Romzek articulated two types of psychological ties
82


to an organization: one based on investments employees
have made in the workplace and the other based on a
shared commitment to the organization's values (375). The
investment factors may be what has been described here as
extrinsic/organizational and extrinsic/social in nature,
including aspects such as promotion prospects,
development of work group networks, performance bonuses,
accrual of vacation, sick leave, and retirement benefits
(376). Commitment, on the other hand, is described in
terms of values: loyalty, shared organizational values,
personal sense about the agency's mission, compatibility
with ethics, and family and friends' support of the
affiliation. In other words, commitment is not based upon
calculations of investment (376-77).
Romzek's observations and assertions are helpful for
examining values, both as personal and as organizational.
Her admonition is to pay attention to commitment as a
quality that can be nurtured by managers and by the
organization's culture.
Guzlev (19911. Guzley built upon earlier work on
commitment by Brinkman, Steers, Mottaz, and others.
Guzley brought together the concepts of attitudinal and
behavioral commitment, then focused upon the impact of
intrinsic and extrinsic factors.
83


Guzley has attempted to clear up the conceptual
confusion regarding commitment. Based in the work by
Becker (1960), behavioral commitment is consistent human
behavior, characterized by (1) persistence over a time
period; (2) allowance of opposed lines of activity (a
change in course) as long as it serves the individual in
pursuit of the same goal; and (3) rejection of feasible
and commendable alternatives for the selection of the
alternative which best serves an individual's interest
(5-8). On the other hand, attitudinal commitment is based
upon a focus on the individual's internalization of the
organization's goals and values, whereby the individual
is willing to expend considerable effort on behalf of the
organization and is desirous of remaining as an
organizational member. Attitudinal commitment is linked
to both organizational experiences and personal and job
characteristics (26).
Guzley examined a broad range of concepts, including
the predictive power of self-esteem for commitment, the
relationship between values and commitment, the role of
intrinsic and extrinsic rewards, the role of personal and
job characteristics, and the relationship between job
experiences and commitment.
Most salient to the current research are Guzley's
84


examination of attitudinal commitment and the findings
concerning values and rewards. The assertion that
individuals' values predict their tendency to commit is
only partially supported in the findings. However, there
is strong evidence that commitment is stronger when
individuals' motivation is based upon intrinsic rather
than extrinsic rewards (141). Guzley concluded that both
attitudinal and behavioral commitment are based in both
extrinsic and intrinsic motivation.
Huselid and Dav (1991). Huselid and Day focused upon
the relationship between job involvement and turnover, a
shift from the commitment-turnover relationships detailed
by other researchers. They described commitment as
comprised by two distinct factors: attitudinal commitment
and continuance commitment. Attitudinal commitment is
affective in nature, wherein the employee becomes
emotionally attached to the organization and perceives
goal congruence between personal and organizational
goals. Continuance commitment is based upon an exchange
relationship, and the extent of continuance is
commensurate with the extent to which the exchange favors
the employee (380-81).
What is interesting for these purposes is that the
research by Huselid and Day does not support the
85


hypothesis that commitment and involvement interact to
influence turnover. In fact, the researchers discovered
methodological flaws in previous research. This confirms
the caution that the analysis of variables is complex and
requires careful selection of analytical methods and data
interpretation.
Person-Organization Fit as Dependent Variable
Person-organization fit as a focus of study has
augmented the emphasis on the impact of the organization
on an individual's beliefs, motivation, and satisfaction
with the influence an individual has on the organization.
This exchange relationship has been the object of a
number of researchers' efforts.
Chatman (1989). Chatman focused on an examination of
the influence of the situation on the person. She
criticized interactional models as having overemphasized
either the person or situation components and as having
failed to consider the effects of the people on the
situation (333). This work involves a consideration of
values. Chatman defined her focus, "person-organization
fit," as "the congruence between the norms and values of
organizations and the values of persons" (339).
This research is interesting in that the focus is
86


upon not only the effects that organizational membership
may have on individual values and behaviors, but on the
effects the individual will have on the organization's
norms and values (339). Chatman assessed both
organizational values and individual values, then
compared the two profiles. The implications are, among
other assertions, that "high levels of person-
organization fit are beneficial for individuals and
organizations" (343), though extremely high levels among
numerous organizational members may have detrimental
effects (a topic of less relevance here). What is notable
is the salience to satisfaction for the employees for
whom the fit is appropriate.
Chatman did not carry this study to an examination
of the work satisfaction factors. Nevertheless, the study
is interesting as background for consideration of the
rewards/values interaction. As Chatman concluded:
[B]y clarifying important criteria for
conducting interactional organization research,
we can come closer to understanding how
organizational membership can have enduring and
dramatic effects on people and how people can
have enduring and dramatic effects on
organizations (346).
Vancouver and Schmitt (1991). The concept of fit is
further examined by Vancouver and Schmitt, focusing upon
the idea of goal congruence. Here the extrinsic/social
87


aspects came into play, as the researchers examined goal
congruency at two levels: between supervisor and
subordinate and between an individual and all other
individuals within a constituency, also know as group
cohesiveness.
According to Vancouver and Schmitt, organizational
goals (not operational goals) reflect the values and
commitment of the founders and leaders of organizations,
as well as, to some extent, the people who make up the
organization (333).
The central issue for the study is based upon the
proposition that "agreement among organizational members
regarding goals for that organization is related to the
attitudes of its members regarding the organization"
(348). The authors discovered that goal congruence with
peers appears to be more important than goal congruence
with supervisors. These findings serve as an interesting
starting point for the examination of the role of the
extrinsic/social factors in work satisfaction. Vancouver
and Schmitt cautioned that further research is needed,
but concluded the importance of peer goal congruence in
organizations (350).
88


Job Selection as Dependent Variable
Job selection has been variously regarded as a
function of values and as an interaction between
individual and organizational characteristics. Group
differences between full- and part-time workers could
provide some interesting implications for the selection
process.
Judge and Bretz (1992). Judge and Bretz shifted to
an examination of the role of work values on job choice
decisions. While tangential to the current research,
their work offers some clarification regarding the
concept of work values. They cited Meglino et. al.'s
findings that workers report greater satisfaction and
commitment when workers' values are congruent with their
supervisors' values.
Of particular interest, Judge and Bretz found that
of the four values examined, threeconcern for others,
achievement, and fairnessexert more influence on the
job choice process than the fourth, pay and promotional
opportunities (269). The values present in a job best
predicted offer acceptance "when the value emphasized
matched the primary value orientation of the individual"
(269).
These findings may have implications for the
89


Full Text

PAGE 1

WORK SATISFACTION AND GROUP DIFFERENCES: FULL-TIME AND PART-TIME FACULTY IN COMMUNITY COLLEGES by Linda Speier Bowman B.A., University of South Alabama, 1973 M.A., University of New Orleans, 1981 M.P.A., University of Colorado at Denver, 1992 A thesis submitted to the Faculty of the Graduate School of the University of Colorado at Denver in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy Public Administration 1995

PAGE 2

1995 by Linda Speier Bowman All rights reserved.

PAGE 3

This Thesis for the Doctor of Philosophy degree by Linda Speier Bowman has been approved for the Graduate School of Public Affairs

PAGE 4

Bowman, Linda Speier (Ph.D., Public Administration) Work Satisfaction and Group Differences: Full-Time and Part-Time Faculty in Community Colleges Thesis directed by Professor Robert Gage ABSTRACT Research on work satisfaction generally has focused on the full-time worker. The role of the part-time worker is emerging in significance as organizational membership is redefined. This research was designed to contribute to the knowledge base on work satisfaction by testing for group differences among full-and part-time faculty in overall work satisfaction, in the importance of work satisfaction variables, and in work values, using a theoretical construct posited by Mottaz in 1985. Full-and part-time faculty from four community colleges were surveyed and interviewed. Faculty were asked to self-classify according to a taxonomy of faculty published by Biles and Tuckman in 1986. The objectives were to examine work satisfaction and group differences; to ascertain the relative importance of work satisfaction factors as they contribute to overall work satisfaction; to iv

PAGE 5

explore the relationships between work values and satisfaction; and to test the theoretical framework that ascribes satisfaction factors to three clusters, intrinsic (task autonomy, task involvement, and task significance), extrinsic/organizational (general working conditions, promotion, and salary), and extrinsic/social (co-workers and supervisors) Two additional work satisfaction variables, overall work satisfaction and organizational commitment, were measured. The findings revealed that community college faculty were generally satisfied with and committed to their work. Community college faculty differed little in their levels of overall work satisfaction and organizational commitment, in the role that contributing variables play in overall satisfaction, and in their values. However, where significant differences existed, full-time faculty were less satisfied than part-time faculty. While satisfaction levels for intrinsic and extrinsic/social factors were generally high, satisfaction with extrinsic/organizational factors was generally low. Weak relationships were discovered between overall satisfaction and values, extrinsic/organizational and overall variables. satisfaction commitment and and involvement emerged as the most significant predictors of v

PAGE 6

overall work satisfaction. The 1985 Mottaz theoretical constructs, while not refuted, were not wholly supported. This abstract accurately represents the content of the candidate's thesis. I recommend its publication. Signed vi

PAGE 7

DEDICATION The journey towards a goal of great magnitude may be solitary. However, once in a great while, that journey may be shared with those who are closest. This thesis is dedicated to my family, whose emotional support, patience, belief, and love enabled me to attain a goal for which I had longed for two decades. To Rob, whose love of the written and spoken word enriched his understanding of this process and deepened his pride in what I was doing. To Rachel, who continually supported me, even giving up a part of her room for the dissertation office and tolerating the lights shining behind the curtain at four o'clock in the morning. To T.C., who countless mornings before school would come down to the dissertation office to read, keeping me company and sharing his stories. To my parents, John and Rosemary Speier, who instilled in me the love of learning, respect for education, and drive to achieve my goals. And to my husband, Roger, my friend, my soulmate, my partner, whose work is reflected in the data tables, in the format, in the details of this document, and whose love and incredible support are reflected in the countless hours spent working together in the attainment of this goal. vii

PAGE 8

CONTENTS ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS . . . . . . . . xi CHAPTER 1. INTRODUCTION . . . . . . 1 The Importance of Adjunct Faculty to Fulfilling the Community College Mission 3 Nature of the current Literature on Motivation, satisfaction, and Related Variables 6 The Juxtaposition of the Part-time Faculty Member and the community College Culture 7 Part-time Employees a Community Colleges 10 Part-time Faculty in Community Colleges . . Research Objectives Limitations of the Study Significance of the study 2. LITERATURE REVIEW . . . Untangling the Knot: Definitional Clarification of the Dependent 16 26 27 27 30 Variables 32 Selected Typologies for Organizing the Literature 40 The Foundation: Herzberg . . 49 viii

PAGE 9

3. 4. Need/Content Approaches Seeking to Explain the Relationships Among Variables: Expectancy/Process Theories From a Variables Perspective Motivation as Dependent Variable Commitment as Dependent Variable Person-organization Fit as Dependent Variable 49 66 76 77 78 86 Job Selection as Dependent Variable 89 Work Satisfaction as Dependent Variable 91 Conclusion RESEARCH DESIGN General Method Specific Procedures Quantitative Methodology Qualitative Methodology Research Questions . . FINDINGS . Introduction . . . . 99 101 101 103 104 111 113 115 115 Work Satisfaction and Group Differences 116 Relationships Among the Variables . . 138 The Clustering of Variables 144 Values and Group Differences 154 The Relationship Between Values and Work satisfaction 161 ix

PAGE 10

5. CONCLUSIONS . 167 Introduction 167 Work Satisfaction and Group Differences 168 Full-and Part-time Differences 168 Differences Among Faculty Groups 170 The Clustering of Variables 173 Values and Group Differences 175 Full-and Part-time Differences 175 Differences Among Faculty Groups 177 The Relationship between Values and Satisfaction . . . 178 Satisfaction and commitment 180 Conclusions and Connections to Earlier Research . . . . . 182 Limitations of This study 183 Recommendations for Further Research 184 sunooary and Implications for Practice 185 APPENDIX A. SURVEY AND COVER LETTERS 189 B. CORRELATION MATRICES . . . 201 LIST OF SOURCES CONSULTED 215 X

PAGE 11

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS There are many people who contributed to the completion of this thesis and to whom I am indebted. I cannot name every one of them. I especially want to thank the members of my committee. My chair, Dr. Bob Gage, provided both professional guidance and unwavering encouragement. The committee members, Dr. Kathy Boyd, Dr. John Buechner, Dr. Linda deLeon, and Dr. Gregory P. smith, shared their time and expertise, responding to my needs and offering invaluable suggestions. Thanks to Dr. Xing Cheng, who provided statistical support, working with me and with Dr. smith to challenge the data. I want to thank the members of the staff of the Colorado Community College and Occupational Education System, who provided financial support for this research. I would like to particularly thank Dr. Jerry Wartgow, Mr. Rich Allen, Mr. Clay Whitlow, and Dr. Richard Voorhees. Thanks go to my friends and colleagues at Red Rocks Community College. I especially want to thank Dr. Dorothy Horrell and Dr. Merna saliman, who tolerated, cajoled, encouraged, and accommodated me during this journey. And thanks to my colleagues and friends at the college, who listened and who praised and who shared their wisdom. Finally, I want to thank all those who participated in the research, who completed the survey or who agreed to be interviewed, for sharing thoughts fundamental to their work and for demonstrating the beauty of the learning process. xi

PAGE 12

CHAPTER ONE A basic approach to study the complexities of any organization is to understand the experience of those who comprise and carry out its processes (Seidman 1985, 14). INTRODUCTION This thesis has been designed to probe the complexities of work satisfaction, examining group differences for faculty in community colleges; to explore the relationships among work satisfaction variables, based upon the work satisfaction theoretical constructs posited by Mottaz (1985); and to further the understanding of the organizational role of community college faculty in order to inform policy and administrative decision-making. The concept of work satisfaction is fascinating in its complexity, diversity of approaches, and contextuality. Often loosely woven beneath the rubric of motivation, and positioned uneasily among the concepts of commitment, values, involvement, and expectations, work satisfaction emerges as a comparative dimension, an orientation that in effect measures perceptions against 1

PAGE 13

values. According to Mottaz (1985), work satisfaction is based upon a "congruency between the worker's perception of the work situation. . and his/her work values regarding those same dimensions" (366). Mottaz posits a theoretical framework for work satisfaction as a threefactor construct; intrinsic variables are those derived from the content of the task itself; extrinsic/ organizational variables are provided by the organization for the purpose of facilitating or motivating task performance; extrinsic/social variables represent interactions with others on the job (Mottaz 1985, 366). Many studies have been conducted that explore the influence of demographic variables, such as gender, age, and ethnicity, on work satisfaction. Generally, research has demonstrated that such variables have little significance in the worker's assessment of satisfaction. Other studies have examined the satisfaction of different occupational groups, and have demonstrated some congruency of the effects of work satisfaction variables. Further research is needed to probe the complexities of satisfaction, the relative importance of identified factors, and the interaction of values and measures of satisfaction. A significant gap exists in the literature: part-time workers, a growing segment of the workforce, 2

PAGE 14

I have been given scant attention. Specifically, research is needed to ascertain if the same or different factors predict work satisfaction fo workers. It is particularly interesting to focus on parttime faculty for four major reasons: (1) the studies on work satisfaction have been by-and-large limited to fulltime employee groups; (2) part-time faculty are inclusive of a broad spectrum of workers, from hopeful full-timers to the semi-retired; (3) the part-time faculty is a professional population that can be compared to full-time professionals; and (4) from a practical standpoint, a significant amount of the instruction for most institutions of higher education is entrusted to the part-time faculty. The Importance of Adjunct Faculty to Fulfilling the Community College Mission The adjunct faculty member occupies a role characterized by dichotomies: as one highly educated, but not highly paid; trusted with curriculum and students, but often not well integrated into the organization; committed to the profession, but sometimes excluded from the unit; diverse in background and needs, but often eager to be integrated into the organization. This complexity is juxtaposed against the complexity of the 3

PAGE 15

community college, where teaching supersedes research, although academic credentials are essential; where occupational education struggles to be integrated with and to be respected by academic education; where open access competes with the inherent importance of successful outcomes. What emerges is an ambiguous subject in an ambiguous setting, but a clear practical as well as theoretical need for understanding of the organizational implications of work satisfaction. Anecdotally, the part-time faculty in community colleges are variously portrayed as discontented, frustrated, excluded, indifferent, nonparticipatory, exploited, essential, flexible, committed, professional, and more. Increasingly, in Colorado, part-time faculty members are joining together, forging informal associations on campus to champion part-time issues, vying for representation in faculty governance bodies, and seeking legislative attention. The groups are meeting with mixed results, struggling to have adequate participation, to sort out the diverse needs of the membership, and to have a voice in institutional and professional issues. Increasing percentages of courses are delivered by part-time instructors, though precise numbers are elusive because numbers include full-time 4

PAGE 16

faculty teaching overloads. Some see these increasing percentages as an academic crisis, while others point to the fiscal realities that to some extent must drive employment decision-making and to inconclusive data regarding differences in quality of instruction. It is generally agreed that part-time faculty in community colleges enable the institutions to fulfill their missions to be democratic, responsive, and broadly accessible. The employment of part-time faculty allows a temporary infusion of narrow expertise, the rapid response to a community employment need, the opportunity to pull a new technology into the curriculum, and the ability to respond to enrollment surges. The statistics describing the pervasiveness of the institutional dependence on part-time faculty are often elusive. A 1994 request to the Colorado Commission on Higher Education met with mixed results, with numbers of part-time faculty for community colleges incorrect and incomplete. According to the National Center for Education statistics (1989), 35 to 38 percent of all faculty members in higher education are part-time, and this number does not include instruction delivered by graduate teaching assistants in universities. In public two-year institutions, over 50 percent of faculty are 5

PAGE 17

part-time. With the great amount of instruction delivered by part-time faculty, it is important to understand their level of work satisfaction, to identify the sources of satisfaction and dissatisfaction, and to be able to predict what initiatives merit an allocation of scarce resources. It is necessary to examine faculty groups and to discover group differences if they exist. How do the groups differ as to, for example, demographics and values, as well as to satisfaction? Are there basic tenets of work satisfaction that are the same for all groups, full-and part-time? Where there are differences, do these differences dictate a bifurcated institutional policy? Nature of the current Literature on Motivation. Sat.isfaction. and Related Variables The literature on work satisfaction reveals a complexity that is somewhat obscured by definitional confusion. At times the term satisfaction is used interchangeably with motivation. Elsewhere, it is loosely associated with but not clearly distinguished from commitment, involvement, values, and expectations. Clearly, one must make an attempt at discrete definition of terms in order to make sense of the status of the 6

PAGE 18

research. The following, drawn from a variety of sources which will be examined in chapter two, will serve as working definitions for the purposes of this study: Work satisfaction: an orientation toward work based upon the interaction between one's values and one's perceived work situation; Motivation: a broad psychological construct for the stimuli that initiate responses or behaviors. In an organizational context, motivation may be inferred based upon consequent activities or behaviors; Commitment: an affective response to the whole organization, an exchange relationship; Involvement: the direction and intensity of the worker's attachment to the organization; Expectations: what a worker believes he or she will receive from an organization in exchange for work behaviors; and Values: the relative importance to the worker of factors associated with the organizational experience. The Juxtapositionof the Part-time Faculty Member and the Community College Culture The following examination of work satisfaction is enriched by two contextual layers: the issues of parttime employment for the faculty member in higher education, and the diversity of the community college setting. 7

PAGE 19

Part-time Employees In general, one finds gaps in the literature on part-time employees, particularly those in public employment. Jackofsky, Salter, and Peters (1986) investigated turnover among part-time employees. They noted that between 1965 and 1980, the "number of employees who chose [emphasis added] to work part-time almost doubled, and the demand for part-time work continues to increase" (41). They argued that organizations must design new management strategies, as part-time workers differ from full-time in more than just hours worked. They addressed what they termed "partial inclusion": Part-time and full-time workers are different because organizations treat them differently. Part-time employees are less involved in the more subtle organizational politics and workings than are full-time employees, and part-time employees do not receive the same benefits that full-time employees receive (42). The context of part-time employment offers another layer necessary for critical examination. The assumptions upon which Jackofsky et al. built their conclusions, i.e., that workers choose to work part time, may not fit the part-time workers who find themselves unable to secure full-time employment. The "part-time employment as only in-field option" is particularly salient to higher 8

PAGE 20

education, where often hundreds of well-credentialed applicants will apply for a single advertised faculty position. Turner and Phillips (1981) concentrated upon the increasing numbers of part-time faculty in higher education. While it is readily acknowledged and widely known that part-time faculty outnumber full-time faculty in community colleges, in fact, if universities include graduate teaching assistants as part-time faculty, then universities also allocate a significant proportion of teaching to part-time ranks. According to Turner and Phillips: such data emphasize the great importance of this class of employees to every post-secondary institution and should underscore the necessity of taking a careful look at this class of employees ... (x-xi). Interestingly, part-time is not the same as temporary, for, according to the American Association of University Professors (1993), on the average part-time faculty members spend 6.5 years with the same institution (41). The Association identified the conditions for parttimers that hinder a professional quality of work as lack of office space or basic equipment; ineligibility for research or travel funds; lack of review processes; absence of incentives or rewards for performance; and 9

PAGE 21

lack of input to governance structures (43). This is juxtaposed against the importance of employee satisfaction. As Baird, Hartnett, and Associates (1980) noted, "important aspects of a college's environment are the perceptions, expectations, satisfactions, and dissatisfactions of the people who make up the college community" (2). Community Colleges The examination of this context for work satisfaction requires an understanding of the unique characteristics of the community college and its place in higher education. The community college is a btentieth century phenomenon, with marked growth in the 1960s, a product of several social forces: the need for workers to be trained for expanding industries; the lengthened period of adolescence; and the drive for social equality (Cohen and Brawer 1989, 1). Higher education has been and continues to be seen as a vehicle for solving societal problems, and community colleges, specific to their openaccess mission, clearly have been asked to fulfill that role. As a society we have looked to the schools for racial integration. . The schools are expected to solve problems of unemployment by preparing students for jobs . The list 10

PAGE 22

could be extended to show that the responsibility for doing something about drug abuse, alcoholism, teenage pregnancy, inequitable incomes, and other individual and societal ills has been assigned to the schools soon after the problems were identified" (Cohen and Brawer 1989, 2). Vaughn and Associates (1983) identified the challenges of the community college as "provider of vocational, collegiate, and adult education to the students who come to it from virtually all segments of society" (xv) They further identified the community college "as the single institution capable of salvaging opportunity for the large numbers of Americans whose academic and occupational skills have prepared them neither to participate in society nor to achieve any measure of success" (241). The open-access philosophy contributes to the complex culture of the community college. This backdrop for faculty issues is particularly relevant to the examination of work satisfaction. According to Roueche, Baker, and Rose (1989): No institution of higher education has ever undertaken a more challenging and difficult educational mission than the open-door college. The open-admissions policy admits the most heterogeneous and diverse student body to be found in any educational setting in the world. Providing quality educational programs and excellent instruction to students who need the most structured support, while at the same time maintaining strong academic programs for well-11

PAGE 23

qualified students and responding effectively to the needs of local communities, is the leadership challenge of the 1990's for community college executives (40). The complexity of mission and open-access philosophy pose a difficult scenario for the faculty in the community college. According to Cheney (1990), the community college mission is a "countertrend to academia's current culture," where community colleges' strong teaching mission is juxtaposed against a system of higher education "that does not place a high value on teaching" and where "community colleges rank low in prestige" and "command fewer resources" (30). Community colleges are the embodiment of democratized education, where, as Hollinshead wrote in 1936, the college is "'meeting community needs, providing adult education and educational, recreational, and vocational activities and placing its cultural facilities at the disposal of the community'" (Cohen and Brawer 1989, 16). While the community college vision has in some sense shifted, with emphasis in the 1990s placed more on academic preparation as the vocational aspects recede in demand by students, nevertheless the community college continues to strive to fulfill the breadth of mission articulated in the 1930s. As Cohen and Brawer (1989) put it: 12

PAGE 24

overall, the community colleges have suffered less from goal displacement than have most other higher education institutions. They had less to displace; their goals were to serve the people with whatever the people wanted (22-23). Vaughn and Associates (1983) described the community colleges as social synthesizers, as mirrors to broad movements in society: [The community college] has encompassed a number of social, political, economic, and educational movements within its comprehensive philosophy and shaped them into a profound statement about American democracy. The results probably qualify the development of the nation's community colleges to be viewed as a 'movement'" (1). The role of the community college manifests in some conflict for all community college faculty, full-and part-time. According to Seidman (1985), "the conditions of community college teaching reflect an absence of shared assumptions about its intellectual nature" (253). Seidman identified six issues facing community college faculty: the conflict between vocational and liberal education; powerlessness in the face of hierarchical arrangements; isolation from colleagues; students' lack of basic skills; pressures for accessibility; and the double edge of student-centeredness, which exerts pressure on faculty to nurture student success and which is balanced against academic standards. Seidman believes that these conditions result in the submersion of common 13

PAGE 25

experiences, to the detriment of collegiality. Faculty become increasingly divorced from their disciplines: I sense now that I am further and further away from the things that I studied in college and graduate school. I think less and less about them and teach them less and less (113). Seidman saw consequences from separating research from teaching, which plague their teaching efforts, affect their aspirations and sense of themselves, undermine their intellectual energy, and conflict with a major source of satisfaction and renewal that should be available to all teachers as part of their work (253). Seidman concluded that the conflict between high standards and underprepared students and the conflict among competing expectations rest against a context of "fragmented curricula, inequitable collegial relations, and low status in the hierarchy of higher education" (270). Another piece of this complex puzzle has to do with the disciplinary identification of faculty in community colleges. According to Cohen and Brawer (1989), an argument can be made that allegiance to a profession, and the inherent cosmopolitanism it engenders, ill suits a community-centered institution. They believe that a professionalized community college faculty need not follow the university model that has encouraged interest 14

PAGE 26

in research, scholarship, and academic disciplinary concerns at the expense of teaching (87). These ideas provoke discussions of the possible conflict between the scholarly preparation of the faculty at community colleges and the realities of the role of the faculty. The discipline-oriented training gives way to a different focus: Community college instructors rarely write for publication, but when they do, and when they speak at conferences or are polled in surveys, they often reveal persistent concerns about their workplace (Cohen and Brawer 1989, 65). Differences among the disciplines surface as salient. According to Seidman (1985), faculty from traditional disciplines are most likely to feel out of place. McGrath and Spear (1991) described the problem as the "phenomenon of the practitioners culture--which plays so strongly against rigorous analysis and public debate of important educational issues" (157). McGrath and Spear emphasized a need for faculty to encounter one another again as intellectuals, rather than just as "fellow practitioners" (157). They described community college faculty as isolated intellectually, socially, and institutionally (162). McGrath and Spear additionally articulated what they termed the "central professional challenge," "to render 15

PAGE 27

the disciplines intelligible to outsiders, to initiate them into its mysteries" {157). But this charge is coupled with what Seidman (1985) described as the dichotomy of teaching and research, "imposed upon and finally accepted by many community college faculty." Seidman saw this as a false dichotomy {254-55). McGrath and Spear (1991) evaluated community colleges as having an ambiguous position within higher education, in a profession that is new, with unclear rules (139). McGrath and Spear (1991) and Seidman (1985) have criticized community college faculty for moving too far from their disciplines, from research and scholarly debate, into teaching that is weighted too heavily to imparting knowledge, forsaking the scholarly task of augmenting and reshaping knowledge. This drifting away from the disciplines has, in fact, isolated community college faculty from university faculty and from the disciplines, with negative implications for the faculty, for the disciplines, and for the institutions. Part-time Faculty in Community Colleges Each of the key elements, the shifting mission of the community college, the precarious placement of the community college faculty member between the university 16

PAGE 28

and secondary faculty, the tension between the academic training and scholarly education and the practical teaching demands, and the relationship of the part-time faculty member to the institution, provides the dynamic for an understanding of work satisfaction factors for faculty groups in community colleges. Complicating the examination further is the breadth of the adjunct faculty in terms of not only discipline but circumstance surrounding their part-time role. Gappa and Leslie (1993) decried the bifurcated employment system in higher education that "lump(s] all tenure-track faculty in one class and all part-time faculty in another." They described the part..,.time faculty: Part-time faculty come from enormously varied backgrounds and life situations. They need a far more flexible set of options, rewards, incentives, and recognitions for their work. Some depend almost completely on their parttime teaching to survive, but others are primarily committed to other professional careers in which they are well-compensated. Some part-time faculty aspire to academic careers, but others have no interest in them at all. Yet most institutions treat all part-time faculty alike (63). Biles and Tuckman (1986) proposed two useful taxonomies, one based upon demographics, the other upon employment, for classification of part-time faculty. The first classification divides the group among seven categories: semi-retired (ex-full-time academics and ex-17

PAGE 29

full-timers outside of academe); students (teach parttime while working on advanced degrees); hopeful fulltimers (teach part-time because they cannot find a fulltime position); full-mooners (hold another job of 35 or more hours per week); part-mooners (hold two or more part-time jobs of less than 35 hours per week); homeworkers (work part-time to allow time to care for family members); and part-unknowners (reasons for teaching part-time are unknown). This taxonomy is adopted for the current research. The other classification proposed by Biles and Tuckman characterizes faculty as moonlighters (employed in another full-time job); twilighters (not otherwise employed); sunlighters (have regular, but part-time, faculty appointments); and persons on occasional part-time leave (on leave from regular full-time faculty appointment) (11-13). Leslie, Kellams, and Gunne (1982) also began to address the diversity among part-time faculty, focusing upon the complexity of the subgroups: [T]he part-time faculty population itself demonstrates severe divergences of interest among subgroups. In other words, there can be no general or integrated statement made about the interests of part-time faculty (3). Biles and Tuckman (1986) agreed, in that part-time differ in terms of their motivations for being part-time, and, as a consequence, in 18

PAGE 30

what they expect from their employing institution. This makes it difficult to formulate a single policy that meets the needs of all of the part-timers employed at that institution (10-11). These challenges emerge in policy formulation, administration, and management. While on the one hand, the part-time faculty is entrusted with a large proportion of the instruction at the community colleges, on the other hand the needs of this population are neither well articulated nor well addressed. Rajagopal and Farr (1989) characterized two separate faculties in higher education: the full-time faculty, who have substantial control over their work and the parttime faculty, "whose work is marked by curricular routinization of courses, standardized pedagogy, course replication, piecework payment, and managerial coordination" (272). According to Gappa and Leslie (1993), part-timers have little security, continuity, or incentive to remain at an institution (152). Nevertheless, studies of the quality of instruction of part-and full-time faculty, e.g. Lowther et al. (1990), have found little difference between the groups. And Leslie, Kellams, and Gunne (1982) believe that while "conventional wisdom suggests that part-timers detract from the overall quality of an institution's instruction. 19

PAGE 31

such an assumption is probably invalid. Rather, there is more likely little difference between the quality of instruction as performed by part-timers. and fulltimers" (16). Acknowledging the dearth of studies on comparative quality between full-and part-time faculty, Leslie, Kellams, and Gunne cite Grymes (1977) and Friedlander (1979). Grymes found no difference in quality of instruction, while Friedlander found differences in a variety of instruction-related variables, but no evidence of a quality difference. Leslie, Kellams, and Gunne concluded that both full-and part-time faculty vary widely in the quality of instruction (16). Without definitive data regarding differences in instructional quality, why is it important to examine part-time faculty? One reason derives from the perception that part-time faculty are dissatisfied with their employment situation. According to the Ad Hoc Committee on Adjunct Faculty (Colorado 1992), a "disparate, multitiered employment situation. takes advantage of those on the bottom [and] has detrimental effects on students" (4). Further, the Committee stated: For the great majority of part-timers, lack of job security, disproportionately low salaries, demeaning status, and denial of benefits and perquisites result in a loss of professionalism and self-esteem. The most damaging impact, however, is the loss of talented and qualified 20

PAGE 32

teachers who, because of the demeaning and insufficient compensation--both economic and professional--are forced to abandon the teaching profession altogether (3). The assertions of the Ad Hoc Committee on Adjunct Faculty have been variously portrayed as representative of part-time faculty throughout Colorado and as selfinterested and parochial. Perhaps the true importance of the Committee lies in the urging to address the many issues surrounding the reliance on part-time faculty for the delivery of higher education. As Gappa and Leslie (1993) pointed out, various groups and agencies, from accrediting commissions, state boards, and program reviewers to faculty organizations, advocate controlling the level of part-time faculty employment, i.e. the proportion of instruction delivered by part-time faculty. However, budget realities in most states appear to mandate that substantial proportions of courses be delivered by part-time faculty (91). In fact, the reasons for employing part-time faculty are almost as diverse as the faculty themselves. According to a study conducted by the Office of the Chancellor, California community Colleges, Sacramento (1987), part-time faculty are "often employed for their specific knowledge, to provide staffing flexibility, to teach odd-hours and off-campus, and because their pay is less than that of full-time 21

PAGE 33

faculty" (1). Gappa and Leslie (1993) positioned the trend in the broader context: campuses in the 1990s are faced with a national economic recession, the prospect of dramatically increasing enrollments, prospective retirements of large cohorts of senior faculty in a short period of time, the wearing out of infrastructures, and a host of other problems (1). concerns aside, the role of part-time faculty in the delivery of undergraduate education in the United states promises to continue to be significant, if not predominant. In fact, the trend toward part-time faculty appears to be on the increase, as institutions work to address the reality of reduced resources, increased enrollments, less-prepared students, volatile career market trends, shifting student demographics, and increased demand for lifelong education. Leslie, Kellams, and Gunne (1982) began to address work satisfaction for part-time faculty by examining the multiple and complex interests and motives for any given part-timer: "Most part-timers work for a combination of intrinsic, professional, careerist, and economic reasons," with intrinsic and professional motives emerging as the most important (46). According to Gappa and Leslie (1993), although part-timers receive pleasure 22

PAGE 34

from their teaching, they are dissatisfied with many aspects of their employment. Gappa and Leslie found parttimers who work at other jobs to be the most critical of how they are treated: They have broad experience in the real world of corporate, government, and artistic life, and they can compare the way they are treated in academe with what they are accustomed to elsewhere. Many offer a cynical assessment of the petty and thoughtless treatment they receive and are often highly aware of the inequities in their employment despite their academic backgrounds and their stature in other arenas (42). In contrast, others have seen the hopeful full-timer as the most dissatisfied, in that often they are striving to earn a living, piecing together a "full-time" position by teaching at multiple institutions. Gappa and Leslie (1993) found dissatisfaction among all groups, "whether they were aspiring to an academic career or teaching one night a week as specialists, part-timers constantly alluded to their status in a bifurcated academic career system" (43). The messages from the faculty members themselves are mixed. This research proposes to probe the complexities of work satisfaction for full-and part-time workers, specifically community college faculty, testing for group differences and looking for what Mottaz (1985) described as the three factors that contribute to 23

PAGE 35

satisfaction or dissatisfaction: the intrinsic, which is widely touted as the most important, and which includes the factors associated with the work itself; the extrinsic/organizational, which includes working conditions, pay, benefits, office space; and the extrinsic/social, which includes the interpersonal side, the enculturation into the organization and the relationships with colleagues, supervisors, and others in the organization. Beman (1980), an adjunct faculty member himself, mused: It is time to ask why an otherwise sane person would be an adjunct. It is clearly not a road to riches or prestige. I can only respond to the question in a very personal way: I like to teach. More specifically, I find a significant degree of satisfaction in the belief, however questionable, that I have something worthwhile to share with students. This belief is occasionally reinforced by a response from a student which indicates he has gained something of interest and value (83). Kellams and Gunne (1982) emphasized the intrinsic and asserted that the satisfaction felt by part-time faculty "probably emerges from the narrow elements of the job associated with performing as a teacher" (6). And Gappa and Leslie (1993) agreed that "despite their frustrations and unhappiness with their career choices or life-styles or with the employment policies or practices 24

PAGE 36

at their institutions, part-timers remain very committed to teaching at the college level" (41). Turner and Phillips (1981) focused upon the extrinsic/social aspects: We must make some changes which are advantageous to everyone. We need to keep these people happy, satisfied, and a part of the team; for they--more than any other one group-have enabled the community college to accomplish its missions through the diversity of their backgrounds and experience (x). Making part-time faculty 11a part of the team," as Turner and Phillips termed it, is a particular challenge for higher education in general and community colleges in particular. studies find that campuses vary widely in their policies and practices regarding inclusion, orientation, acculturation, and socialization. What may be termed a "valuing" of personnel varies, as revealed in an interview conducted by Seidman (1985): The part-timers weren't even asked to turn in requests of what they would like to teach. You were simply given what was left. And then there was even somewhat of a hierarchy there. Those of us who were around the longest were asked first (114). What is missing here is a sense of the whole, of what Beman (1980) called 11a unifying spirit" (81). Gappa and Leslie (1993) found that part-timers identify first with their departments, and secondly with their institutions (185). In certain departments, there is less bifurcation 25

PAGE 37

of the faculty: Departments that care deeply about education, about teaching and learning, seem to foster an atmosphere in which faculty members talk with each other about these issues. Such departments also appear to involve part-timers in their talk and seem open to what the part-timers have to say" (185). Further, Gappa and Leslie found, the greater presence of the extrinsic/social aspects helps to address the concerns with the extrinsic/organizational issues: Even where there is universal dissatisfaction with pay, benefits, and other tangible support, part-timers who feel as if they are part of a collaborative faculty seem to have more positive feelings about their work and about their involvement with the institution (186). Gappa and Leslie (1993), Beman (1980), and Turner and Phillips (1981) have made the assumption that connectedness to the institution, to the department, and to one's colleagues is an important issue for work satisfaction, for effectiveness, and for commitment. The issue of the extrinsic/social elements of work satisfaction has been explored in this research. Research Obiectives This research explores work satisfaction, probing what variables predict satisfaction and whether these variables are the same or different for various groups. Among the questions to be answered: 26

PAGE 38

How generally satisfied are both full-and part-time faculty? Do the full-and part-time faculty differ in their reported levels of satisfaction? Are there significant differences in satisfaction responses when the part-time faculty is disaggregated into the Biles and Tuckman (1986) taxonomy categories, i.e. hopeful full-timer, full-mooner, part-mooner, semiretired, homeworker, and student? How do work satisfaction variables interrelate and contribute to overall work satisfaction? Limitations of the Study The study is limited by its quasi-experimental design in that the findings can identify relationships but not causes. Further, the research may be limited in its generalizability by the specifics of the faculty population and community college setting. The study is delimited by the choice of and specifically of part-time faculty as the part-time worker under consideration. The characteristics of faculty positions, most notably the autonomy in the classroom, may not be generalizable to other part-time positions. Significance of the study The dissertation is at once theoretical and practical in orientation. This research contributes to 27

PAGE 39

the body of theoretical knowledge in organizational literature on work satisfaction, serves to aid in filling the void of literature on the part-time worker, and assists in augmenting the literature on part-time faculty. The results will assist in informing administrative practice in an environment of scarce resources, increasingly diverse student populations, predicted enrollment increases, and demands for market responsiveness. This research begins to explore the work satisfaction of the part-time worker. It offers a starting point for the comparison of salient issues for full-and part-time employees--for the discovery of the commonalities and the differences. It is hoped that this study will contribute to the overall understanding of work satisfaction and the implications for organizations. The apparent diversity of the adjunct faculty and the complexity of the community college setting provide an interesting vehicle for the examination of the relative importance of work satisfaction factors. While both the population and the setting are specific, the heterogeneity of each adds a richer dimension for study. The question for research is on three levels: what is the relative importance of different variables in 28

PAGE 40

contributing to work satisfaction; does group membership impact work satisfaction levels; and how can an understanding of work satisfaction inform administrative practice in the community college setting? 29

PAGE 41

CHAPTER TWO LITERATURE REVIEW Work satisfaction is treated for the most part as if it were unidimensional, somehow amenable to measurement and representation by a single number, and a potpourri of theories exist from which one may choose to locate the source or sources of satisfaction (Katz and Van Maanen 1977, 470). The literature search was conducted as an exercise in framing and giving structure to the objectives for the research: to further the understanding of work satisfaction by focusing upon independent and dependent variables that may or may not vary in the role they play for full-and part-time worker populations. The works chosen for review were selected based upon definite criteria: their recognized contribution to the state of theory; their ability to aid in distinguishing among the dependent variables; their testing of earlier theory; or their innovative approach to the questions. The selection of literature was impacted by the organizational focus of the research questions. Rather than attempting to "fully explain and predict behavior" 30

PAGE 42

(Lawler 1973, 3), the goal was to interpret group differences, to understand levels of satisfaction, to uncover the interrelated role of variables that affect satisfaction, and to synthesize these answers such that there can emerge recommendations for policy and administrative decision-making. The concepts of work satisfaction, commitment, work values, organizational involvement, and expectations are loosely woven beneath the rubric of motivation in the literature on organizational behavior. A search yields clues to defining these terms and differentiating them from one another. In order to explore and begin to explain group differences and the contributory relationship among variables to the theoretical construct of work satisfaction--a focus of this research--one must attempt to make sense of a vast literature on motivation, specifically as it is examined in an organizational context. It is not the objective of this review to be exhaustive, but rather to discover the intersections among the theoretical constructs in order to differentiate work satisfaction as the focus. This task is complicated by the not uncommon interchangeability among terms but is important to an understanding of work satisfaction and its role in organizational participation 31

PAGE 43

or nonparticipation, and cooperation or noncooperation. Untangling the Knot: Definitional Clarification of the Dependent Variables McClelland (1985, 4) explained that "motivation has to do with the what of behavior, as contrasted with the how of behavior." steers and Porter (1983, 3-4) discussed motivation as primarily concerned with "(1) what energizes human behavior; (2) what directs or channels such behavior; and (3) how this behavior is maintained or sustained." Gartner, Mahler, and Nicholson (1987) described motivation as a "hypothetical construct; it is based on what we infer about internal needs and the activity or behavior consequent to them" (342). Katzell and Thompson (1990) focused upon motivation for work performance: "Work motivation is defined as a broad construct pertaining to the conditions and processes that account for the arousal, direction, magnitude, and maintenance of effort in a person's job" (144). Rainey (1991) described motivation as a broad topic, rather than a precise variable, a general topic with many subtopics (122). Mohr (1982) asserted that "it is not possible to report a consensus on the theoretical status of motivations and motivated behavior" (72). 32

PAGE 44

The complexity of motivation as a topic is exacerbated by possible tension between psychological and organizational perspectives. As Lawler (1973) stated, it is important to distinguish between theories of motivation and theories that concern themselves with specifying the nature of human needs or drives. Acceptable theories of human needs or drives have to deal only with why outcomes such as pay, promotion, and job security are sought while other outcomes are avoided. This kind of theory should not be confused with a theory of motivation that tries to fully explain and predict behavior. To explain and predict behavior, a theory must state not only why some outcomes are sought while others are avoided but also the factors that influence how they are sought (3). The focus for this research is the specification of human needs and a contribution toward a deepened understanding of the factors that contribute to satisfaction. Again, rather than fully explaining and predicting behavior, the objective is to explore satisfaction, the relationships among the factors that contribute to satisfaction, and group differences. Graham and Hays (1993) attempted to summarize what is known about worker motivation: The truth of the matter is that, while light has been shed on some of the most obscure aspects of the motivational process, few irrefutable answers have been found; some evidence supports each of the theories of motivation, but other evidence refutes them. the safest assumption is that no one theory 33

PAGE 45

is adequate to explain a phenomenon as complex as employee motivation (172). Work or job satisfaction seems to shift too easily within and without the motivation rubric. As the central theoretical construct for this research, the concept of work satisfaction requires consideration of the definitions offered in the literature. Kalleberg (1977) detailed the definition of what it is and is not: Job satisfaction refers to an overall affective orientation on the part of individuals toward work roles which they are presently occupying. It must be distinguished from satisfaction with specific dimensions of those work roles. This conceptualization implies that job satisfaction is a unitary concept and that individuals may be characterized by some sort of vaguely. defined attitude toward their total job satisfaction. To say that job satisfaction is a unitary concept, however, does not imply that the causes of this overall attitude are not multidimensional. Obviously, a person may be satisfied with one dimension of the job and dissatisfied with another (126). This research explores work satisfaction multi-dimensionally. Additionally, there is an attempt to determine an overall level of satisfaction, as well as to discover the role of group differences. Vroom (1964, 80) stated simply that job satisfaction should be viewed in terms of the degree to which a job provides the person with positively valued outcomes. Kerr and Rosow (1979) define job satisfaction as how well a person likes his or her job, which 34

PAGE 46

depends on the discrepancy between the individual's work values (what is wanted, needed, and/or expected from the job) and what the job delivers--or at least what he or she thinks it delivers. Changes in job satisfaction can therefore result from changes in either or both of those terms--changes in workers' values and/or in the jobs themselves (42). Mottaz (1985) cautioned that there is no agreed upon definition of work satisfaction, as the definition is shaped by the theoretical slant of the writer (365-66). Mottaz chose to define work satisfaction as "a positive orientation toward work based upon a congruency between the worker's perception of the work situation (along a variety of work dimensions) and his/her work values regarding those same dimensions" (366). For purposes of this research, work satisfaction, as the pivotal concept, will be defined as an orientation toward work, which may be based upon the interaction between one's values and one's perceived work situation. Several other definitional clarifications are required. Commitment was distinguished from satisfaction by Welsch and LaVan (1981) as a dependent variable (although it can act as independent or as intervening), consequent to the independent variables of demographic characteristics, job satisfaction, job characteristics, professional behavior, and organizational climate (108081). Mowday, Porter, and Steers (1979) argued that 35

PAGE 47

commitment differs from the concept of job satisfaction: (C]ommitment as a construct is more global, reflecting a general affective response to the organization as a whole. Job satisfaction, on the other hand, reflects one's response either to one's job or to certain aspects of one's job. Hence, commitment emphasizes attachment to the employing organization, including its goals and values, while satisfaction emphasizes the specific task environment where an employee performs his or her duties (226). Mottaz (1988) defined commitment as an exchange relationship that is enhanced by work rewards, both intrinsic and extrinsic, and work values (469-71). Organizational involvement is another concept that appears throughout the literature. Romzek (1985) described organizational involvement as reflecting "the direction and intensity of the psychological attachment employees are likely to develop toward their work agencies" (283). ott (1989) characterized still another salient concept, expectations, as what people believe it should be like to work in an organization (47). The concept of expectations may overlap the concept of values, dependent upon the theoretical positioning of the researcher. The final concept pertinent to this delineation is work values. Katzell (1979) defined work values as "what is wanted, needed, and/or expected from the job" (42). Mottaz (1985) stated that "(w]ork values refers to the 36

PAGE 48

relative importance assigned to the various aspects of work by the individual" (367). One further perspective is needed to inform this examination. The conceptual frame of the interactionist perspective is relevant to the examination of work satisfaction and related concepts. Schneider (1987) asserted that persons cause environments at least as much as environments cause persons (438). Schneider drew these assertions from interactional psychology: people are not randomly assigned to real organizations; people select themselves into and out of real organizations; people and human settings are inseparable; people are the setting because it is they who make the setting (439-40). Schneider thus posited his central, and narrow, thesis: attributes of people, not the nature of the external environment, or organizational technology, or organizational structure, are the determinants of organizational behavior. Chatman (1989) also concentrated upon the effects that persons have on situations. Chatman argued that the traditional methodologies in organizational research have focused upon two approaches--individual difference and situational--and have failed to simultaneously consider the effects that the interaction of person and situation 37

PAGE 49

characteristics have on the situation (333). Chatman stated that individuals may differ in the way their values, traits, abilities, and motives are related to each other. What is a relevant trait for one person may not be for another. Therefore, there is a need for comparisons among individuals and of an individual over time. According to Chatman, people are not passive agents subject to environmental forces, but there is evidence that people actively choose their situations and perform best in situations that are most compatible to themselves (337-38). With this focus, Chatman defined person-organization fit as an interactional model, or "the congruence between the norms and values of organizations and the values of persons" (338-39). The contribution to organizational research is the enhancement of the ability to predict the extent to which a person's values will change as a function of organizational membership and the extent to which he or she will adhere to organizational norms based upon the extent to which a person's values are similar to an organization's shared values (342). In Chatman's model values are the appropriate construct for assessing fit. Turban and Keon (1993) built upon the concept of person-environment fit and its impact on employment 38

PAGE 50

decisions. While applicants are attracted to firms that have certain characteristics, Turban and Keon focused upon the moderating effects of individual characteristics (186). They discovered some support for the hypothesis that individual characteristics moderate the influence of organizational characteristics on attraction to firms. Citing the literature, they noted that different kinds of people are attracted to different organizations, that people are attracted to organizations they view as having values and situational norms they deem important, and that individuals' behaviors are influenced by personal goals and their perceptions of the opportunities for goal attainment provided by the situation (184). Taylor and Giannantonio (1993) explored the literature on the employment relationship from individual, organizational, and interactionist perspectives, focusing upon the concept of organizational commitment. Defining the interactionist perspective as a function of both characteristics of the individual and of the situation, e.g. the organization, Taylor and Giannantonio concluded that there is a need for further research to extend the existing interactionist models (509-10), and that it is important to choose independent and dependent variables that reflect the involvement of 39

PAGE 51

both the individual and the organization in the employment relationship. The importance of the interactionist perspective for the current research is the focus upon variables working in concert and in reaction to one another, upon needs fulfillment, upon conscious and unconscious selection--by the individual and of the organization. This perspective informs the analysis of the components of work satisfaction, specifically their relative importance, and group differences, as the focus of this research. Selected Typologies for Organizing the Literature Motivation is an important organizational concern for several reasons: it is a factor in determining why people participate in an organization; and it influences whether they strive to accomplish either personal or organizational goals, or both, as well as the extent to which they allow others to direct and control their behavior (Gertner, Mahler, and Nicholson 1987, 343). There are numerous typologies in the literature. It is not the intention here to examine the breadth of theories but rather to select those concepts and theoretical constructs most salient to this work. Several examples for organizing the literature provide a starting point for consideration. Gertner et al. (1987) have categorized motivation 40

PAGE 52

theories and models as content, cognitive, behaviorist, and bureau-based (343). Content models of motivation focus on identifying the substantive nature of individual needs; cognitive process theories attempt to explain how and why people are motivated, focusing on the interaction of psychological variables with other factors related to the situation or environment; the behaviorist perspective excludes the psychological and focuses upon response to the environment; and the bureau-based perspective concentrates on the relationship between the motivation patterns of bureau officials and the functioning and policies of bureaus (343). Katzell and Thompson (1990) have delineated two broad areas, which are subsequently divided among categories: exogenous theories, i.e. motive/need theory, incentive/reward theory, reinforcement theory, goal theory, personal and material resource theory, group and norm theory, and sociotechnical system theory; and endogenous theories, i.e. expectancy-valence theory, equity theory, attitude theory, intention/goal theory, attribution/self-efficacy theory, and other cognitive theories (145-46). The Katzell and Thompson template is broadly inclusive, spanning organizational and psychological literature. 41

PAGE 53

Gruneberg (1979) focused upon job satisfaction, categorizing theories as content theories and process theories (9). Content theories are concerned with the factors which influence job satisfaction, while process theories seek to give an account of the process by which variables such as expectations, needs, and values interact with the characteristics of the job to produce job satisfaction (9). The literature is vast and formidable, and the purpose here is simply to ascertain the status of theory in order to build upon it. To distinguish among the theoretical contributions while acknowledging the complexity and overlapping properties of the research, one must make some rather arbitrary decisions in order to organize the vast body of literature. The proposed typology borrows from Mottaz, as well as others, focusing upon classification of the variables examined as the literature framework rather than a comprehensive classification of theoretical contributions. Salient is the work of Katz and Van Maanen (1977) who addressed the complexity of work satisfaction by examining several variables: [Work] satisfaction may be seen to be contingent upon: the individual's idiosyncratic internal need structure; the specific set of tasks performed by the individual; the 42

PAGE 54

interpersonal norms and values generated in the work place; the managerial processes that direct activities; the organizational policies regarding rewards . (470). Katz and Van Maanen established a framework of three clusters: job properties, interaction features, and organization policies (477). Similarly, Gruneberg (1979) divided the aspects of theories of job satisfaction as job satisfaction and the job itself; job satisfaction and context satisfaction; and job satisfaction and individual differences. Mottaz (1985) further addressed this framework and provided some definitional clarity, by focusing upon two broad areas, work rewards and work values. Each of these broad areas is divided into three groups. Building upon the work of Katz and VanMaanen (1977), Mottaz described three conceptual and empirically distinct clusters: task, social, and organizational rewards. The task dimension refers to intrinsic rewards, those associated with doing the job: They are derived from the content of the task itself and include such factors as interesting and challenging work, self-direction and responsibility, variety, creativity, opportunities to use one's skills and abilities, and sufficient feedback regarding the effectiveness of one's efforts (366). Mottaz described the second dimension as the social dimension, the extrinsic rewards that are derived from 43

PAGE 55

interaction with others and are dependent upon the quality of interpersonal relationships. These rewards include "friendly, helpful, and supportive co-workers and supervisors" (366). The third is the organizational dimension or the extrinsic rewards provided by the organization "for the purpose of facilitating or motivating performance. They are the tangible rewards that are visible to others and include such factors as pay, promotions, fringe benefits, security. (366). II The work values are also characterized by the three clusters: intrinsic, extrinsic/social, and extrinsic/ organizational. The congruency between the values and the rewards contributes to work satisfaction. In the following selective examination of important research on work satisfaction and interrelated concepts. each work is analyzed regarding the way the author observes and interprets the interaction among the intrinsic, extrinsic/organizational, and extrinsic/social satisfaction and value factors. The discussion begins with an examination of the work of Herzberg, Mausner, and Snyderman (1959), considered one of the pivotal works to bring attention to the intrinsic factors of work satisfaction, and 44

PAGE 56

McClelland (1985), an important content/need theorist. Next expectancy/process theories are examined, with a focus on Vroom (1964, 1984) and on Porter and Lawler (1968). Expectancy theories continue to hold a significant place in work satisfaction literature and to expand the thinking regarding the complex interaction among the variables. It should be noted that the labels content/need and expectancy/process are not mutually exclusive. The rest of the literature discussion builds upon these foundations and focuses upon the treatment of variables and their interactions. Some works are more content/need-focused, while others may be more processoriented; however, many align with both traditions. The selection of literature for inclusion was based upon how relevant the research is to the research questions; how important the research is to understanding the status of the theory; how the research helps clarify the relationships among the variables; and how the research impacts knowledge regarding group differences. The examination of the literature focuses upon the way the contributors address the interaction among variables-extrinsic/organizational, extrinsic/social, and intrinsic--and the interaction between rewards and 45

PAGE 57

values. This process will set out to discover the foundations for further exploration of the relative importance of the independent variables and the clarification of the dependent variables. 46

PAGE 58

:::0 CD \J ...., 0 c. c C"l CD c. ::::: ;:::;: ::::T \J CD ...., 3 v, Table2.1. Selected Research on Work Satisfaction and Related Concepts CJl 6" ::l 0 I t Variables Intervening Variables Dependent Variables ::::T CD Intrinsic Extrinsic/ Extrinsic/ Organizational Soeial C"l 0 \J Herzberg Et Al. (1959) 1st level factors 1st level factors 1st level factors Values Attitudes Effects 1 OUtcomes Motivators Hygienes Hwienes 2nd level factors '< :::l (Ci (1985) !Achievement 1110tive Achievement motive iAffiliative motive !Actions IIK)t i ve Power IIK)t i ve ::::T motive 0 ::::: ::l Vroo. (1964) Personality variables Work role variables Motives Values !outcomes Abilhies Rewards CD :-"' Porter & Lawler (1968) Perfonaanc:e AnticiPation Rewards Satisfaction 11 Deci & Rvan C198Sl Self-detenminationiRewards Motivation c Farrell & Rusbult (1981) Cost values Job rewards COIII!Ii tment ::::T CD ...., Job Cost Alternative Investment Satisfaction rewards values values size ...., CD \J ...., .t:. 0 c. -...] c C"l Porter, & Steers (1985) Personal Organizational [work group COIIIDi tment influences influences Attitudes Pay Job characteristics 6 Mottaz <1988> Task rewards Organizational Social rewards C011111i tment ::l values rewards \J ...., 0 ::::T Romzek (1990) Ccami tment culture 0" Shared values ;:::;: CD c. Guzley (1991) Goals Behavioral ternatives coami tment ::::: ;:::;: ::::T 0 c Values Rewards Goals Job COIIIIIi tment internalization characteristics \J CD Self-esteem Personal ...., 3 v, characteristics Rewards CJl 6 ? Huselid & Day (1991> Goal congruence Attitudinal ccami tment Exchange factors Coot i nuance rnnm;,......,,.

PAGE 59

:::0 CD "0 ...., 0 c. t: C"l CD c. ::::: ;=.: ::::T "0 CD ...., 3 u; CJl Table 2.1. (Cont.) 6" :::! 0 I t Variables Intervening Variables Variables ::::T CD Intrinsic Extrinsic/ Oraanizatfonal Social C"l 0 "0 ll.hatman (1989) PersonPerson-organization organization fit '< :::!. values COI!!Iruence (C ::::T -Individual values Organizational norms and behaviors 0 ::::: Vancouver & Schlli tt c 1991 l Goal C_QOll_MJenCV Fit :::! CD Judge & Bretz (1992> Fairness !Achievement Concern for others Job choice :-"' Pay 11 t: Promotional ;::!. ::::T CD ...., Turban & Keon (1993> Organizational characteristics Individual Job selection characteristics ...., CD "0 ...., 0 c. co Katz & Van Maanen (1977) Core job Pol icy measures Interaction satisfaction features Kalleberg (1977) Intrinsic Creature comforts Relations Perceived job Job satisfaction t: C"l 6 :::! characteristics Resource adequacy characteristics Career ties "0 ...., jMegl ino, Ravl in & Adkins (1989) Value conaruence Satisfaction 0 ::::T Value conaruence C011111itment cr ;=.: CD Heamasi, Graf, & Lust (1992) Satisfaction with Pay satisfaction variables organization Benefit satisfaction c. ::::: ;=.: ::::T !Mottaz (1985) Task itself Pay Supervisors Values satisfaction Benefit Co-workers IPrtiiiiOt;on 0 t: "0 CD ...., 3 u; CJl 6 ?

PAGE 60

The Foundation: Herzberg If such intrinsic job satisfaction or identification with the work is to be aroused and maximized, then the job itself must provide sufficient variety, sufficient complexity, sufficient challenge, and sufficient exercise of skill to engage the abilities of the worker (Katz and Kahn 1966, 363). Need/Content Approaches What follows is a critical discussion of Herzberg, Mausner, and Snyderman's (1959} two-factor theory and McClelland's (1985) motive and values research. These need/content approaches serve as a touchstone for further discussion of motivation in an organizational context. Content or need models of motivation, according to Gortner et al. (1987), "focus on identifying the substantive nature of individual needs; in other words, they attempt to determine what motivates individuals" (343). The following section will examine two contributors: Herzberg et al. and McClelland. Herzberg et al. receives particular attention because their two-factor theory continues to provide the basis for research into the intrinsic and extrinsic aspects of work satisfaction. Herzberg, Mausner. and Snyderman (1959). This work has been widely touted and criticized, but it continues 49

PAGE 61

to stand as a benchmark in organizational research. Since 1959, critics and researchers have heralded and condemned the methodology of Herzberg et al. and confirmed and repudiated their findings. since so much subsequent research finds its roots in Herzberg et al., or is in some way in reaction to it, this theory deserves particular attention in this study. In addition, Herzberg et al.'s findings are pivotal in the study of work satisfaction, particularly in the shift to an emphasis on intrinsic factors. Herzberg et al. focused on what they termed job attitudes, variously called job satisfaction, setting out to answer three questions in the research: How can you specify the attitude of any individual toward his/her b? (' JO J..e. attitude measurement); What leads to these attitudes? (i.e. attitude formation); and What are the consequences of these attitudes? (i.e. relationship of attitudes to behavior) (1959, 5). Herzberg, et al. provided a practical rationale for the research, citing a "payoff" for industry, the community, and the individual in increased productivity, decreased turnover, decreased absenteeism, and smoother working relations; an increase in overall productive creativity and utilization of human resources; and 50

PAGE 62

greater happiness and self-realization, respectively ( ix) Building upon the works of Maslow (1943, 1954), and Mayo (1933}, Herzberg et al. interpreted these earlier works as the discovery that the relationships between workers and their supervisors "lead to a more potent influence on output than any manipulation of environmental conditions" (1959, 8-9). seeking a more comprehensive and less fragmented approach than previous research, Herzberg et al. built a three-part construct, which they call the F-A-E or factors-attitudes-effects complex. Herzberg et al., rather than specifically defining terms, wove the definitions throughout the research and findings. The factors and attitudes described encompass the three clusters: intrinsic, extrinsic/social, and extrinsic/ organizational. In essence, factors were defined as first-level, "an objective element of the situation in which the respondent finds a source for his good or bad feelings about the job" (44) or "factors from which the respondent derived his feelings" (49), and second-level, "what in his own need and value systems led to his attitude towards his job at the time of the events being 51

PAGE 63

described" (49). First-level factors included recognition, achievement, possibility of growth, advancement, salary, interpersonal relations, supervision-technical, responsibility, company policy and administration, working conditions, work itself, factors in personal life, status, and job security (44-49). Second-level factors included feelings of recognition, of achievement, of possible growth or blocks to growth, of responsibility or lack of or diminished responsibility, group feelings, feelings of interest or lack of interest, of increased or decreased status, of increased or decreased security, of fairness or unfairness, of pride or of inadequacy or guilt, and about salary (50). Attitudes were described in terms of highs and lows, as well as short and long ranges. They also served as intervening variables, in that they impact the effects. The effects in the F-A-E complex are specified as "major-effect categories": performance effects, turnover, mental health effects, effects on personal relationships, and attitudinal effects. The effects are the dependent variables. The research approach was idiographic, built upon the premise that the relationships among the components of the "factors-attitudes-effects" complex should be 52

PAGE 64

studied within individuals (11). The major question before the investigators was whether different kinds of factors are responsible for bringing about job satisfaction as contrasted to job dissatisfaction? (57). The hypothesis was modified at a later point: "the satisfier factors are much more likely to increase job satisfaction than they would be to decrease job satisfaction but the factors that relate to job dissatisfaction very infrequently act to increase job satisfaction" (80). The researchers interviewed 200 middle-management males, accountants and engineers, from nine different companies in the Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania, area. The interviews were analyzed in five parts: description of the person speaking, overall description of the sequence of events, description of the objective situation in the sequence of events (identified as first-level factors), a description of the needs, motives, and perceptions of the person speaking (identified as second-level factors) and a description of the behavioral and other effects of attitudes (40). Those factors that satisfy emerged as factors related to tasks and performance. Herzberg et al. termed them "motivators." They are the job factors (as opposed 53

PAGE 65

to the extra-job factors) that reward the individual, that reinforce the ultimate goal of "self-actualization or self-realization" (113). Those that emerged most frequently as associated with good feelings about the job include achievement, recognition, work itself, responsibility, advancement, and salary. These are the intrinsic factors. The factors that lead to dissatisfaction are those that are associated with the conditions that "surround the doing of the job" (113). Termed hygienes, they include supervision, interpersonal relations, physical working conditions, salary, company policies and administrative practices, benefits, and job security (113). These are the extrinsic/social and extrinsic/ organizational factors. Herzberg et al. posited that an individual operates from a neutral point toward his job, an assertion that has stimulated controversy. "Satisfiers" are factors that increase job satisfaction beyond the neutral point. The absence of "satisfiers" drops the employee back to neutral, not to dissatisfied. Other factors, "dissatisfiers," by their existence lead to a dissatisfied employee, but the satisfying of these factors does not lead to job satisfaction. Both types of 54

PAGE 66

factors are unidimensional (111-12). The motivators and hygienes are independent and do not lie along a continuum. satisfaction and dissatisfaction are dual, impacted by different factors. In essence, Herzberg et al.'s motivators are intrinsic factors. The hygienes may be characterized as extrinsic/organizational and extrinsic/social. The factors-attitudes-effects complex is interactionist, in that the worker is moved from a position of neutrality toward his/her job to a position along either the satisfaction or dissatisfaction continuum. The findings of Herzberg et al. have been criticized as methodologically bound and therefore faulty. But the importance of their examination of work motivation and job satisfaction is evidenced by the fact that it is still cited in work satisfaction literature in the 1990s, 35 years after Motivation to Work was first published. Critical Analysis of Herzberg et al. Subsequent research has both supported and disputed the findings of Herzberg et al. The points of criticism center around three basic themes: methodological issues; nonreplicability; and conclusions. House and Wigdor (1967) argued that Herzberg's theory is method-bound and "fraught with procedural 55

PAGE 67

deficiencies" (372). They described Herzberg et al. 's Two-factor Theory as "an oversimplification of the relationships between motivation and satisfaction, and the sources of job satisfaction and dissatisfaction" (387). House and Wigdor (1967) were most critical of the "utilization of Herzberg's categorization procedure to measure job dimensions, the satisfiers and 'hygiene factors'" (372). The rater must interpret the findings if the respondent offers observations without evaluation, e.g. the description of a supervisor's behavior without a judgment about the supervisor's competence (372). House and Wigdor (1967) called for a more objective approach, based in more adequate operational definitions. Their criticism included the lack of a measure of overall satisfaction (373). Rainey (1991) focused upon the controversial nature of Herzberg's methodology and the problems regarding replicability. Calling Herzberg's theory incomplete, Rainey cited the inability of a number of later researchers to reproduce the two factors, "motivators" and "hygienes," with alternative research methods. on the other hand, Rainey cites Park, Lovrich, and Soden (1988), who find support for Herzberg in their research on public organizations (134). 56

PAGE 68

Bockman (1971) countered that Herzberg et al. were highly cognizant of the "pitfalls of investigating attitudes" and therefore added a study of changes in job attitudes, included a focus on experiences that included substantive data which could be analyzed separately from the respondent's interpretation, and avoided the use of a scale on feelings by focusing on peak experiences (157). Vroom (1964) cautioned that Herzberg et al.'s interpretation of their findings may be correct, but it is not the only possible interpretation (128). Rather, the relative frequency with which job-content or -context features are mentioned as sources of satisfaction or dissatisfaction may be dependent on the nature of the content and context of the work roles of the respondents (128). In addition, Vroom distinguished between the recall of satisfying events and actual observation of motivated behavior (129). According to Vroom (1964): "Herzberg's conclusion that the variance in job satisfaction below some hypothetical level can be explained in terms of one set of variables, whereas the variance above that level requires another set of variables, can neither be accepted nor rejected on the basis of evidence available at this time" (129). 57

PAGE 69

Park, Lovrich, and Soden (1988) put a new framework around Herzberg et al.'s concepts, updating the "motivators" or intrinsic factors by describing them as "the degree of challenge faced in one's work, the degree of importance attached to one's contributions to the organization, (and] the amount of growth in personal abilities occasioned by one's work" (40). The Park et al. study replicated the criteria developed in Herzberg's 1959 study, in order to answer the research question: "Is the supposed salience of intrinsic work characteristics a universal phenomenon of employees everywhere, or is it-as Herzberg himself speculates--an artifact of highly industrialized and well educated workforce settings wherein the 'lower order of needs' of employees have been by-and-large assured by a general state of societal affluence?" (41). Through content analysis and statistical analysis of the interview responses, Park et al. tested the predictive ability of Herzberg's Two-Factor Theory in the public sector in two countries, the United states and Korea, among different occupational groups: administrators, teachers/counselors, and researchers. Among the first-level factors (those which come from a respondent's report on objective events) leading to job 58

PAGE 70

satisfaction and dissatisfaction, achievement and recognition are the two factors most frequently appearing in favorable sequences among both American and Korean workers (49-53). In addition, all the factors Herzberg described as hygienes occur far more often in the unfavorable sequences (53). However, among Park et al.'s findings, there are divergences from Herzberg et al.'s results: two intrinsic motivators, work itself and advancement, occur equally in favorable and unfavorable sequences. Two hygiene factors, supervision-technical and working conditions, show less frequency in unfavorable sequence than reported by Herzberg, and salary appears to play a less salient role in the formulation of work attitudes (537). Nevertheless, Park et al. concluded that Herzberg's theory applies across a range of occupations in the two countries, and therefore contributes to the development of an understanding of "fundamental workplace dynamics independent of particular cultural settings" (58). Bellott and Tutor (1990) asserted that "the truths that have evolved from [Herzberg's and Maslow's] studies are clearly well founded," but they criticize the findings as having been "subjected to some overly broad generalizations and [having been) treated as being 59

PAGE 71

totally applicable to all populations (we believe) inappropriately" (1). Bellott and Tutor's research supports Herzberg's conclusions regarding the impact of the motivating factors of advancement, recognition, achievement, responsibility, and the job itself. In addition, their work upholds the taxonomy of dissatisfiers associated with the work environment and satisfiers associated with the work itself. However, they took issue with the single factor of salary, as did Park et al. (1988). While Herzberg et al. placed salary in both motivator and hygiene categories, Bellott and Tutor argued to position salary as a hygiene rather than motivator (2). Other studies support Herzberg's findings and the theoretical construct of the dual-factor nature of work satisfaction and dissatisfaction. Nussel, Wiersma, and Rusche (1988) interpreted their findings from research on the work satisfaction of education professors as failing to raise doubts relative to the Herzberg model. Based upon survey research, Nussel et al. report high levels of satisfaction with the "work itself," while lower satisfaction levels were associated with what they termed work environment conditions, such as salary and administration (49). 60

PAGE 72

Linda Morley's (1977) findings support Herzberg's dual-factor theory: different factors contribute to satisfaction and dissatisfaction. Morley modified Herzberg's critical-incident methodology, replacing the interview with a questionnaire form. Respondents, faculty members in higher education, were asked to write responses to two instruments, with a total of twenty-six questions. one instrument was a modification of Herzberg's critical incident method; the other was a rating system based upon Herzberg's factors. Morley's findings, which may be challenged as to external validity due to a small sampling frame, nevertheless support Herzberg's dual-factor theory. Different factors were found to contribute to satisfaction from those that contribute to dissatisfaction. In her conclusions, Morley alluded to the limitations to the study, including "varying value orientations of employees," a concept that deserves further consideration. Alan Rasmussen (1991) tested Herzberg's theory in a study of middle school principals. Using structural modeling, Rasmussen found that the motivator factors of achievement, recognition, work itself, advancement, and responsibility are significant indicators of job 61

PAGE 73

satisfaction. The factors of working conditions, interpersonal relations, company policy and administration, supervision, salary, status, and job security are significant indicators of job dissatisfaction. Rasmussen concluded that his findings support Herzberg's motivation-hygiene theory. others have not supported Herzberg et al.'s construct. Ebrahim Maidani (1991) tested Herzberg's theory of job satisfaction using a questionnaire in lieu of Herzberg's critical incident technique. Maidani compared public and private sector employee work satisfaction in an effort to determine the impact on satisfaction of differences in the work environments. He focused upon the "valuing" of factors by the employees. Maidani reported support for Herzberg's assertion that satisfied employees place "greater value" on motivators. However, he reported no significant difference between the satisfied and dissatisfied employees' scores for hygiene factors (444). In addition, Maidani found that while there is no significant difference in the mean of motivator factors for employees in the public and private sectors, there is a significant difference between the mean of hygiene factors. Maidani concluded that while his research supports Herzberg's 62

PAGE 74

theory that motivators are sources of satisfaction, it reverses Herzberg's conclusion that hygienes are a source of dissatisfaction (448). Rainey (1991) acknowledged that Herzberg et al. 's findings have been supported when his methods have been replicated, but not when other methodologies have been employed. He concluded that "Herzberg added another influential voice to the calls for more emphasis on intrinsic rewards 11 (134). Graham and Hays (1993) assessed the contributions of Herzberg et al.: Most theorists now believe that the distinction between hygiene factors and motivators is not as clear-cut as Herzberg suggested. In Herzberg's defense, the empirical record confirms that he was at least on the right track. Although insufficiently elegant, the theory does draw attention to the importance of higher order needs to job satisfaction and motivation. Herzberg's motivators do appear to promote high levels of job satisfaction among a variety of public employee groups Likewise, extrinsic factors do not appear to be as highly correlated with job satisfaction as a general rule (174). The evidence suggests that Herzberg et al. contributed to the body of knowledge concerning work satisfaction by positing a theoretical construct that serves as a catalyst for thought and research. Researchers continue to question and to discover support for Herzberg et al.'s theory. Perhaps the legacy of 63

PAGE 75

Herzberg et al. is a shift in theoretical emphasis in the study of human behavior and motivation. The next section is an exploration of the work by McClelland (1985). As mentioned earlier, McClelland has been chosen here for the clarification that he offers as to aspects of motives and the role of values. McClelland (1985). McClelland has approached human behavior from a psychologist's perspective, rather than with an organizational emphasis, as a function of determinants in both the person and in the environment (4). Motives must be distinguished from values. While values are usually measured by asking participants what is important, motives, which McClelland defines as "a recurrent concern for a goal state based on a natural incentive--a concern that energizes, orients, and selects behavior," (590) are more difficult to ascertain. Therefore, McClelland identified a misunderstanding regarding achievement motivation theory: the failure to distinguish between the incentives specific to the motive and allied incentives or other values affecting the valence of success (519). Both motives and values can influence choices or the valence of compared outcomes. McClelland asserted that while it is clear that values affect choices and shunt motivational energies in one 64

PAGE 76

direction or another, it not yet clear that they energize behavior (522). McClelland described three human motive systems: the achievement motive; the power motive; and the affiliative motive. The achievement motive "represents a recurrent concern about the goal state of doing something better" (595). This implies some internal or external standard of comparison. The power motive "represents a recurrent concern to have impact certainly on people, and perhaps on things as well" (596). This motive appears to have varying results, from dominance to submissiveness. The third motive, the affiliative motive, is of particular interest to the current study. However, according to McClelland, it is the motive about which the least is known. studies, according to McClelland, have been inconclusive. This motive aligns with the extrinsic/ social issues examined here. McClelland has called for greater empirical testing of the three-motive model. He posited that preliminary investigations suggest that when multiplied, the three variables appear to give the best prediction of actions and that motive dispositions are more powerful predictors of spontaneous acts than cognitive choices (600). Gortner et al. (1987) ascribed to McClelland prominence among content theorists (353). Rainey (1991) 65

PAGE 77

cited McClelland's contribution as important, though not as prominent as it once was as researchers search for a more complete theory of motivation (135). Rainey, however, described expectancy theory of work motivation, which attributes to the individual the role of summing the values of all possible outcomes that will result from an action and weighting outcomes by the probability of their occurrence, as the most promising theory yet proposed for application in public organizations (136-37) Seeking to Explain the Relationships Among Variables: Expectancy/Process Theories According to Gortner et al. (1987), process theories of motivation attempt to explain how and why people are motivated. These models present motivation as a complex process in which "cognition--especially perception and expectation--is important" {343). The focus is on the interaction of psychological variables with situational or environmental factors. Expectancy theory retains prominence in the literature as an examination of the complexity of the motivation process. Vroom (1964). Vroom's discussion of motivation was centered around two issues: "Why is the organism active at all? What conditions instigate action, determine its 66

PAGE 78

duration or persistence and finally its cessation?" and "What determines the form that activity will take? Under what conditions will an organism choose one response or another or move in one direction or another?" (8). Building upon the 1930s work of Lewin, Vroom described expectancy theory as a cognitive conceptual model, which "assumes that the choices made by a person among alternative courses of action are lawfully related to psychological events occurring contemporaneously with the behavior" (14-15). Vroom defined three concepts, valence, expectancy, and force, as those central to the theory. Valence is the affective orientation toward specific outcomes. Therefore, a positive valence refers to preference for attaining versus not attaining. A zero valence characterizes indifference, and a negative valence symbolizes a preference to not attaining a given outcome (15). Motive is related to valence. A positive motive "signifies that outcomes which are members of the class have positive valence" (15). Vroom carefully distinguished between valence and value. Valence is anticipated satisfaction from an outcome; value is the actual satisfaction the outcome provides (15). The emphasis here is on anticipated satisfaction or dissatisfaction, rather than on intrinsic properties. 67

PAGE 79

"[M]eans acquire valence as a consequence of their expected relationship to ends" (16). Vroom stated the valence proposition (proposition one) algebraically, in equation and nonequation (which is shown below) form: The valence of an outcome to a person is a monotonically increasing function of the algebraic sum of the products of the valences of all other outcomes and his conceptions of its instrumentality for the attainment of these other outcomes. (17). Expectancy relates to the certainty or lack thereof of the attainment of certain outcomes. Vroom defined expectancy as "a momentary belief concerning the likelihood that a particular act will be followed by a particular outcome" (17). Described in terms of their strength, expectancies are action-outcome associations, with values ranging from zero (no subjective probability that an act will be followed by an outcome) to one (certainty that the act will be followed by an outcome). Vroom distinguished expectancy from instrumentality, which he defined as outcome-outcome association, with values ranging from -1, indicating a belief that a second outcome is certain without a first outcome and impossible with it, to +1, indicating that the first outcome is a "necessary and sufficient" condition for the second outcome (17-18). The third essential concept is that of force, the 68

PAGE 80

product of combining valences and expectancies mathematically. This relationship is expressed in proposition two: The force on a person to perform an act is a monotonically increasing function of the algebraic sum of the products of the valences of all outcomes and the strength of his expectancies that the act will be followed by the attainment of these outcomes. (18). To test the theory, Vroom (1964) proposed to infer the valence of outcomes from observed behavior. Those valences are assumed to be manipulated by "arousing appropriate motives" (23), though Vroom struggled with the appropriate assumptions regarding motive arousal. Vroom focused upon rewards which could be ascribed to the three categories previously articulated in this analysis--intrinsic, extrinsic/organizational, extrinsic/ social--in the form of the five properties of work roles: 1. They provide wages to the role occupant in return for his services. 2. They require from the role occupant the expenditure of mental or physical energy. 3. They permit the role occupant to contribute to the production of goods or services. 4. They permit or require of the role occupant social interaction with other persons. 5. They define, at least in part, the social status of the role occupant. (30). In addition, Vroom addressed the role of individual differences, focusing upon what he called the "determinants of job satisfaction": supervision, the work 69

PAGE 81

group, job content, wages, promotional opportunities, and hours of work (105). "[E]xplanations of satisfaction require the use of both work role and personality variables there are important interactions between these two types of variables which can be revealed only if they receive simultaneous study" (162). Vroom concluded that "individuals differ greatly in their motives, values and abilities, and these differences probably have an important bearing on the 'optimal' characteristics of their work role" (173). Rainey (1991) explained that research subsequent to Vroom's delineation of his expectancy theory had mixed results. According to Rainey, the complexity of the theory has made testing difficult. Challenges include the inability to represent accurately human mental processes and the difficulty of listing on a questionnaire all possible outcomes important to people in an organization and measuring their valences (Rainey 1991, 137). Porter and Lawler (1968). Porter and Lawler approached motivation to work as the relationship between job attitudes and job behavior, and focused upon expectancy theory as the basis upon which to build a model (12). They addressed the two most prevalent criticisms of expectancy theories: that they are 70

PAGE 82

ahistorical due to the "vagueness about the kind of previous learning that produces different expectancies" (13) and that they do not specify how outcomes acquire positive or negative qualities for individuals (13). Porter and Lawler set out as their objective the investigation of the relationship of managerial attitudes to managerial performance. Their model includes nine separate variables: (1) value of reward (the attractiveness of possible outcomes to individuals); (2) effort-reward probability (expectation concerning the likelihood that given amounts of reward depend upon given amounts of effort); (3) effort (the amount of energy expended); (4) abilities and traits (long-term individual characteristics); (5) role perceptions (direction of effort that the individual believes he should take); (6) performance (how much successful role achievement is accomplished); (7) rewards (desirable outcomes or returns); (8) perceived equitable rewards (level of rewards an individual feels he should receive given the level of performance); and (9) satisfaction (as a derivative variable, the extent to which the rewards actually meet or exceed the perceived equitable level) (16-31). Porter and Lawler also articulated relationships among and between the variables, in 71

PAGE 83

particular how the value of rewards and the perceived effort-reward probabilities combine to create effort, which leads to performance. Performance then leads to satisfaction if it decreases the gap between the perceived equitable level of rewards and what rewards are being received. The key to this theoretical system is the degree of connection that an individual perceives between his performance and his rewards. They hypothesized that the greater the value of a reward and the higher the perceived probability that effort will lead to the reward, the greater the effort. The relationship between effort and reward, however, is qualified by abilities and traits, and by role perceptions. Porter and Lawler posited satisfaction primarily as a dependent variable, though they did not preclude the possibility that feelings of satisfaction may influence future performance. Describing their study as exploratory, Porter and Lawler administered to managers two questionnaires, one focused upon pay and the other upon role behavior required for success and the degree of need satisfaction provided by the job. They investigated correlational relationships between attitude and performance data. Porter and Lawler focused upon patterns of results, 72

PAGE 84

rather than singular results, in examining their model (159). They concluded that their findings supported the model, but could not conclude causality based upon their methodology. However, they did settle upon two revisions to the model based upon their results: the reward variable should be considered as two, extrinsic rewards (administered by the organization) and intrinsic rewards (administered by the individual); and there is a link between performance and perceived equitable rewards (164-65) In short, Porter and Lawler (1968) defined expectancy theory as follows: Expectancy theory argues that the anticipation of the positively valent outcome functions selectively on actions which are expected to lead it. (10). Lawler's (1973) refinements to the Porter and Lawler expectancy theory model were based on three basic assumptions: 1. People have many conscious, often complex and competing goals. 2. Most behavior is consciously goal directed. 3. People have affective reactions to the outcomes they obtain as a result of their behavior (5). Lawler's refinements include work on the notion of role clarity and a practical application emphasis toward organizational effectiveness. Lawler (1973) concluded: 73

PAGE 85

The research evidence on the determinants of satisfaction suggests that satisfaction is very much influenced by the actual rewards a person receives; of course, the organization has a considerable amount of control over these rewards, The research also shows that, although not all people will react to the same reward level in the same manner, reactions are predictable if something is known about how people perceive their inputs. The implication is that organizations can influence employees' satisfaction levels (146). Gertner et al. (1987) have seen the work of Porter and Lawler as advances to the thinking about satisfaction and reward-satisfaction relationships: A major and revolutionary element of Porter and Lawler's theory is its proposition that performance causes satisfaction--mediated, of course, by rewards; or in any case, that satisfaction is more dependent on performance than performance on satisfaction (365) Gertner et al. cautioned, however, that the model's complexity, which adds to its theoretical strength, is a drawback to its practical application. Graham and Hays (1993) viewed the practical contribution of expectancy theory as the provision of a checklist of variables important in the exercise of leadership. In addition, "these variables again reflect the interrelated nature of the management functions" ( 168) Rainey (1991) has described expectancy theory as "one of the most prominent work motivation theories" 74

PAGE 86

(137). Rainey supports subsequent research that has sought to relax the mathematical rigor of the theory and -to focus rather on the positive and negative values of outcomes and their probabilities. Steers and Porter (1983) have considered the status of theories of motivation and the role of expectancy theories. They identified three major areas as sources for variables: the individual, the job, and the work environment. According to Steers and Porter, a true theory of motivation does not exist, as it would have to be a unifying framework that would consider the interactive effects of all of the variables. The success of expectancy theory, according to Steers and Porter (1983), is that it is specific in dealing with the role of individual differences, that it encompasses jobrelated variables, and that it focuses on work environment influences on performance. Its weakness, however, may be an overemphasis on individuals' cognitions about the results of their own behavior (640). Steers and Porter (1983) also provided a useful sense, adapted from Hilgard and Atkinson (1967), of the complexity of attempting to infer motives and the challenges for expectancy and any other human behavior theoretical constructs: 75

PAGE 87

. any single act may express several motives; 2. motives may appear in disguised forms; 3. several motives may be expressed through similar or identical acts; 4. similar motives may be expressed in different behavior; and 5. cultural and personal variations may significantly moderate the modes of expression of certain motives (5). Expectancy theories of human motivation and behavior continue to receive attention and to be hailed as holding promise for further research. Nevertheless, the results are mixed and, in the face of such complexity, new approaches are needed. From a Variables Perspective The complexity of motivation and satisfaction research is to a major extent the result of the interaction of numerous variables. In order to review the literature, the decision has been made to attempt to "sort out" the variables upon which each researcher has focused. It is useful to adopt Mottaz's cluster typology. Mottaz (1985) described the organizational dimension of work rewards as what has traditionally been described as instrumental rewards: pay, promotions, fringe benefits, security, and so forth; the social dimension as those extrinsic rewards derived from interacting with others on the job; and the intrinsic as the task 76

PAGE 88

dimension derived from the content of the task itself, i.e. interesting and challenging work, self-direction and responsibility, variety, creativity, opportunity (366). The research to be examined focuses in a number of different areas, from values to commitment, from more easily isolated variables to interacting variables. Nevertheless, these works have been chosen for their contributions to the explanation of the interaction of the variables and the distinguished nature of those variables. The presentation is not chronological, as some works provide greater synthesis opportunities. Motivation as Dependent Variable Deci and Ryan (1985). Deci and Ryan focused attention on the intrinsic aspects of motivation, which they defined as "the innate, natural propensity to engage one's interests and exercise one's capacities, and in so doing, to seek and conquer optimal challenges" (43). They probed the interactions of intrinsically and extrinsically motivated behavior, concluding that an extrinsic reward may result in an instrumental proclivity that undermines intrinsic motivation (49). They asserted that "intrinsic motivation is based in people's needs to be competent and self-determining" (58). 77

PAGE 89

Deci and Ryan translated this theorizing to the organizational setting. They asserted the importance of self-determination for each organizational member as a central organizational principle (294). Extrinsic/ organizational reward structures, if perceived and experienced as controlling, will undermine intrinsic motivation (298-99). In this discussion, Deci and Ryan touched upon the differences in perceptions, and in values: It is not always easy to predict when a particular structure will be experienced as controlling, because part of the variance in how it is experienced is a function of the perceiver and part of the variance is a function of the rewarder (299). They concluded that whatever rewards are used to motivate people-in other words, to control them--it is probable that they will have a negative effect on the people's intrinsic motivation (310-11). Commitment as Dependent Variable Commitment has become an important research focus in organizational studies in the 1980s and 1990s. The evidence has been contradictory, as researchers have attempted to define commitment and distinguish it from work satisfaction. Farrell and Rusbult (1981). Farrell and Rusbult 78

PAGE 90

examined job satisfaction and job commitment as related to reward and values. They described commitment as related to the probability that an employee will leave his job and to the employee's feeling of psychological attachment. The relevance to the current study is the author's use of the investment model, originally developed by Rusbult in 1980 to be applied to romantic relationships, but applied by Farrell and Rusbult to commitment and satisfaction. Farrell and Rusbult approached satisfaction and commitment as predicted by a combination of factors: Job satisfaction was best predicted by job reward and cost values. Job commitment was predicted by a combination of reward and cost values, alternative values, and investment size. Thus, while job satisfaction concerns the employee's affective response to the job, and is related to the positive and negative characteristics of the job, job commitment is additionally influenced by the quality of job alternatives and the magnitude of the employee's direct and indirect investment in his/her job (92-93). For these purposes, Farrell and Rusbult's findings regarding satisfaction and commitment are of interest. They posited that satisfaction and commitment are not totally overlapping concepts. In fact, they viewed commitment as a more complex phenomenon. There are several important considerations regarding this work by Farrell and Rusbult. The basic vehicle used, 79

PAGE 91

the investment model, limits the exploration of work satisfaction and commitment. In fact, the authors articulate that the model asserts that 11job satisfaction, or positivity of affect toward one's job, is primarily a simple function of the rewards and costs associated with the job11 (80). This narrow consideration of satisfaction, limited to extrinsic/organizational factors, clearly predicts the narrow scope of the research results. Mowday, Porter. and steers (1982). Often referenced in subsequent studies, Mowday et al. provided a significant contribution in their defining of the conceptual framework for organizational commitment. They defined commitment as 11the relative strength of an individual's identification with and involvement in a particular organization" (27). They emphasized the exchange nature of commitment, such that individuals bring to an organization their needs, abilities, desires, and skills, and expect the organization to provide for satisfaction of the basics. The breadth of topics that Mowday et al. approached has been the basis for a research agenda for the 1980s and 1990s: commitment, employee-organization linkages, turnover, withdrawal. At once conceptual and practical, Mowday et al. focused upon attitudes, perceptions, and 80

PAGE 92

behaviors, alluding to the as yet insufficiently explored concept of reciprocal relationships among these three. Of importance to the current study is the acknowledgment by Mowday et al. of multiple factors that influence commitment: personal influences; organizational influences; job characteristics; supervision; work group; pay; organization characteristics; and nonorganizational factors (56-65). Perhaps most importantly, Mowday et al. emphasize the subtle interplay of attitudes and behaviors over time as the process whereby commitment develops. The basic theoretical orientation is that commitment is a process characterized by the "reciprocal influence of attitudes and behaviors" (47). Mowday et al. have cautioned that viewing commitment as a reciprocal agreement portends difficulties empirically. Nevertheless, this work serves as an interesting foundation for the examination of the relative importance of work satisfaction factors. Mottaz (1988). Mottaz explored organizational commitment as an exchange relationship, based upon work rewards and work values. To state it simply, "organizational commitment is largely a function of work rewards and work values" (470). Mottaz defined work rewards as both intrinsic and extrinsic benefits, which 81

PAGE 93

function as the key determinants of commitment. According to Mottaz, demographic variables are correlates, not determinants, of commitment. Mottaz examined the responses by 1385 employees from five homogeneous occupational groups. The findings revealed that intrinsic task rewards are the more powerful determinants of organizational commitment. Second in importance are extrinsic/social rewards, followed by extrinsic/organizational rewards as the least influential (475). These findings are aligned with the results showing that work values also rank as intrinsic first, followed by extrinsic/social, then extrinsic/ organizational. Mottaz concluded that: Workers tend to enter an organization with specific desires or work values. The more one's experiences in the organization are congruent with one's values, the more likely the individual will be committed to the organization (479). Romzek C1990l. Romzek approached commitment as the flipside of turnover. Romzek criticized the management emphasis on what she terms an investment approach, i.e. inducements such as pay, benefits, and career opportunities, as insufficient to impact employee commitment. Romzek articulated two types of psychological ties 82

PAGE 94

to an organization: one based on investments employees have made in the workplace and the other based on a shared commitment to the organization's values (375). The investment factors may be what has been described here as extrinsic/organizational and extrinsic/social in nature, including aspects such as promotion prospects, development of work group networks, performance bonuses, accrual of vacation, sick leave, and retirement benefits (376). Commitment, on the other hand, is described in terms of values: loyalty, shared organizational values, personal sense about the agency's mission, compatibility with ethics, and family and friends' support of the affiliation. In other words, commitment is not based upon calculations of investment (376-77). Romzek's observations and assertions are helpful for examining values, both as personal and as organizational. Her admonition is to pay attention to commitment as a quality that can be nurtured by managers and by the organization's culture. Guzley (1991). Guzley built upon earlier work on commitment by Brinkman, Steers, Mottaz, and others. Guzley brought together the concepts of attitudinal and behavioral commitment, then focused upon the impact of intrinsic and extrinsic factors. 83

PAGE 95

Guzley has attempted to clear up the conceptual confusion regarding commitment. Based in the work by Becker (1960), behavioral commitment is consistent human behavior, characterized by (1) persistence over a time period; (2) allowance of opposed lines of activity (a change in course) as long as it serves the individual in pursuit of the same goal; and (3) rejection of feasible and commendable alternatives for the selection of the alternative which best serves an individual's interest (5-8). On the other hand, attitudinal commitment is based upon a focus on the individual's internalization of the organization's goals and values, whereby the individual is willing to expend considerable effort on behalf of the organization and is desirous of remaining as an organizational member. Attitudinal commitment is linked to both organizational experiences and personal and job characteristics (26). Guzley examined a broad range of concepts, including the predictive power of self-esteem for commitment, the relationship between values and commitment, the role of intrinsic and extrinsic rewards, the role of personal and job characteristics, and the relationship between job experiences and commitment. Most salient to the current research are Guzley's 84

PAGE 96

examination of attitudinal commitment and the findings concerning values and rewards. The assertion that individuals' values predict their tendency to commit is only partially supported in the findings. However, there is strong evidence that commitment is stronger when individuals' motivation is based upon intrinsic rather than extrinsic rewards (141). Guzley concluded that both attitudinal and behavioral commitment are based in both extrinsic and intrinsic motivation. Huselid and Day (1991). Huselid and Day focused upon the relationship between job involvement and turnover, a shift from the commitment-turnover relationships detailed by other researchers. They described commitment as comprised by two distinct factors: attitudinal commitment and continuance commitment. Attitudinal commitment is affective in nature, wherein the employee becomes emotionally attached to the organization and perceives goal congruence between personal and organizational goals. Continuance commitment is based upon an exchange relationship, and the extent of continuance is commensurate with the extent to which the exchange favors the employee (380-81). What is interesting for these purposes is that the research by Huselid and Day does not support the 85

PAGE 97

>I I hypothesis that commitment and involvement interact to influence turnover. In fact, the researchers discovered methodological flaws in previous research. This confirms the caution that the analysis of variables is complex and requires careful selection of analytical methods and data interpretation. Person-organization Fit as Dependent Variable Person-organization fit as a focus of study has augmented the emphasis on the impact of the organization on an individual's beliefs, motivation, and satisfaction with the influence an individual has on the organization. This exchange relationship has been the object of a number of researchers' efforts. Chatman (1989). Chatman focused on an examination of the influence of the situation on the person. She criticized interactional models as having overemphasized either the person or situation components and as having failed to consider the effects of the people on the situation (333). This work involves a consideration of values. Chatman defined her focus, "person-organization as "the congruence between the norms and values of organizations and the values of persons" (339). This research is interesting in that the focus is 86

PAGE 98

upon not only the effects that organizational membership may have on individual values and behaviors, but on the effects the individual will have on the organization's norms and values (339). Chatman assessed both organizational values and individual values, then compared the two profiles. The implications are, among other assertions, that "high levels of personorganization fit are beneficial for individuals and organizations" (343), though extremely high levels among numerous organizational members may have detrimental effects (a topic of less relevance here). What is notable is the salience to satisfaction for the employees for whom the fit is appropriate. Chatman did not carry this study to an examination of the work satisfaction factors. Nevertheless, the study is interesting as background for consideration of the rewards/values interaction. As Chatman concluded: (B]y clarifying important criteria for conducting interactional organization research, we can come closer to understanding how organizational membership can have enduring and dramatic effects on people and how people can have enduring and dramatic effects on organizations (346). Vancouver and Schmitt (1991). The concept of fit is further examined by Vancouver and Schmitt, focusing upon the idea of goal congruence. Here the extrinsic/social 87

PAGE 99

aspects came into play, as the researchers examined goal congruency at two levels: between supervisor and subordinate and between an individual and all other individuals within a constituency, also know as group cohesiveness. According to Vancouver and Schmitt, organizational goals (not operational goals) reflect the values and commitment of the founders and leaders of organizations, as well as, to some extent, the people who make up the organization (333). The central issue for the study is based upon the proposition that "agreement among organizational members regarding goals for that organization is related to the attitudes of its members regarding the organization" (348). The authors discovered that goal congruence with peers appears to be more important than goal congruence with supervisors. These findings serve as an interesting starting point for the examination of the role of the extrinsic/social factors in work satisfaction. vancouver and Schmitt cautioned that further research is needed, but concluded the importance of peer goal congruence in organizations (350). 88

PAGE 100

Job Selection as Dependent Variable Job selection has been variously regarded as a function of values and as an interaction between individual and organizational characteristics. Group differences between full-and part-time workers could provide some interesting implications for the selection process. Judge and Bretz (1992). Judge and Bretz shifted to an examination of the role of work values on job choice decisions. While tangential to the current research, their work offers some clarification regarding the concept of work values. They cited Meglino et. al.'s findings that workers report greater satisfaction and commitment when workers' values are congruent with their supervisors' values. Of particular interest, Judge and Bretz found that of the four values examined, three--concern for others, achievement, and fairness--exert more influence on the job choice process than the fourth, pay and promotional opportunities (269). The values present in a job best predicted offer acceptance "when the value emphasized matched the primary value orientation of the individual" (269). These findings may have implications for the 89

PAGE 101

relationship between work rewards and work values. While the focus of Judge and Bretz is job choice, it is clearly related to the relationship between perceived rewards and their congruence to values. Turban and Keon (1993). The issue of job selection, or "organizational attractiveness," as it was termed by Turban and Keon, was the focus of a 1993 investigation into the relationship between the individual and the organization. Operating from an interactionist perspective, Turban and Keon posited that "individual characteristics will moderate the influence of organizational characteristics on attraction to firms" (186). Specifically, they looked at the relationship between an individual's self-esteem and need for achievement, and the reward structure, centralization, and size of an organization, as manifested in the choice of employment. The findings provide some support for the proposition that individual characteristics moderate the influence of organizational characteristics on the attraction to an employer, supporting the proposition that different types of people are attracted to different types of organizations. The implications for the current research manifest 90

PAGE 102

in informing the examination of a diverse population in a complex organizational setting. The questions arise: how can the organization respond to the moderating influence of individual characteristics? And can such a response impact work satisfaction? Work Satisfaction as Dependent Variable Work satisfaction, the primary focus of this dissertation, is a theoretical construct that has been loosely alluded to throughout the discussions of motivation, commitment, fit, and selection. Satisfaction may be distinguished by a focus on the interaction between values and perceived rewards, by the relationship between expectations and organizational arrangements, or by a perception of congruency between needs and responses. The literature provides a number of suggestions for an approach to examining work satisfaction. Katz and VanMaanen C1977l. Katz and VanMaanen focused upon work satisfaction as "situationally specific" and "individually divergent" (471). Their stated purpose in the study of 3,500 subjects in four governmental organizations was to move away from traditional conceptualizations of work satisfaction (i.e., 91

PAGE 103

unidimensional and individualistic) by demonstrating empirically the situationally dependent nature of the concept---denoting clearly the linkages attaching satisfaction attitudes to workaday realities (471). What Katz and Van Maanen discovered is that work satisfaction is "an intricate, albeit relative phenomenon" (479). There emerged three "loci of satisfaction": core job dimensions (task variety, task identity, task significance, autonomy, feedback from job); interaction features (agent feedback, colleague assistance); and policy measures (promotion fairness, pay equity) (477). These loci align with the findings by Mottaz (1985) regarding the clustering of work satisfaction factors. Katz and Van Maanen (1977) advocated a psychological approach to research such that behavior is simple, and attention can be directed to the "variable characteristics of the situations in which people's work lives are embedded rather than to the relatively fixed personality dimensions of individuals called out in work settings" (479). They concluded that while there are clearly theoretically distinct contributions to job satisfaction by all three loci of satisfaction, focusing on the work itself may be the most effective method by which to improve satisfaction in the public sector (481). 92

PAGE 104

They concluded that research with the end of overarching generalization on work satisfaction is a "quixotic quest," and that the research focus should shift to "detailing and classifying situational contingencies impinging upon a sort of balanced loci model" (484). Kalleberg (1977). Kalleberg has attempted to develop a theory of work satisfaction "which incorporates differences in work values and perceived job characteristics as key explanatory variables" (124). Defining job satisfaction as "an overall affective or !entation on the part of individuals toward w.ork roles which they are presently occupying" (126), Kalleberg explained that historically, three types of explanations have been suggested to account for variation in job satisfaction: the personalities of individual workers; the nature of the job; and the interaction between the objective properties of the job and the motives of the individual workers (124-25). Kalleberg expanded upon the relationship among the variables: A worker's level of job satisfaction is a function of the range of specific satisfactions and dissatisfactions that he/she experiences with respect to the various dimensions of work ( 127) Kalleberg focused upon six dimensions: intrinsic, those characteristics associated with the task itself; 93

PAGE 105

convenience, job characteristics that provide creature comforts such as an easy commute, pleasant physical surroundings; financial, such as pay, fringe benefits, job security; relations with co-workers, that is social aspects; career opportunities, such as promotion; and resource adequacy, which includes equipment, authority, and information. The two factors operating upon these dimensions are the perceived job characteristics (representing the amount of satisfaction available from particular dimensions of work) and the work values (representing the meanings that individuals attach to the perceived job characteristics) (127). The objective is to specify the manner in which the particular values and rewards combine to influence overall work satisfaction. Using survey methodology and correlational and regression analysis, Kalleberg posited an additive model. Rewards are demonstrated to have generally greater effects on satisfaction than do values. In addition, rewards have positive net effects while values generally have negative net effects. These findings can be interestingly compared to Herzberg et al.'s two-factor theory. Kalleberg's analysis of the six components as values and as rewards produces a ranking ordering of the 94

PAGE 106

components' relative effects as follows: intrinsic, financial, resource adequacy, career, convenience, and coworkers. While acknowledging that these differences may be the result of differences in the reliabilities of the value and reward measures, Kalleberg concluded that while the intrinsic dimension seems to have the greatest relative effects for producing overall job satisfaction, these may be population-specific variances (136). Kalleberg's contribution is important regarding his emphasis on the relationship between overall job satisfaction and the work values and perceived characteristics and rewards associated with the dimensions of work. His recommendations for further research include an examination into the reasons for variations in work values and a study of the social group differences regarding the distribution of job rewards. Meqlino. Ravlin. and Adkins (1989). Values serve as the focus for Meglino et al. in an examination of organizational culture and the impact on satisfaction. The cross-sectional study, limited to one organizational setting, can be questioned for its external validity. However, the study is of interest for purposes of further background on values. Meglino et al. approached their study from what they 95

PAGE 107

described as the two critical functions: external adaptation and internal integration. Here the external adaptation is thought to affect employee behavior in the workplace. The internal integration is thought to relate to the effect of shared values in two aspects: interpersonal interactions and shared cognitive processing (424). Among the assumptions and findings of interest to the current research, Meglino et al. conceptualize values as relatively stable characteristics. Additionally, they noted that satisfaction and commitment may not be directly related to an individual's behavior in an organization (424-25). In a study of production workers and managers, Meglino et al. explored job satisfaction and organizational commitment, measures of work values, and measures of work values perceived by workers as emphasized by management. The findings demonstrate higher satisfaction and commitment when workers and managers share values, and value congruence remains fairly stable over time (429). The findings support the presence of a relationship between value congruence and both job satisfaction and organizational commitment. The congruence was found to be 96

PAGE 108

between worker and supervisor (this may relate to the extrinsic/social cluster in work satisfaction). Hemmasi. Graf. and Lust (1992). Hemmasi et al. focused upon the extrinsic/organizational satisfaction factors of pay and benefits, examining public university faculty. Working from an earlier study by Heneman (1985), wherein education, skill, job performance, agejseniority, organizational level, and non-monetary outcomes were found to have a negative relationship with pay satisfaction, while pay level and gender were found to have a positive relationship, Hemmasi et al. concluded that demographic variables are insufficient to explain pay and benefit satisfaction. Hemmasi et al. combined the demographic variables (age, gender, marital status, employment status of spouse, number of years with employer, faculty rank, tenure status, education, and pay level) with what they termed the attitudinal variables (satisfaction with supervision, perceived job demands, advancement, satisfaction with work load, and satisfaction with classroom related issues). They identified the independent variables as compensation satisfaction and indirect benefits satisfaction. Hemmasi et al. discovered that while pay is the 97

PAGE 109

primary predictor of job satisfaction when demographic variables are the only ones analyzed, the addition of the attitudinal variables shifts the results, whereby pay is no longer significant (439-40). They concluded that demographic correlates alone are not sufficient to explain the constructs of compensation and benefit satisfaction. Mottaz (1985}. The final work included in this examination of the literature is an additional study by Clifford J. Mottaz. Mottazs investigation into work satisfaction provides both a conceptual frame and a survey instrument for the current study. Mottaz has been given special attention due to his focus upon differences among occupational groups and upon satisfaction as intrinsic, extrinsic/organizational, and extrinsic/ social. Mottaz built upon the work of Katz and Van Maanen (1977), examining the intrinsic, extrinsic/social, and extrinsic/organizational dimensions of work rewards and work values. Mottaz examined five occupational groups, finding a similar hierarchy of work-related values among the groups, though some occupational differences did emerge. Of note, extrinsic/organizational rewards were demonstrated to be significant predictors of work 98

PAGE 110

satisfaction in lower-level or blue-collar, but not upper-level or professional occupations. on the other hand, workers in lower-level occupations were not found to be more responsive to increases in pay or promotions in their overall assessment of their work (378). Mottaz used an interactionist perspective, examining the relationship between work rewards and work values as determinants of work satisfaction. The population under study was diverse, including five occupational groups. overall, Mottaz found that intrinsic rewards are the most powerful predictor of overall work satisfaction across all groups. However, extrinsic/social factors also emerge as powerful predictors. This holds across occupational groups. Mottaz suggested that management efforts focus across the rewards groups, rather than on one area. Conclusion Clearly, the literature is not conclusive regarding the causes or correlates of work satisfaction. Further work is needed to identify and understand the contributory interactions of work satisfaction variables. Each of the works mentioned here contributes to a greater theoretical understanding. A comprehensive theory perhaps 99

PAGE 111

need not and should not be the objective. Rather, what is needed is a broadened basis for understanding. The decision was made to focus upon work satisfaction as the primary theoretical construct, with the belief that the findings could contribute to an understanding of the relationship between satisfaction and other dependent variables, e.g. commitment. Further research should be conducted to explore group differences regarding the other variables. This dissertation seeks to contribute to the literature through an examination of the work satisfaction of the part-time worker. There are two main objectives: to look for group differences between fulland part-time workers; and to further understand the relationships among the independent variables that contribute to work satisfaction. It is hoped this research may provide clues as to the essential nature of the aspects of work satisfaction, to their relative importance, and to their threshold levels for satisfaction. 100

PAGE 112

CHAPTER THREE RESEARCH DESIGN General Method This thesis focuses on the work satisfaction of community college faculty members: full-time, hopeful full-timer, full-mooner, part-mooner, and other parttime. Specifically, the purpose is to contribute to the knowledge base on work satisfaction by testing for group differences in overall work satisfaction, in the importance of work satisfaction variables, and in work values. The intention is to determine work satisfaction and group differences; to ascertain the relative importance of work satisfaction factors as they contribute to overall work satisfaction; to begin to interpret the relationships of work values and work rewards; and to examine whether work satisfaction factors cluster into posited theoretical constructs: intrinsic, extrinsic/ social, and extrinsic/organizational. The setting for the research is four community colleges in metropolitan Denver, Colorado. Faculty from 101

PAGE 113

multiple locations, i.e. main campuses, outreach centers, and branch campuses, were sampled. One college is urban, with a markedly more diverse student population. The three others are suburban. one is well known for its large adjunct faculty population and faculty development programs, though all have in place faculty development programs. The colleges are all dependent upon part-time faculty but differ in the ratio of full-to part-time faculty members as follows: 121:325; 28:242; 122:271; 150:514. Timely and reliable data were not available regarding the percent of instruction delivered by parttime faculty, in part because courses taught by full-time faculty as overloads, i.e. beyond their regular full-time contract, are counted in the part-time data. All of the sites are public, two-year colleges in the Colorado Community College and Occupational Education System and are therefore governed by the same legislative and board personnel policies. In addition, 23.8% of the part-time faculty who responded to the survey indicated that they teach at more than one institution. The colleges are characterized by some distinctiveness regarding administrative philosophy and faculty policies and procedures, such as emphasis placed upon and resources devoted to professional development, 102

PAGE 114

office arrangements, and instruction delivered offcampus. Although pay varies modestly, benefits are boardauthorized and therefore are the same. For purposes of this research, the similarities among the sites were determined to outweigh the differences. Specific Procedures The research design included both quantitative and qualitative collection and analysis of data. The survey method allowed the use of an instrument that had been tested with other populations, as well as the ability to question a broader sample. Random sampling procedures were implemented. The interview phase provided the opportunity to enrich the data collection through openended, semi-structured questioning. This allowed the data to move beyond those issues that the researcher had considered to uncover other sources of satisfaction and dissatisfaction. The interview data were collected through a "snowball effect," whereby the interviewees recommended others who might contribute to the data. The interview data additionally enriched the interpretation of the survey data, often confirming and occasionally contradicting the quantitative results. 103

PAGE 115

Quantitative Methodology For the survey, the researcher requested and received faculty population lists for four community colleges in metropolitan Denver from the Colorado Community College and occupational Education System. From these lists, a random sample of 400 part-time faculty members was drawn from a part-time population of 1352. These 400 part-time faculty members and the population of 421 full-time faculty members were surveyed. The survey instrument consisted of two sections: a forced-choice, work satisfaction survey (Mottaz 1985) and a demographic survey (see Appendix A). The Mottaz survey was chosen because it had been used in research across diverse full-time occupational groups and because it includes both satisfaction and values questions. The instruments administered to the full-and part-time faculty were parallel with one exception: the part-time faculty received one additional page, which included self-selection of a taxonomy category (adapted from Biles and Tuckman 1986, which was used to determine part-time group membership), a question regarding interest in a full-time faculty appointment, and questions regarding health insurance benefits. The researcher delivered the survey packets to 104

PAGE 116

faculty mailboxes at the four colleges. Two weeks later, reminder cards were delivered to the mailboxes of nonrespondents. After another two weeks, nonrespondents received telephone calls and survey packets mailed to their homes. As illustrated in the Table 3.1, overall response rate was 50.5% usable surveys of those that were deliverable. Neither the colleges nor the Colorado Community College and Occupational Education System have data on the demographics of the part-time faculty. Therefore, it was not possible to compare the respondents and nonrespondents to determine the existence of systematic differences. Instrumentation. The Mottaz work satisfaction survey consisted of 65 forced-choice, four-answer items in ten categories: general working conditions, salary, supervision, co-workers, task autonomy, task significance, task involvement, organizational commitment, promotion, and overall work satisfaction. In addition, the instrument included seven work values rating scales, which the respondent was asked to rate on a scale of one to ten, with ten as the highest. A pilot study of this survey was not conducted because it had been tested in previous research on a population that 105

PAGE 117

Table 3 .1. survey Response Rate Full-Time Part-Time Unknown Total # sent N=421 n=400 821 # Undeliverable 1 60 61 # Deliverable 420 340 760 # Returned 214 177 2 393 384* % Total 50.8% 44.3% 47.9% 46.8%* % Deliverable 51% 52.1% 51.7% 50.5%* Usable 106

PAGE 118

included university professors. The demographic survey consisted of 23 items for all respondents, including years in higher education, years with the specific community college, gender, ethnicity, age, wage earners in household, other higher education employment, discipline, institutional involvement, institutional interaction, and type of faculty contract. An additional four questions were directed to part-time faculty only and included interest in health benefits, desire to become full-time faculty, and selfclassification according to a published taxonomy by Biles and Tuckman (1986) regarding the reasons for being parttime: hopeful full-timer (currently would like to secure a full-time college teaching position); full-mooner (currently working 35 or more hours per week elsewhere); part-mooner (currently holding two or more part-time jobs of less than 35 hours per week); student (currently working part-time while pursuing further education); semi-retired; and homeworker (working part-time to allow time to care for children and other relatives). survey responses were edited and entered, then input into SPSS+. Descriptive statistics were examined for outliers. The surveys were recoded for conformity, such 107

PAGE 119

that for each work satisfaction question, "four" represented the most satisfying and "one" the least satisfying response choice. Reliabilities were calculated for each work satisfaction category. Due to their high correlations and in order to facilitate data management and interpretation, the work satisfaction variables were collapsed into scale variables based upon variable means. Variables that did not contribute to scale reliability were dropped from their respective scales, resulting in a set of composite variables with the highest reliabilities for this sample as shown in Table 3.2. The correlations aligned with earlier scale construction by Mottaz (1985). In addition, the researcher analyzed the demographic data and found some receding was needed. Because of the small sample in certain categories, classifications were collapsed for better analysis of data. The part-time by taxonomy classification was receded into four groups: hopeful full-timer; full-mooner; part-mooner; and other, which included student, semi-retired, and homeworker. Correlations were run on work satisfaction composite variables and values to determine the relationships among the scales and items. Demographic data were subjected to chi square and analysis of variance procedures to 108

PAGE 120

Table 3.2. Scale Reliability Table of Omitted variables Variable Scale Descriptor Initial Scale Scale Reliability Reliability (Alpha) (Alpha) When variable omitted V1 General Working Conditions .7533 .7600 Vll Salary .8005 .8343 V20 Co-Workers .8541 .8868 V38 Task Involvement .8339 .8660 V45 Overall Work Satisfaction .8176 .8612 V47 Organizational Commitment .9124 .9132 vso organizational Commitment .9124 .9148 V53 Organizational Commitment .9124 .9141 These variables were omitted from the Work satisfaction Survey in order to increase the scale reliability. (SPSS/PC+ The Statistical Package for IBM/PC) Cronbach's Alpha. 109

PAGE 121

determine if there were significant demographic differences between groups that may impact the dependent variables. T-tests for independent samples were conducted to compare the means for two groups--full-time and part-time faculty--for work satisfaction scales and values variables responses. The values variables consisted of seven values that respondents evaluated on a scale of one to ten as to importance. The assumption of equal variances was tested. The researcher rank-ordered the means of the scale variables and value variables, then tested for significance using nonparametric procedures. Next one-way analyses of variance were conducted to compare four groups' means--the full-timer, hopeful fulltimer, part-mooner, and full-mooner--for work satisfaction scales and other study variables responses. Again, the assumption of equal variances was tested. Scheffe's test was used to locate the significant differences. Correlation coefficients were derived and step-wise regression analyses were conducted to examine the relationship of the nine other scales to the work satisfaction scale. In order to examine the role of values in predicting work satisfaction, the seven values 110

PAGE 122

variables were regressed against the ten composite variables to determine the proportion of variance for each composite satisfaction variable accounted for by the values variables. A factor analysis was conducted--a varimax rotation of the ten scale variables--to test the Mottaz (1985) theoretical constructs for work satisfaction factors: intrinsic; extrinsic/organizational; extrinsic/social. Qualitative Methodology The researcher conducted 27 interviews with faculty and administrators from the subject community colleges. The purpose of the qualitative data collection was to aid in the validation, interpretation, and clarification of the quantitative data. In addition, the interviews were intended to provide the opportunity to reveal information that may not be elicited by the survey instrument. The researcher conducted six interviews in a pilot study to determine the soundness of the methodology and the appropriateness of techniques. The interviews were semi-structured. The researcher personally conducted all interviews. Each interviewee was asked a set of general questions regarding personal history, interests, teaching experiences, institutional 111

PAGE 123

and disciplinary identification, relationships within the institution and within the discipline, and sources of satisfaction and dissatisfaction. However, interviewees were allowed to guide the conversation and were encouraged to bring additional topics to the discussion. The interviewees were selected through a snowball technique. At the end of each interview, the interviewee was asked for recommendations for further interviews. This model proved effective. The interviewer informed each subject that the interviews would be anonymous. Only the interviewer and transcriptionist would know names and institutional affiliation. Interviews were conducted in the setting of the subject's choice: classrooms, restaurants, living rooms, libraries, offices. Due to the subject's time constraints, one interview was conducted via telephone. In each case, the subject was asked permission for the researcher to tape the interview, and this was granted by all but one subject. In addition, the interviewer took notes as the subject spoke. Interviews lasted from fortyfive minutes to two hours. The interview tapes were transcribed. The researcher then used a literary analysis approach to the data, 112

PAGE 124

reading them first for general content, then for careful analysis. The researcher developed a coding system that would accommodate the identification of similar phrases, relationships among variables, patterns, themes, common sequences, as well as distinct differences. The process of data reduction consisted of making marginal notes, highlighting important ideas, grouping data according to prevailing themes, clustering responses, then coding. Linking the Quantitative and Qualitative Data. The decision to broaden the study to include both quantitative and qualitative data was made as an effort to increase the validity of the data, to enrich the detail, and to elicit greater information for consideration. The qualitative data were the foundation for returning to the quantitative findings and evaluating the conclusions drawn. The quantitative and qualitative data sets were both essential to the research results. Research Questions The research questions were grounded in both theoretical and practical bases. At the core was an inquiry into group differences and the relative importance of factors that affect work satisfaction. 113

PAGE 125

Do full-and part-time faculty differ in work satisfaction? Do different faculty groups, i.e., full-time faculty, hopeful full-timer, full-mooner, part-mooner, and other part-time, differ in their satisfaction responses? Do satisfaction factors cluster, i.e. as intrinsic, extrinsic/organizational, and extrinsic/social, in support of the theoretical constructs? Does the relationship among work satisfaction variables differ by faculty group? Do significant differences exist between full-time and part-time faculty regarding values? Do different faculty groups, i.e. full-time, hopeful full-timer, full-mooner, part-mooner, and other parttime, differ in their values responses? Does the importance assigned to work values significantly predict work satisfaction? 114

PAGE 126

CHAPTER FOUR FINDINGS Introduction Popular wisdom to the contrary, part-time faculty in community colleges are generally as satisfied as fulltime faculty, according to the research findings. In fact, where significant differences exist, the full-time faculty are less satisfied. Further, part-time faculty profess a level of commitment that is not significantly different from that of their full-time colleagues. This investigation focused upon work satisfaction as the key theoretical concept, distinguished from motivation, commitment, and other variables. The data were examined using the Mottaz (1985) work satisfaction theoretical constructs: intrinsic, extrinsic/ organizational, and extrinsic/social. Intrinsic variables are those derived from the content of the task itself: task autonomy, task significance, and task involvement. Extrinsic/organizational are provided by the organization for the purpose of facilitating or motivating task performance: salary, promotion, and general working 115

PAGE 127

conditions. Extrinsic/social result from interacting with others on the job: co-workers and supervision (Mottaz 1985, 366). Two other composites, organizational commitment and overall work satisfaction, were examined. The data support the conclusion that work satisfaction and organizational commitment are separate but highly related dependent variables. Values variables were considered according to the same theoretical constructs, in an effort to interpret the relationship between values and work satisfaction. Mottaz (1985) reported the clustering of variables into the three theoretical constructs that structure this research. Although factor analysis did not conclusively provide evidence for the discrete nature of the constructs, there was sufficient support to warrant further investigation. Work Satisfaction and Group Differences How generally satisfied are both full-and part-time faculty? A comparison was made of the mean responses from full-time and part-time faculty to ten composite variables: overall work satisfaction; organizational commitment; the intrinsic variables--autonomy, task 116

PAGE 128

significance, and task involvement; the extrinsic/ organizational variables--general working conditions, salary, and promotion; and the extrinsicjsocial variables--supervision and co-workers. As illustrated in Table 4.1, T-tests revealed no significant differences between full-time and part-time faculty satisfaction for six composite variables: coworkers; task significance; task involvement; promotion; organizational commitment; and overall work satisfaction. Significant differences existed for four composite variables for full-time and part-time: general working conditions; salary; supervision; and autonomy. Full-time faculty were significantly less satisfied than part-time faculty for all of the four composite variables for which differences existed. Of interest, these four variables represent intrinsic, extrinsic/organizational, and extrinsic/social factors. Even though there were significant differences for salary, supervision, and autonomy, there was greater difference between groups for general working conditions. A rank ordering of composite variables by means is shown in Table 4.1. For full-and part-time faculty, task involvement showed the greatest satisfaction score. Task significance and autonomy ranked in the top four mean 117

PAGE 129

Table 4.1. Full-Time & Part-Time Faculty Work Satisfaction Composite Variable (Scale) n II SD T p 0 HW p overall Work Satisfaction 0.05 0.962 .999 FullTime Faculty 189 2.9974 .600 5 PartTime Faculty 174 2.9943 .636 6 Total 379 2.9881 .623 Organizational Commitment 0.34 0.736 .578 FullTime Faculty 191 2.8510 .554 7 PartTime Faculty 1n 2.8325 .480 7 Total 379 2.8384 .525 Autonomy Cl) .26 .025* .033* FullTime Faculty 191 3.1933 .426 4 PartTime Faculty 174 3.2924 .411 2 Total 382 3.2450 .423 Task Significance (I) 1. D1 0.312 .147 FullTfme Faculty 190 3.3242 .456 2 PartTfme Faculty 175 3.2783 .405 3 Total 382 3.3011 .439 Task Involvement (I) .10 .923 .819 FullTime Faculty 191 3.3396 .475 1 PartTfme Faculty 174 3.3349 .462 1 Total 382 3.3330 .476 (I) Intrinsic 0 Rank order Significant Difference MW Mann-Whitney Wilcoxon sum W Test significance of Rank Order Differences Total n may exceed total of Full-time n and Part-time n as some respondents did not identify group membership. 118

PAGE 130

Table 4 .1. (Cont.) Composite Variable (Scale) n SD T p 0 HIJ p General Working Conditions CE/0) .53 .000* .000* FullTime Faculty 193 2.1961 .540 9 PartTime Faculty 176 2.m3 .508 8 Total 387 2.4565 .067 Salary CE/0) .43 .016* .057 Full-Time Faculty 191 1.6549 .575 10 PartTime Faculty 172 1.8183 .706 10 Total 381 1.7259 .648 Promotion CE/0) 1.56 0.119 .099 FullTime Faculty 180 2.2981 .606 8 Part-Time Faculty 150 2.1922 .622 9 Total 344 2.2420 .614 Co-workers CE/S) 1.61 .109 .072 FullTime Faculty 191 3.2112 .591 3 PartTime Faculty 167 3.1183 .488 5 Total 374 3.1613 .547 Supervision CE/S) .37 .019* .052 FullTima Faculty 190 2.9953 .611 6 Part-Time Faculty 170 3.1339 .485 4 Total 3n 3.0602 .567 (E/0) Extrinsic/Organizational (E/0) Extrinsic/Social 0 Rank Order Significant Difference MW Mann-Whitney Wilcoxon sum w Test Significance of Rank Order Differences Total n may exceed total of Full-time n and Part-time n as some respondents did not identify group membership. 119

PAGE 131

scores for both groups. Faculty satisfaction scores were higher for the intrinsic variables than for the other variables tested. The rank orderings were tested for significant differences between the full-and part-time faculty, using nonparametric procedures, the Mann-Whitney U and Wilcoxon sum W Test. As shown in Table 4.1, the rank order was significantly different at the .05 level for only two composite variables: general working conditions and autonomy. In both instances, the full-time faculty ranked the composite variable significantly lower than the part-time faculty did. Two of the variables for which there were significant group differences ranked near the bottom of both lists: salary and general working conditions. While part-time faculty were significantly more satisfied with these variables, nevertheless, their mean score for satisfaction with salary was low in both relative and absolute terms. The interview data provided interesting insights into the survey results. Perhaps most notable are the similarities of themes that faculty members chose to discuss. Extrinsic/organizational variables came through clearly as a source of dissatisfaction for both groups. In the words of a longtime, full-time faculty member, 120

PAGE 132

regarding salary: (S)alary is critical to the base of any person's performance and enjoyment of their work. We are $9,000 below our K-12 counterparts. so if I, with my degrees and experience, were to step straight across into K-12--$9,000. I am $18,000 to $20,000 below my counterpart at cu [University of Colorado). This concern was echoed by a longtime, part-time faculty member. The problem is the poor pay. Unless something is done about the pay, I think that's the bottom line. I was living on $12,000 a year, and that was between [two colleges). But you cannot believe the people, and some of the financial hardships, and some of the crazy things they end up doing. I had a friend who ended up teaching nine classes to make it. For the part-time faculty, another extrinsic/ organizational variable, general working conditions, surfaced frequently as a source of frustration and dissatisfaction. The specifics ranged from office space to copy machine access to course assignments: Five people share this office--it once was nine. In the Navy we called it "hot bunking." one third work, one third sleep, one third off duty. I don't even have my own filing cabinet. I had a bigger office as a grad student. [A department chair] counted the number of copies we made. She finally moved the Xerox machine into an office where we could not even use the Xerox machine. And she treated us, the adjunct faculty particularly, like children. She would always keep us from knowing our assignment until the last minute, would cut our assignments on whim, so we could never count on two classes each semester. 121

PAGE 133

Another part-time faculty member summed up the needs succinctly. What would be different? I would have an office, a desk, keys, respect, and twice as much money. Full-time faculty members focused upon what they perceive as the burdens placed upon them due to the large number of courses taught by part-time faculty. we talk about this a lot. I'm not sure any of us understands where the problem is; but we keep having more to do We're not asked; we're just pulled We have to do thing after thing after thing, and yet, we really don't have the final authority over any of it. An extrinsic/social variable, supervision, was another identified as significantly less satisfactory for full-time faculty. One full-time faculty member expressed great displeasure at the perceived lack of understanding on the part of administrators of what the role of faculty should be. They (administrators) need to understand that faculty are there for their professional duties: to exchange knowledge and information with students. Not to be administrators and fill out paperwork all of the time. Hire minimum wage people to fill out the paperwork. Not have a faculty member do it. In general, the part-time faculty voiced support for their supervisors. One woman praised her department chair, and the degree of autonomy her position is afforded. 122

PAGE 134

(He] has a tendency to set a direction and then leave it to the people in the department to work it out. Because he gives us a lot of autonomy, we just work it out together by doing a lot of discussing. It is really an incredibly invigorating intellectual climate because of the people I work with. Another expressed positive regard. The lead teachers that I know, or the department coordinators that I know, seem to be very accessible and very supportive of their faculty. They treat us with respect and all that kind of stuff because they've also been here. Autonomy, an intrinsic variable, is the fourth composite with which the part-time faculty expressed significantly greater satisfaction. Even part-time faculty who showed substantial overall dissatisfaction had good things to say about their autonomy. one woman, a poet and single mother, lamented her lack of health benefits, but enjoyed her freedom. I think there are a lot of advantages to being a part-time faculty, too, though. You have a great deal of flexibility and freedom to manage your schedule, which, for me, again as a single parent, works out pretty congenial, and so I can enjoy what I11n doing and will have days like today where I'm at home and have nothing to do but vacuum. The lack of significant differences between full-and part-time mean scores for intrinsic variables was supported in other interviews. For both groups, the greatest satisfaction was expressed in relation to 123

PAGE 135

contact with students. A full-time faculty member in the computer science area was asked what attracted him out of industry and into teaching. I guess the first thing is that I enjoy teaching. Teaching to me is like playing a sport that you love to play. If you get hurt you still go back to it. Even when I was in industry, I still came back to teach. As one part-time faculty member, when asked why she continues teaching, replied: But, then, I guess it was probably the high evaluations by the students. I've asked myself this a lot. But I would say it mostly goes back to that. It's the high evaluations, hearing them say, "Before I had your class, I hated English, and now I really like it," or "You've made me see that it's valuable." The examination of work satisfaction for full-and part-time faculty presented evidence of an overall acceptable level of satisfaction for both groups, with fewer differences than similarities. However, it is of interest that where significant differences exist, fulltime faculty are significantly less satisfied than parttime faculty. Do different faculty groups. i.e . full-time faculty. hopeful full-time. full-mooner. part-mooner. and other part-time. differ in their satisfaction responses? Pilot interviews with faculty prior to this research project resulted in a sense of group differences and 124

PAGE 136

elicited questions regarding the composition of the faculty, the part-time faculty's reasons for being parttime, and the possible implications that group differences may have for work satisfaction. In fact, research on faculty has been criticized for the failure to distinguish groups of faculty, thereby neglecting to address the perceived diversity of motivation, interests, and circumstances of the full-and part-time faculty. one of the part-time faculty interviewed spoke of the differences that exist not only between full-and parttime, but also among the part-time, characterizing the part-time faculty as made up of two distinct groups. The people that I see are the most committed to teaching, as their primary. They're there all the time. And the ones whom I never see I would have to think are probably doing something else most of the time. And there are a lot more of them. The part-time faculty who were surveyed in this research were asked to self-classify according to categories established by Biles and Tuckman (1986). The categories are defined as follows: semi-retired; student (currently working part-time while pursuing further education); hopeful full-timer (currently would like to secure a full-time college teaching position); fullmooner (currently working 35 or more hours per week elsewhere); part-mooner (currently holding two or more 125

PAGE 137

part-time jobs of less than 35 hours per week); homeworker (working part-time to allow time to care for children and other relatives). To address one limitation of the Biles and Tuckman taxonomy, that the categories may not be mutually exclusive, respondents were asked to choose only one category. As illustrated in Figure 4.1, full-mooner was the largest part-time group for this sample, followed by hopeful part-timer. For further clarification, survey respondents were asked if they eventually would like to teach full-time, and if so, in how many years. Table 4.2 reflects their responses. Two peculiarities are worth mention. Less than 100% of those faculty who self-classified as hopeful full-timer indicated "yes" when asked if they wanted to be full-time eventually. This may be due to the feeling expressed by several interviewees that the desire to be full-time is futile. In addition, many part-time faculty who did not self-classify as hopeful full-timers indicated a desire to teach eventually. Table 4.3 displays descriptive demographics and related data for the full-time and part-time faculty groups. Among selected variables, no significant differences among groups emerged for gender, ethnicity, and number of wage earners in family, but significant 126

PAGE 138

Figure 4.1. Faculty by Taxonomy (n 177) Hopeful Full-Timer 27.7% SemiRetlred 9.0% Homeworker 4.2.4 Full-Moaner 36.1% 127

PAGE 139

Table 4.2. Full-Time Teaching Aspirations Selfn Yes In 1 Within Gave Classification Full-Time Year 5 up Years Hopeful Full-45 42 26 40 3 Timer Full-Moaner 57 21 4 11 1 Part-Moaner 23 6 1 6 2 Other Part38 17 10 15 -Timer* For purposes of further analysis, the categories of semi-retired, homeworker, and student were collapsed into one category, other part-time. 128

PAGE 140

Table 4.3. Group Demographics and Descriptives Total Full Faculty Time " ""373 ""191 F 56 56 Gender M 44 44 Ethnic Other 12 14 fty White 88 86 20 6 3 31 24 24 Age Group 41-50 41 41 51 24 29 61+ 5 3 0 2 15 9 3 21 10 Years fn 6 25 27 Higher Educe 11-15 14 14 tion 16 13 19 21+ 13 21 0 28 15 3 26 20 Years with 6 19 23 lnstl tutlon 11-15 10 12 16 6 11 21+ 11 19 Wage 1 35 30 Earners In 2 64 68 Family 3+ 1 2 Frequencies and xa p < .05. Part Part Time Time Hopeful Full Part n =182 Full Mooner Mooner Timer n=45 na60 n 55 69 43 67 45 31 57 33 10 13 5 4 90 87 95 96 8 7 8 8 23 20 18 33 42 58 57 25 18 13 15 29 7 2 2 4 21 18 30 21 32 31 32 33 23 27 22 33 14 20 8 13 5 2 5 0 5 2 3 0 41 53 38 so 33 33 30 42 15 9 20 8 8 4 10 0 2 0 2 0 2 0 0 0 40 36 45 38 59 64 55 58 1 0 0 4 + xa May be Skewed Due to Cells < 5. 129 Pearson Other Part Timer n=53 51 .07180 49 13 .26867 87 10 28 .00001*+ 20 22 20 15 34 15 .00000*+ 17 11 8 30 28 19 .00000*+ 11 4 8 40 60 .32993+ 0

PAGE 141

differences existed regarding age group, number of years in higher education, and number of years employed by the community college. Based upon the literature, demographic differences do not play a significant role in work satisfaction and did not serve as a focus for this study. The interviews were not structured to reveal demographic differences. However, the interviews did reveal differences that aligned with the Biles and Tuckman (1986) taxonomy of groups. The hopeful full-timer faculty who were interviewed commented freely about their colleagues' and their own attempts to piece together a full-time living. As noted during several interviews, working other jobs may be seen as a survival strategy. I know at least two of them have outside jobs. one delivers pizza, makes more money delivering pizza on the weekends than she does teaching philosophy, which I think is a depressing thing. Others teach at multiple institutions. I think that some other teachers that are trying to teach at three different colleges just can't do that great a job. Bless their hearts for trying but it's 150 students. Even if you're the most dedicated person in the world. People who make [that] choice, it's very wearing for them. It is very, very hard. I think a lot of times they then withdraw from everything except teaching their classes. The part-time faculty see themselves as a group marked by diversity, which may preclude unity. 130

PAGE 142

(I)t is difficult to speak with one voice. One former part-timer who is now full-time, when asked about the Biles and Tuckman (1986) taxonomy, validated the importance of separating faculty into groups. I would say anywhere from 50-75% are hopeful full-timers. There are six faculty in history probably now, none will be full-time with (this college). All of whom are hopeful fulltimers. My sense of the people who work 35 hours and who also teach here, are primarily in the business and in the academy areas. Although I do know specific individuals who are hopeful full-time faculty. The numbers are not as high. I do know a student who is also a part-time teacher who teaches history. I can think of people who fall into all of these categories. Another former part-time faculty member, who is now full-time, tried to learn more about the part-time faculty and to become involved in part-time issues, but found barriers to addressing the issues. They have to group, they have to have a united voice, they have to be on some committee. I truthfully don't know [how to get something done]. After I did all of this [tried to organize a committee, bring adjunct faculty together], I didn't know where to go with it. I had no sense of mission anymore. Others agreed that group differences present challenges to understanding and to advocating for parttime faculty members. With people teaching different hours, different days, days versus nights, it's very difficult to get together. Sometimes we don't even know 131

PAGE 143

all of the people in our department. And the frustration of trying to work with part-time: You know, it's so funny, we can't even get a handle on how many part-time people we have at [this college). I was just talking with [the vice president] today. He can't even get the figures. He said it's 400 on the top end and 300 on the low end. Now, that's a significant difference. Table 4.4 presents the survey results for work satisfaction by group. There were no significant differences among groups for seven of the ten composite variables: overall work satisfaction; organizational commitment; the three intrinsic variables--autonomy, task significance, and task involvement; and both extrinsic/social variables--supervision and co-workers. However, of note, significant differences existed for all three extrinsic/organizational variables--general working conditions, salary, and promotion. The mean overall work satisfaction scores, on a scale where four is highest and one is lowest, ranged from generally acceptable levels of 3.1121 for the group full-mooner to 2.6875 for part-mooner. The organizational commitment scores were slightly lower than the satisfaction scores for each group, but did not differ significantly among the groups, ranging from 2.9314 for the full-mooner to 2.6581 for the part-mooner. 132

PAGE 144

:::0 C1) "t:l ..... 0 a. c: C'l C1) a. ;:::;: :::r "t:l C1) 3 u; (/) c. ::l 0 :::r C1) C'l 0 "t:l '< ..... ce :::r 0 ::l C1) :"" "T1 c: ::::1. :::r C1) ..... ..... C1) "t:l ..... ..... w 0 a. w c: c. ::l "t:l ..... 0 :::r C" ;:::;: C1) a. ;:::;: :::r 0 c: "t:l C1) ..... 3 u; (/) c. ? Table 4.4. Work Satisfaction and Group Differences Composite Variable Full-Time Kopeful Full-Time FullMooner PartMooner Other Part-Time p < .05 (1) (2) (3) (4) (5) N n n n n Overall Work 189 2.9974 46 2.8152 24 3.1121 24 2.6875 62 3.0887 Satisfaction Organizational 191 2.8510 46 2.6976 58 2.9314 24 2.6581 60 2.8887 Coami tment Autonomy C I) 191 3.1933 45 3.200 59 3.3705 24 3.2778 63 3.3035 Task Significance 190 3.3242 46 3.2702 59 3.2785 24 3.2460 63 3.2961 (I) Task Involvement CJ) 191 3.3396 46 3.3362 59 3.3627 23 3.1812 63 3.3381 General working 193 2.1961 46 2.7130 60 2.9000 24 2.7604 64 2.5276 Conditions CE/0) (2,3,4,5) (1) (1,5) (1) (1,3) Salary CE/0) 191 1.6549 46 1.500 58 2.0819 23 1.6739 63 1.7976 (3) (3) (1,2) Promotion CE/0) 180 2.2981 41 1.8659 50 2.4850 18 2.1667 55 2.1424 (2) (1,3) (2) Co-Workers CE/S) 191 3.2112 44 3.1023 56 3.0759 22 3.0909 61 3.1516 Supervision CE/S) 190 2.9953 46 3.0580 57 3.1404 24 3.2097 60 3.1317 One Way Analysis of Variance and Scheffe Test. References in Parenthesis Indicate Significant Group Differences @ p < .05. Grand Means for These Variables Found in Table 4.3. (I) Intrinsic (E/0) Extrinsic/Organizational (E/S) Extrinsic/Social None None None None None .000 .000 .000 None None

PAGE 145

There were no significant differences for the intrinsic factors, autonomy, task significance, and task involvement. The mean scores for all groups for these three factors were high in both relative and absolute terms. For the composite variable autonomy, the scores ranged from 3.3705 for full-mooner to 3.1933 for fulltime. For task significance, the scores ranged from 3.3242 for full-time to 3.2460 for full-mooner. Similarly, for task involvement, the scores ranged from 3.3627 for full-mooner to 3.1812 for part-mooner. The mean scores for all groups for the extrinsic/ social factors, supervision and co-workers, did not differ significantly. The supervision mean scores varied from 3.2097 for part-mooner to 2.9953 for full-time. The variable co-workers mean scores varied from 3.2112 for full-time to 3.0759 for full-mooner. Similarly to the intrinsic scores, the extrinsic/social scores were high in both relative and absolute terms. Significant differences were found for the extrinsic/organizational variables. Broadly, the mean scores for promotion, salary, and general working conditions were quite low, with salary receiving the lowest scores from all groups. The promotion scores ranged from 2.2981 for full-time to 1.8659 for hopeful 134

PAGE 146

full-timer. The hopeful full-timer group mean scores were significantly lower than those of both the full-time and the full-mooner regarding promotion. This was apparent anecdotally in the interview data, which supported the assumption that hopeful full-timer faculty defined promotion as a full-time appointment. Their dissatisfaction could be the result of the dearth of full-time opportunities that arise. It seems to me that the people who have the frustration are the people like me who are taking up community college teaching as their career. I applied for the [full-time] job at (another] community college and there were 95 applicants. I couldn't even get an interview. I had all of their qualifications. I was feeling really discouraged by that. From another part-time faculty member who has been a hopeful full-timer, but now says she has given up: You know, I am very loyal to [this) community college because I do feel I've been treated well. (But] I feel I should have been hired full-time. And because they know me as honest, reliable, dependable, extremely dependable--! never miss--I felt that that should have given me an edge, but there are just so many people. The mean scores for the composite variable general working conditions ranged more widely, from a satisfactory 2.900 for full-mooner to a fairly unsatisfactory 2.1961 for full-time. The full-time mean scores were significantly lower than all other group 135

PAGE 147

scores regarding general working conditions. It is noteworthy that there were no significant group differences among the part-time groups. The full-time interviewee comments regarding general working conditions ranged broadly, from workload to office arrangements. When asked what was least satisfying about her work, one full-time faculty member replied: Yes, the problem is that we have so very much work, and it just keeps increasing. I think it's increasing every semester I've been here. So, you end up doing everything for your program. we market our program, we do the advising, we hire the faculty, everything. It's wonderful, it's what makes it satisfying because you get to do so many different things and be creative. It's never boring. It's also very frustrating because we're always so overloaded. You never have the support financially or the manpower support to really get done what you would like to do. A full-time faculty leader, when asked what are the major issues for full-time faculty, mentioned some new concerns along with the more perennial ones: Obviously, salary is always on the table. I think beyond that we need to look at a retirement plan, which is not in place. Merit pay. We always have awards, faculty rights, and due process; that is a big issue this year. What's happening with students versus faculty rights, discipline on the campus. And when asked what is least satisfying, the same fulltime faculty member answered: The paperwork for administration. It's horrendous. 136

PAGE 148

Another full-time faculty member was succinctly blunt: What is happening, I believe, is that faculty love their work and hate the workplace. They are given hope from administrators who say yes, we understand you do not have sufficient copy equipment, that you do not have chalk for the chalkboards, that you have to provide out of your own pocket for visuals. A full-time department chair expressed concerns regarding the organizational structure of the college. I think what I see is that the power is concentrated at the top. The department chair doesn't have any power at all, it's just the title. The group means for the composite variable salary were the lowest of all variable means. They ranged from the full-moaner group mean of 2.0819 to the hopeful fulltimer mean of 1.500. Both the full-time and the hopeful full-timer means were significantly lower than the full-moaner group mean. Salary is a composite variable on which the fulltime and hopeful full-timer agree, as evidenced in the surveys and in the interviews. In addition, however, the interview data reveal a tension between full-time and hopeful full-timer, a perceived competition for scarce resources. In the view of one hopeful full-timer faculty member: The message from the president was, how can we raise adjunct salaries. The money would have to come from the full-time. 137

PAGE 149

And from another hopeful full-time faculty member: There is a perception that isn't just mine. I have a sense that if you're too good, you're threatening to the full-time people there, for reasons I don't really understand. The lack of significant differences among faculty regarding the intrinsic and extrinsic/social aspects of work satisfaction is as important as the differences regarding the extrinsic/organizational aspects. While there are differences among groups regarding general working conditions, salary, and promotion, all five faculty groups indicated the least satisfaction with salary and promotion as compared to all other satisfaction variables, and for full-time, full-moaner, and other part-time, general working conditions were less satisfying than intrinsic and extrinsic/social factors. All groups demonstrated quite acceptable levels of satisfaction with the .essence of their tasks and with the interpersonal aspects of their work. The part-time satisfaction with the extrinsic/social seems counter to the conventional view of part-timers as isolated and disconnected. Relationships Among the Variables The relationship among the composite variables is important to the understanding of the conceptual 138

PAGE 150

framework for work satisfaction. In order to interpret how the recurring interview themes related and how each of the composite variables examined in the survey contribute to overall work satisfaction, correlation coefficients were computed for the survey data. All of the nine composite variables significantly predicted overall work satisfaction and had positive correlations. It is useful to examine the coefficients in rank order, to determine the level to which each predicts the overall work satisfaction composite variable. Table 4.5 demonstrates that the scale variable most highly correlated to the work satisfaction scale variable was organizational commitment. Also highly correlated was the intrinsic variable, task involvement, followed by relatively high correlations for variables from all three constructs: the intrinsic variable, task significance, the extrinsic/organizational variable, promotion, and the extrinsic/social variable, supervision. Autonomy, general working conditions, co-workers, and salary ranked at the bottom, but had significant coefficients. Further analysis of the relationships among the variables was conducted through step-wise regression analysis of overall work satisfaction with nine composite satisfaction variables for seven groups: total faculty, 139

PAGE 151

Table 4.5. correlations of composite Variables With overall Work Satisfaction Composite Variable n r Organizational Commitment 376 .6875 Task Involvement (I) 378 .5924 Task Significance (I) 379 .4578 Promotion (E/0) 341 .4222 Supervision (E/S) 373 .4093 Task Autonomy (I) 377 .3192 General Working Conditions (E/0) 379 .3149 co-workers (E/S) 370 .2906 Salary (E/0) 374 .2848 (I) Intrinsic (E/0) Extrinsic/Organizational (E/S) Extrinsic/Social p < .05 140 p .ooo .ooo .ooo .ooo .ooo .ooo .ooo .ooo .ooo

PAGE 152

full-time, total part-time, hopeful full-timer, fullmoaner, part-moaner, and other part-time. Table 4.6 displays the step-wise multiple regression results. While there were group differences, the roles of organizational commitment and task involvement in overall work satisfaction were notable findings. Organizational commitment explained 40-50% of the variance in overall work satisfaction for six groups: total faculty, full-time, total part-time, full-moaner, part-mooner, and other part-time. Organizational commitment and the intrinsic variable task involvement together explained from 49-81% of the variance in overall work satisfaction for all groups. The extrinsic variable, salary, further explained the variance in overall work satisfaction for five groups, but did not contribute for full-time or for hopeful full-timer. The interview data were consistent with the high correlation of commitment and involvement with satisfaction. The comments were remarkable for their fervor. In the words of one part-time faculty member who would like to teach full-time: I found that my heart is in community college. It's what I am interested in doing. I see so many students who are like I was when I started. Waiting to be excited by it all and not sure of themselves. I find it a more engaging population to work with than (the 141

PAGE 153

university population). That's not to say anything against the young people (at the university). I did assist a professor teaching a Shakespeare course up there. There were 120 students. I ended up practically doing the whole thing myself and it was great fun. But the whole atmosphere and attitude was different and I like the community college better. Similarly, another hopeful full-timer tried to explain what keeps her going. I enjoy teaching. I love it very, very much. I can't imagine doing anything else. I mean I can, and I have, but I like it. So, in order for me to be happy in my work, I have to be teaching. But, to make ends meet, since I'm not full-time, I have as many classes as I can. Some semesters I may not have any classes. The load that I have this semester may be all I have to survive on. I may end up with one class next semester, which has happened in the past. While many of the comments related to commitment to the profession more than to the organization, another hopeful full-timer, who expressed having given up any real hope of becoming .full-time, nevertheless spoke of real commitment to the college. You know, I am very loyal to [this college] because I do feel I've been treated well and the atmosphere--it's such a nice place to go. The work conditions are so good. In another case, the comments were notably specific to ties to the department and commitment to the specific unit. While also using words like "exploited" and "frustration" in the course of conversation, the hopeful 142

PAGE 154

Table 4.6. Step-Wise Multiple Regrassion Overall Work Satisfaction and Nine Composite variables Composite R2 composite R2 Total Faculty Hopeful Full-Timer n = 336 n = 38 Organizational Commitment .452 Task Involvement .312 Task Involvement .546 Organizational Commitment .491 Salary .567 Full-Mooner n = 49 General Working Conditions .575 Organizational Commitment .449 Full-Time Task Involvement .514 n = 177 Organizational Commitment .422 Salary .562 Task Involvement .508 Part-Mooner n = 18 General Working Conditions .532 Organizational Commitment .648 Co-Workers .543 Task Involvement .811 Total Part-Time Salary .873 n = 146 Organizational Commitment .498 Other Part-Time n = 54 Task Involvement .582 Organizational Commitment .512 Salary .627 Task .590 Salary .630 All Reported R2 Are Significant at p < .05 143

PAGE 155

full-timer emphasized colleagues and mutual commitment. For those of us who are doing that (teaching four classes and performing extra duties on a contractual basis) it's very much like being a normal faculty. We work together on a lot of projects--task forces, presenting workshops, and running things--so that we actually spend quite a lot of time together Personally, I'm pretty satisfied. I'm satisfied with everything except that I feel like that as a group, we're exploited. In the rank order of scale predictors, the coefficient for task involvement, an intrinsic variable, was the second most highly correlated with work satisfaction. Task involvement emerged as a pervasive thetne in the interviews, for both full-and part-time faculty. A faculty member who is now full-time, but was formerly part-time, explained it as follows: I guess the reason why I kept doing that, I don't know how long I would have done it, is the job situation had a lot of creativity. One of the reasons why I was attracted to the college in the first place is because it's constantly new, every three or four months. Even though the stuff you're doing is the same, it's new people you're doing it with The freedom to learn. I know I have learned more about my discipline in the last two years than I did with my undergraduate experience. The Clustering of Variables Do satisfaction variables cluster. i.e. as intrinsic, extrinsic/organizational. and extrinsic/social. in support of the theoretical constructs? Based upon the literature and the anecdotal 144

PAGE 156

evidence, the satisfaction variables were predicted to cluster around the three theoretical constructs. A factor analysis was conducted, using a varimax rotation. As illustrated in Table 4.7, the composite variables clustered in two groups. Loadings less than .3 were suppressed for clarity of presentation. There are several issues that are noteworthy. The results of the varimax rotation apparently revealed two factors. The first factor combines intrinsic and extrinsic/social constructs, though it is largely defined by the intrinsic variables, which have the two highest loadings. As a technical matter, it is conceivable that the extrinsic/social did not emerge as a separate factor because normally at least three variables are necessary to define a factor. The second factor is more clearly defined by the extrinsic/organizational variables and aligns with the theoretical construct that had been posited. Organizational commitment loaded for both factors. This seemingly supports the research decision to treat commitment outside of the theoretical constructs as an overall variable, which functions more similarly to overall work satisfaction. The anecdotal evidence of the interview data 145

PAGE 157

Table 4.7. Factor Analysis I Varimax Rotation Work Satisfaction Composite Variables Factor 1 Factor organizational Commitment .642 .518 Task Autonomy (I) .616 Task Significance (I) .BOO Task Involvement (I) .771 General Working Conditions (E/0} .650 Salary (E/0) .784 Promotion (E/0) .713 Co-Workers (E/S} .495 Supervision (E/S) .641 (I) Intrinsic (E/0) Extrinsic/Organizational (E/S) Extrinsic/Social Loadings Less Than .3 Suppressed for Clarity 146 2

PAGE 158

provided insight, but not clarity, to the factor analysis results. In the data, three themes repeatedly emerged: the rewards inherent to teaching; the organizational policies and arrangements; and the sense or lack of connectedness. These themes cut across the faculty groups. Some of the most impassioned words about teaching carne from the part-time faculty, especially the hopeful full-timers. In interview after interview, faculty members interspersed stories about financial hardships with praise for the students. These students--that they even come to class-blows me away. The stuff that they're sitting there [dealing with], that they're trying to keep repressed, to just survive. Another mentioned the connection to the students. I learned. that I did have something that people needed. And they learned, those of them that were just starting back, learned that they could do it, too. Another part-time faculty member talked at length about the creativity of teaching, and the joy of connecting to the students. I'm integrating rock 'n roll lyrics, music lyrics, into the English classroom, to show my students that many songs are actually narratives, with thesis statements, with conflict, tension, descriptive elements. I found my students, my younger students especially, really love their music. And there was a way for this instructor to get their 147

PAGE 159

attention a little bit easier to teach narrative by incorporating music lyrics in class and show them it's a little like essays. The satisfaction of teaching was echoed by another: What keeps me going certainly are the students. The evaluations. The evaluations that I get are very, very fine, and I always learn from them. But one of the things that always comes through from my students is that I care about them. I even call them at home. I want them to succeed, and it shows. The learning process continually emerged as an important factor. I think the most rewarding is the actual dayto-day teaching process. My classes always give me the incentive, that I am actually doing something that is worthwhile. I like the rapport I have with the students, seeing the students progress, enjoying what they have to offer, and their perspectives on things. The second theme that appeared in the interviews was organizational policies and arrangements. Full-time as well as part-time faculty spent a significant amount of time on these kinds of concerns. Salary, benefits, and office space were recurrent in the conversations. one full-time faculty member identified his critical issues: They [administrators] are not even concerned with [full-time salary]. It is not even on their agenda. All of the other things that they are looking at, it does not include faculty morale, faculty salaries, faculty workplace, etc. Another full-timer recalled his part-time experiences and contrasted them with his current situation. 148

PAGE 160

[T]he biggest difference for me in transition to even a limited faculty contract situation is this: number one, I have space. What I mean by that is an office, computer, and all sorts of support services that come along with having an office. It made a world of difference. It has made me much more productive and efficient at being productive. A part-time faculty member who expressed the desire to be full-time agreed that space is an important organizational arrangement. I don't want to put down part-timers, but I could do a better job if I was full-time. I'd have an office. I could spend more time working and have a sense of purpose Another part-timer equated the lack of an office with a sense of isolation. For one, it was difficult to explain to students the lack of organizational arrangements: [Students ask] why don't you have an office? How long have you been here? Why can't we ever get a hold of you? And they can't for the life of them, get a hold of me. The calls go through the faculty service center, and if the secretary answers the phone and actually writes the message, you might get it. I hold my office hours in the classroom. Another heatedly addressed the issue: Yes, some of us have a desk. We don't have anything assigned. No space for us. There is a faculty room on each floor if you want to call it that. I'd love to show it to you some time. It has mailboxes. And by the way, a friend of mine who teaches fall and spring, doesn't teach in the summer, her box is taken down in the summer. Does that give you a sense of belonging? She doesn't have any way to communicate with the college all summer long. And they don't send her anything for that 149

PAGE 161

entire period. While from another, at an institution that had recently designated office space for part-time faculty: There is an office, finally .. The one that I share with a woman at least on Mondays and Wednesdays and Fridays is pretty isolated, and actually we have more privacy than the fulltime offices, which are just cubicles. It has a phone, it has two computers and a printer. It's becoming very adequate. It even has a hat tree. I remember when I first started we had to schlep around our coats and sit in the anteroom of the full-time faculty office, and it was terribly demeaning. So little things like that really make all the difference in the world So I'm really fairly happy with our office; I just wish they could trust us with a key. Other institutional arrangements were also important. And there is a wide-spread sense, and disgruntlement, that those who are full-time administrators don't get it at all. They don't get it. I would have, unless they change, I have requested my division chair, the director of personnel, the director of computer operations, those three people have had a personal conversation with me, requesting that instead of giving me eight contracts, spread out, one at a time, for me to sign, I have to go out to the college and sign the frigging contract, another trip. Give them to me at once at the beginning of the semester. They have a disclaimer, saying the class is cancelled, the contract's no good. so they're not out anything. And you know what the director of personnel said to me? And the woman who handles the computers? That would mean I'd have to run them all at once. At full-time, with bennies (benefits], [they] don't want to be inconvenienced, but I can go out there seven, eight times on my own, at my own expense. It 150

PAGE 162

takes an hour. If I'm lucky, it takes an hour. The third major theme that emerged from the interviews was the sense or lack of connectedness. In numerous interviews, people talked about relationships. These connections cut across group lines for some, while for others, the connections were less important. On the whole, the message was clear that relationships were a concern. In the words of a part-timer who taught communications and who had given up hope of becoming full-time: I love my conversations that I can have with other faculty members. It's very important to share research, I think. I make it happen. I make it happen. I'm just a real people person. I'm an ENFP (on the MeyersBriggs Personality Inventory]. And I need that. I can't stay isolated. one part-timer enthusiastically described her colleagues, full-and part-time: Just simply that we've got a really lively group of teachers. We hired a wonderful young man who was a writing coach at Columbia. We have a woman who just got her M.A. from u.c.o. (University of Colorado at Denver), and it's all in rhetoric, so she's got all the theory I never had. Then we have someone who had been teaching in Panama and he does these incredible student-centered contracts. That is another way I learn a lot. A full-time department chair also referred to the team. Top on my list would be the group of people I 151

PAGE 163

work with right here. My immediate boss and my co-workers. There is a team of six of us. And as chair, this person emphasized efforts to bring full-and part-time people together. We kind of felt like our needs weren't being met, we felt isolated from the others, and that's why we started having our own (workshops]. Sometimes they're not even workshops. Sometimes we have pizza and watch videos I order for the department. But there is a sense of frustration at the lack of connection across departments and with the administration. (I]f you're not on a committee, you can be very isolated. I will say they [administrators] never walk over here. The building itself is what isolates us. It would be nice to see [the vice president] walk through here once a week and say hi, how are you doing. I know he is so busy, he just doesn't think to do it, but it would be nice. Another part-timer, active in adjunct faculty affairs, was specific in the recommendations: [There is a] lack of recognition. I'd say it's being included in decisions, in scheduling, curriculum, college policies, and little things like welcoming adjunct faculty in the newsletter, the switchboard operators didn't have our names--so she would tell them we didn't work here. The impersonality of even feedback was an issue for one part-timer. We have course evaluations. That provides a little bit of feedback, but not nearly what I would like to receive. They stick a little 152

PAGE 164

printout in your box and that is that. It would be nice if it was a little more personal, but I don't know if they have the time or the resources to do that. At the same time, I think when they hire somebody, they [should] observe now and then. one part-timer perceived tension between the fulland part-time faculty: I wish there were more interaction between adjunct and full-time. Full-time has been resentful. I would love it if the department would sit down and communicate with each other, and we never do that. We don't. We don't sit down, full-time and adjunct together, and actually talk. We don't talk about problems, about teaching techniques, about new ideas, and to me that would be a healthy relationship for any instructor. Another part-timer, who had spent several years with the institution, was asked how full-time faculty treat parttime faculty. I've had no experience with that. I can't even say. I see so very little of them, I know maybe two of them. But another part-timer agreed with the notion of resentment. I have a sense that if you're too good, you're threatening to the full-time people there, for reasons I don't really understand. I think you'd have to rape a baby in front of the class to be fired from a full-time position. But this part-timer expressed her needs simply: I want to be part of the community and not just here on Mondays to teach my class. And I probably didn't miss anything earth-shattering, but you know, there are things I could have 153

PAGE 165

been involved in and would have liked to have been in. And I missed them because I didn't know how I went about getting into it. so if there were some way, some institutionalized way to hook people in, it would be nice. Values and Group Differences Do significant differences exist between full-time and part-time faculty regarding values? The survey data included seven values questions. Respondents were asked to discretely rate each value on a scale of one to ten in terms of importance, with one indicating not very important and ten indicating very important. As shown in Table 4.8, T-tests revealed no significant differences between full-and part-time faculty regarding the intrinsic values of freedont and responsibility in work, meaningful, worthwhile work, and interesting, creative, challenging work; the extrinsic/ social value of friendly and helpful supervisors; and the extrinsic/organizational value of general working conditions. Analysis of two values questions revealed significant differences. Full-time faculty attached significantly greater value to two extrinsic/ organizational variables: salary and fringe benefits. A comparison of the rank ordering of the means of full-time values responses with the rank ordering of the 154

PAGE 166

Table 4.8. Full-Time & Part-Time Faculty Values Values Variable n II so T p 0 H W p V62 Freedom (I) .24 .807 .964 FullTfme Faculty 190 9.2368 1.444 2 PartTime Faculty 173 9.2717 1.249 1 Total 379 9.1873 1.462 V65 Meaningful (I) 1.43 .153 .239 FullTfme Faculty 191 9.2408 1.355 1 PartTime Faculty 173 9.0116 1.691 2 Total 380 9.1158 1.567 V66 Creative (I) 1.31 .189 .161 FullTime Faculty 189 9.1640 1.353 3 PartTime Faculty 173 8.9595 1.604 3 Total 378 9.0397 1.540 V67 General Working Cond. CE/0) .76 .450 .456 FullTime Faculty 188 7.3298 1.717 6 PartTime Faculty 173 7.1908 1.n6 5 Total 3n 7.2493 1.758 V63 Salary (E/0) 2.07 .039* .180 FullTime Faculty 190 7.6000 1.946 5 PartTime Faculty 173 7., 156 2.498 6 Total 378 7.3571 2.270 V68 Fringe Benefits CE/0) 5.10 .000* .000* FullTime Faculty 189 7.1905 2.012 7 PartTime Faculty 170 5.8941 z.n8 7 Total 374 6.5909 2.486 V64 Supervisors CE/S) .82 .412 .444 FullTime Faculty 190 7.8895 1.909 4 PartTime Faculty 172 7.7209 1.995 4 Total 378 7.7751 1.979 I Intr1.ns1.c E 0 Extr1.ns1.c Or <> (/) I g anl.zational (E/S) Extrinsic/Social 0 Rank Order Significant @ .050 M W Mann-Whitney Wilcoxon sum W Test Significance of Rank Order Differences Total n May Exceed Total of Full-Time n and Part-Time n as Some Respondents Did Not Identify Group Membership. 155

PAGE 167

means of part-time responses, illustrated in Table 4.8, revealed few differences. Based upon the means, the parttime faculty ranked freedom and responsibility in work higher than did the full-time, while the full-time faculty assigned a greater value to salary; friendly and helpful supervisors; meaningful, worthwhile work; interesting, creative, challenging work; general working conditions; and fringe benefits. The data may be delimited by the fact that the questions did not ask respondents to consider values relatively, but rather to evaluate them discretely. When the rank ordering was tested for significant differences between full-time and part-time faculty, using nonparametric techniques, the Mann-Whitney u test and Wilcoxon Rank sum W test, only one values variable emerged as significantly different in the rank order: fringe benefits. Part-time faculty ranked fringe benefits significantly lower, although for both groups fringe benefits were ranked last among the seven values variables. The content of the interviews seemed to confirm the survey results. Full-and part-time faculty focused on the same themes: while salary, general working conditions, and fringe benefits surfaced in the 156

PAGE 168

conversation, when asked what was most important, meaningfulness, freedom, and challenge were the priorities. One full-time faculty member, however, when asked what was most important, responded: Top on my list would be the group of people I work with right here. My immediate boss and my co-workers. There is a team of six of us. I know we're thought of as being the most cohesive group in the school. We're very fortunate. Another full-time member in the field of computer science was asked why he chose teaching when his earning power could be great in the field. I guess the first thing is that I enjoy teaching The flexibility also. In one semester I can decide to teach in the evening and have the mornings off. The autonomy in the classroom, as a teacher, that is one environment where you really have that independence and the power to do. The breadth of response was echoed in the part-time comments, also. one interviewee, who did not wish to be taped in the interview, emphasized the freedom of teaching, his ability to determine his own use of time, and his genuine love of teaching. The interview data confirmed the survey data regarding the similarity between full-and part-time faculty values. The same themes repeatedly emerged. Often, in the course of an interview, it would be 157

PAGE 169

difficult to differentiate faculty group membership. Do different faculty groups. i.e. full-time. hopeful full-timer, full-mooner, part-mooner. and other parttime, differ in their values responses? In order to better understand the group differences, a one way analysis of variance was performed on the five faculty groups--full-time, hopeful full-timer, fullmooner, part-mooner, and other part-time--to test for differences among the part-time subgroups and to determine the possible differences among groups regarding values. As shown in Table 4.9, the results for the one way analysis of variance were commensurate with the T-tests for two groups. There were no significant differences for five values variables: freedom and responsibility in work; friendly and helpful supervisors; meaningful, worthwhile work; interesting, creative, challenging work; and general working conditions. Significant differences surfaced for two variables: salary and fringe benefits. Other part-time assigned the lowest score among the groups to salary and were significantly different from full-time, hopeful full-timer, and part-mooner. Other part-time were not significantly different from full-mooner. Fringe benefits 158

PAGE 170

:::0 co \J ...... 0 c. c: C"l co c. :::: ;::;: ::::T \J co ...... 3 u; Table 4.9. Values and Group Differences CJl 6" :::l 0 -Composite Variable Full-Time (1) Hopeful Full-Time (2) Full-Moaner (3} Part-Mooner (4) Other Part-Time (5) p < .05 ::::T co N II n n II n II n II C"l 0 \J '< Freedalll & 190 9.2368 45 9.3333 58 9.1897 24 9.2917 62 8.8871 None Responsibility in :::!. <0 York (l) ::::T 0 :::: Meaningful, 191 9.2408 45 9.4889 58 8.7586 24 9.2083 62 8.7581 None Worthwhile WOrk (I) :::l co ;"""' Interesting, 189 9 .1640 45 9.2889 58 8.6724 24 8.9167 62 8.8710 None c: Creative, Challenging Work ;::). (I) ::::T co ...... General Working 188 7.3298 45 7.4000 58 7.0000 24 7.4167 62 7.0645 None ...... co Conditions (E/0) \J ...... ...... 0 U1 c. \0 c: Salary CE/0) 190 7.6000 44 7.7273 58 7.0690 24 8.1250 62 6.3226 .000 (5) (5) (5) (1,2,4) $1 6 Fringe Benefits 189 7.1905 43 6.7674 59 5.1525 24 6.5833 59 5.9831 .000 :::l CE/0) (3,5) (3) (1,2) (1) \J ...... 0 ::::T 0'" ;::;: co Friendly & Helpful 190 7.8895 45 8.1111 57 7.2281 24 8.6667 62 7.3387 None Supervisors (E/S) c. :::: ;::;: One Way Analysis of Variance and Scheffe Test. ::::T 0 c: -References in Parenthesis Indicate Significant Group Differences @ p < .05. \J co ...... 3 u; (I) Intrinsic (E/0) Extrinsic/Organizational (E/S) Extrinsic/Social CJl 6 ?

PAGE 171

responses also differed significantly. Full-time assigned the highest value to fringe benefits of all groups and differed significantly from full-mooner and other parttime. Hopeful full-timer assigned a significantly higher score to fringe benefits than full-mooner. However, hopeful full-timer did not differ significantly from full-time, part-mooner, and other part-time. And fulltime did not differ significantly from hopeful full-timer or part-mooner. The interview data, due to their anecdotal nature, did not provide much insight into the nature of group differences, but did provide support for the lack of differences among groups. The words of a faculty member who self-classified as semi-retired echoed the recurrent themes. I've always been of the opinion that you don't get rich teaching. There has to be another thing for a person to be teaching. And that's why I enjoy it. I enjoy seeing the change in a student. I enjoy seeing a student learn. And from another who self-classified as a student, in pursuit of a doctoral degree: I wake up in the morning now, and I look in the mirror, and I've got a big smile on my face, and I say, it's another great day. I can't wait to go out there to see my learners. And I can't wait to try to turn them on to some things they need to know And I want to help people. And money at this point in my life, uh, money just keeps my house and keeps my car running, 160

PAGE 172

and that's all I really care about. It's just so I can maintain. Another, formerly a part-moaner, but now a full-time faculty member, reflected upon what makes teaching worthwhile. I guess the reason I kept doing that [working multiple positions in order to earn a living], I don't know how long I would have done it, is the job situation had a lot of creativity. one of the reasons why I was attracted to the college in the first place is because it's constantly new, every three or four months . The freedom to learn. I know I have learned more about my discipline in the last two years than I did with my undergraduate/graduate experience. The values expressed by the interviewees were the common threads, just as the sources of satisfaction were. Love of teaching, independence, autonomy, freedom, learning, students, and colleagues were the fundamental commonalities. The Relationship Between Values and Work Satisfaction Does the importance assigned to work values significantly predict overall work satisfaction? A segment of the literature on motivation and work satisfaction focuses on the congruency between work values and work rewards and the resultant impact of values on work satisfaction. Although intuitively values 161

PAGE 173

would appear to be an important predictor of satisfaction, the evidence here is far from conclusive. While the relationship between the values and work satisfaction variables was not substantially corroborated, the nature of the variables that did correlate is of particular interest. Correlation coefficients were run for the composite variable overall work satisfaction and the seven values variables. As shown in Table 4.10, only three values variables were significantly correlated at the .05 level to overall work satisfaction: freedom and responsibility in work, salary, and interesting, creative, and challenging work. Meaningful, worthwhile work was almost significant (p = .055). The extrinsic/organizational variables, salary and fringe benefits, correlated negatively with overall work satisfaction. Further analysis was conducted by regressing the values variables against overall work satisfaction. Two regression equations were calculated: one for full-time faculty and one for part-time faculty. These are illustrated in Table 4.11. For the full-time faculty, two values variables had Beta weights significant at the .05 level: salary and interesting, creative, and challenging work. These two values significantly predicted the 162

PAGE 174

Table 4.10.Values Predictors of Overall Work Satisfaction Values Variable n r p Freedom and Responsibility 375 .1116 .031* in Work Salary 374 -.1130 .029* Friendly and Helpful 374 .0817 .115 Supervisors Meaningful, Worthwhile Work 376 .0990 .055 Interesting, creative, 374 .1445 .005* Challenging Work General Working Conditions 374 .0062 .095 Fringe Benefits 370 -.0445 .394 p < .05 163

PAGE 175

Table 4.11. Regression Analysis Overall Work satisfaction and Values Variables for Full-Time and Part-Time Faculty FullTime Faculty Part-Time Faculty n 184 n = 166 Values Variable R1 II .097 R1 .061 Beta T p Beta T p Freedom & Responsibility In Work -.003128 .029 .9770 .051290 0.467 .6411 Salary 286848 .295 .0012* 137460 .307 .1932 Friendly & Helpful Supervisors .082983 0.926 .3557 .110336 1.196 .2336 Meaningful, Worthwhile Work -.056823 .470 .6387 109574 .172 .4778 Interesting, Creative, .234876 2.023 .0445* .223305 1.397 .1643 Challenging Work General Working Conditions 032488 .333 .7392 120664 .291 .1987 Fringe Benefits .140552 1.484 .1395 109631 .083 .2805 p < .05 164

PAGE 176

responses to overall work satisfaction. However, for the part-time faculty, no values variables had significant Beta weights. For the full-time faculty, the values variables accounted for only 9.7% of the variance in overall work satisfaction; for the part-time, only 6.1% of the variance. The strength of the relationship of values to work satisfaction that was predicted in the literature was not supported in this research. Further investigation is required to address this discrepancy. The literature predicted and the research confirmed that the role of the essence of teaching and learning is central to work satisfaction for faculty. Few differences surfaced between full-and part-time faculty and among faculty groups for work satisfaction. The variance in work satisfaction was most significantly predicted by organizational commitment and task involvement. Satisfaction levels for extrinsic/organizational variables were lower, on the whole, than for intrinsic and extrinsic/social variables. While the values variables accounted for less of the variance in overall work satisfaction than predicted in the literature, organizational commitment and task involvement were shown 165

PAGE 177

to be strong predictors of overall work satisfaction. Additionally, the variables did not cluster definitively by the theoretical constructs: intrinsic, extrinsic/ organizational, and extrinsic/social, but nevertheless, the factor analysis results combined with the interview data suggest that the constructs are valid. All of these findings merit further study and discussion. 166

PAGE 178

CHAPTER FIVE CONCLUSIONS Introduction Based upon this research, full-and part-time faculty are generally satisfied with their work and differ little in their levels of work satisfaction, in the role that contributing variables play in overall satisfaction, and in their values. These findings reveal that institutional arrangements, i.e. the extrinsic/ organizational factors that seemingly would be advantageous to the full-time faculty in comparison to the part-time faculty, are not perceived as satisfactory and are playing a lesser role in satisfaction than other variables. Further, the findings regarding the relationship between organizational commitment and overall work satisfaction suggest that the concepts are distinct but highly related. The implications of these findings for organizations deserve further examination and discussion. 167

PAGE 179

Work satisfaction and Group Differences Full-and Part-time Differences The analysis of work satisfaction was conducted first on two groups--full-and part-time faculty--and subsequently on five groups--full-time, hopeful fulltimer, full-mooner, part-moaner, and other part time. Full-and part-time faculty did not differ significantly in overall work satisfaction and mean scores reflected a level of general satisfaction. Organizational commitment was not significantly different and also reflected a general level of satisfaction, though commitment scores were lower relative to overall work satisfaction. The finding that full-and part-time faculty were not significantly different regarding organizational commitment runs counter to conventional wisdom that parttime faculty are an itinerant, disconnected segment of the educational work force, in contrast to the full-time workforce. Importantly, organizational commitment was the best single predictor of overall work satisfaction. Full-time faculty were significantly less satisfied than part-time faculty with selected variables from the three theoretical constructs: autonomy; general working conditions and salary; and supervision. Part-time faculty 168

PAGE 180

were not found to be significantly less satisfied for any of the variables tested. However, among these four variables, only the salary scores were low in absolute terms. Satisfaction with supervision was high for both groups. Scores for the extrinsic/organizational variable, promotion, did not differ significantly, but both groups were generally dissatisfied with this variable. The evidence suggests that promotion is defined differently by the groups. There were no significant differences for two intrinsic variables, task significance and task involvement, and both groups expressed high levels of satisfaction with them. These variables surfaced as key components of work satisfaction. In addition, both fulland part-time faculty were generally satisfied with coworkers and scores were not significantly different. This deserves further investigation, as it may indicate either a relatively modest need for interaction with colleagues by faculty, whose work is by nature independent, or an informal network among part-time faculty that operates effectively. some practical implications to these findings are salient. The variables for which the groups have 169

PAGE 181

significant differences span the three theoretical constructs: intrinsic, extrinsic/social, and extrinsic/ organizational. However, the data show that the variables that have the most impact on work satisfaction are organizational commitment and task involvement. The fulltime worker, with benefits, greater stability, and more institutional interaction, is not more satisfied nor more committed than the part-time worker. These findings suggest that an examination of policies and practices may be necessary to determine strategies to impact levels of satisfaction and commitment by addressing variables outside of the extrinsic/organizational arena. Differences Among Faculty Groups The differences and lack of differences between full-and part-time workers could have been the result of the diversity of the part-time group, which could skew the results if, for example, the full-moaner faculty (who make up 36.1% of the part-time faculty) were vastly different in response from the hopeful full-timer (who make up 27.7% of the part-time faculty). In actuality, the lack of significant differences among specific groups regarding overall work satisfaction was notable. The overall work satisfaction mean scores 170

PAGE 182

demonstrated a reasonable level of satisfaction, with no significant group differences. Likewise, there were no significant group differences for organizational commitment. The commitment scores were somewhat lower than the overall work satisfaction scores, but still demonstrated an acceptable level of organizational commitment. All groups gave relatively high scores to the intrinsic variables, task autonomy, task significance, and task involvement, with no significant differences found. These findings were consistent with the analysis of full-and part-time as two groups. The mean scores for the extrinsic/social variables co-workers and supervisors did not differ significantly across groups, which was consistent with the two-group findings for co-workers, but not for supervisors. The only significant differences were for the extrinsic/organizational variables: promotion, salary, and general working conditions. The hopeful full-timer group had the lowest promotion mean, significantly different from the mean scores of the full-time and the full-mooner. One might speculate, based upon the interview data, that the hopeful full-timer defines promotion as the opportunity to move into a full-time 171

PAGE 183

position. The full-time and hopeful full-timer groups were significantly less satisfied with salary than the fullmoaner group. However, group scores for salary were generally low, indicating general dissatisfaction with salary. While this finding confirms that the full-mooner does not look to teaching as a primary source of income, it also confirms the general dissatisfaction with salary by community college faculty. The significantly lower general working conditions mean for the full-time group was of interest. The survey questions in the general working conditions section included issues such as hours, amount of work, operational support, work load, physical facilities, and equipment. The full-time faculty were significantly less satisfied with general working conditions than all parttime faculty groups. This finding seems counterintuitive, but may reflect a feeling revealed in the interview data: some full-time faculty expressed concerns regarding workload, compensation, and general conditions as compared to other educational settings, e.g. universities. The work satisfaction findings suggest that further investigation is needed to clarify the definitional 172

PAGE 184

perspectives of groups regarding the independent variables, as individual variables and as composites. Nevertheless, there are hopeful signs that theories of work satisfaction, developed primarily through research on full-time workers, have implications for the part-time workforce. The Clustering of Variables A goal for this research was to test the theoretical constructs posited by Mottaz (1985) that the independent variables clustered into three groups: intrinsic, extrinsic/organizational, and extrinsic/social. These findings, while inconclusive, do not refute Mottaz's findings. A varimax rotation factor analysis was performed on the composite work satisfaction variables. Two factors emerged. Factor one included organizational commitment, the intrinsic variables, and the extrinsic/social variables. Factor two included organizational commitment and the extrinsic/organizational variables. However, the findings may be inconclusive. Generally three variables are required to cluster as a factor, but only two extrinsic/social composites were tested. Factor one is largely defined by the three intrinsic variables, task 173

PAGE 185

significance, task involvement, and task autonomy, allowing speculation that the introduction of additional extrinsic/social variables may result in the emergence of a third factor. One approach would be to label factor one as intrinsic, with a broadening of the definition of intrinsic to include interpersonal relationships. Factor two clearly fits the definition of extrinsic/ organizational posited in the work satisfaction literature. These findings suggest support for Herzberg, Mausner, and Snyderman's (1959) two-factor theory as to the existence of two distinct factors. However, several issues are problematic. Perhaps in part due to methodological issues, Herzberg et al.'s two factors were not discrete; i.e., salary appears as both a motivator and a hygiene. Also problematic is Herzberg's classification of interpersonal relations and supervision as hygienes. Nevertheless, the findings for this dissertation that the extrinsic/organizational variables had the lowest correlations to overall work satisfaction may suggest that Herzberg et al. should be revisited. While there is not sufficient data reported here to support it, further research may support a theoretical 174

PAGE 186

construct in which two factors, one intrinsic and the other extrinsic/organizational, intersect at a third factor, the extrinsic/social. This would suggest that the factors influence one another, rather than act as two continua as suggested by Herzberg et al. (1959). This model could be inferred by an interpretation of, for example, supervision as at once extrinsic/social and extrinsic/organizational, or interpretation of task autonomy as intrinsic, but also extrinsic/organizational in that autonomy is impacted by organizational arrangements. Further research is needed to test this idea, but the interview data appear to suggest a pattern of variables in three dimensions. Values and Group Differences Full-and Part-time Differences Significant differences between full-and part-time faculty were found for only two of the seven values variables tested, both of them extrinsic/organizational: salary and fringe benefits. For both variables, part-time faculty assigned a higher value to the variables. The fringe benefits scores may be explained because full-time faculty, who have benefits, take them for granted. The 175

PAGE 187

salary score, while seemingly at odds with the full-time work satisfaction response to salary, may support the assertion that while full-time faculty are dissatisfied with salary, they nevertheless do not attach a high importance to salary, as witnessed by their choice of career field. or, this finding may suggest a sense by faculty that placing a high value on salary is not philosophically acceptable. The other extrinsic/ organizational values variable, general working conditions, was characterized by no significant difference between group means. All three extrinsic/ organizational values variables ranked as the bottom three in value for both groups, indicating that faculty place a higher value on intrinsic and extrinsic/social variables than on extrinsic/organizational variables. There were no si9nificant differences between groups regarding the intrinsic and extrinsic/social values variables: freedom and responsibility in work; meaningful, worthwhile work; interesting, creative, challenging work; and friendly and helpful supervisors. These four values variables ranked in the top four for both groups in a rank ordering of values scores. This may serve as a commentary on the types of people drawn to higher education and merits further investigation. 176

PAGE 188

Differences Among Faculty Groups An examination of differences among the five groups revealed that the significant differences were commensurate with the two group results; differences occurred for the same values variables, both extrinsic/ organizational, salary and fringe benefits. There were no significant differences among groups regarding the remaining extrinsic/organizational value variable, general working conditions; the intrinsic variables, freedom and responsibility in work, meaningful, worthwhile work, and interesting, creative, challenging work; and the extrinsic/social variable, friendly and helpful supervisors. While there were significant differences regarding the valuing of salary and fringe benefits, where those differences lay was of interest. The full-time, hopeful full-timer, and part-mooner assigned a significantly higher value to salary than the other part-time group, but the full-mooner group, members of which by definition hold other full-time jobs, was not significantly different from any other group. However, the full-mooner group placed less value on fringe benefits than both full-time and hopeful full-timer groups, as might be expected, and did not differ significantly from part-177

PAGE 189

mooner and other part-time. The hopeful full-timer was not significantly different from full-time, part-mooner, or other part-time. These findings may suggest the need for clarification in future research regarding how groups define the meaning and context for the variables. It may be that full-mooner faculty responded to the values questions in a context that related salary values to their primary employment; on the other hand, they may have placed a lower value on fringe benefits due to that need's being satisfied in another job context. The Relationship between values and Satisfaction The interaction between values and satisfaction and the role of values in predicting work satisfaction are issues that have received attention in the literature. Kalleberg (1977) attempted to develop a theory of work satisfaction in which work values and perceived job characteristics serve as the key explanatory variables for work satisfaction. Hemmasi, Graf, and Lust (1992) focused upon a related concept, attitudinal independent variables, which they found shifted significance away from pay as a predictor of satisfaction. Mottaz (1985) posited an interactionist perspective, examining the 178

PAGE 190

relationship between work values and work rewards as the prime determinant of work satisfaction. It was puzzling to discover that this research provided little support for a strong role for values in work satisfaction. The correlations for the values variables to the overall work satisfaction composite variable revealed that only three of the values variables contributed significantly: freedom and responsibility in work; salary; and interesting, creative, and challenging work. The further analysis conducted by regressing the values variables against overall work satisfaction for two groups, full-and part-time faculty, found that values accounted for less than 10% of the variance in work satisfaction. For full-time faculty, only salary and interesting, creative, and challenging work had significant Beta weights; for part-time faculty, none of the variables had significant Beta weights. These findings deserve further investigation. While all groups had low mean satisfaction scores for salary and promotion, and what might be called moderate scores for general working conditions, the groups also gave lower values scores to salary, fringe benefits, and general working conditions than to the other values variables. one might conclude that while the groups are 179

PAGE 191

not highly satisfied with these organizational arrangements, they do not leave the organization because these extrinsic/organizational issues are not high among their values. However, the regression data do not provide strong evidence of this relationship. It would be interesting to focus more specifically upon the examination of values, in an attempt to more precisely identify how each group defines its values constructs, to determine if those definitions differ, and to test the relationships between the constructs and the work satisfaction factors. Satisfaction and Commitment Careful distinctions have been drawn between the concepts of work satisfaction and organizational commitment throughout the literature. Mottaz {1988) described commitment, similarly to work satisfaction, as an exchange relationship based on rewards and values. Farrell and Rusbult (1981), however, distinguished the two as follows: satisfaction is predicted by job rewards and cost (i.e. opportunity cost), while commitment is predicted by job rewards and values. When correlation coefficients were run to examine the scale predictors of overall work satisfaction, the 180

PAGE 192

most highly correlated variable was organizational commitment, closely followed by task involvement. Commitment was most significantly predicted by overall work satisfaction, followed by promotion and supervision. This supports assertions in the literature that satisfaction and commitment, while closely related, are conceptually distinct. The regression analysis of overall work satisfaction and the other composite variables by faculty group revealed that organizational commitment accounted for the greatest variance in overall work satisfaction for six of seven groups: total faculty, full-time, total part-time, full-mooner, part-mooner, and other part-time. Only hopeful full-timer differed. The relationship between satisfaction and commitment particularly, and the .other independent variables additionally, is recommended as an area for additional research. The literature is inconclusive. satisfaction and commitment should be examined further, and empirical distinctions are needed. This evidence shows that the constructs differ, particularly because satisfaction is predicted more by task involvement. However, satisfaction has a significant relationship to both promotion and supervision, important predictors of commitment. These 181

PAGE 193

important relationships are recommended for further exploration. Conclusions and Connections to Earlier Research Full-and part-time faculty do not differ significantly for most of the work satisfaction variables examined. When the data were analyzed for group differences, the lack of significant differences in work satisfaction remained. Full-and part-time faculty did not differ significantly regarding organizational commitment. The evidence suggests that conceptually commitment functions as an overall variable, similarly to overall work satisfaction. The lack of significant differences between fulland part-time faculty for overall work satisfaction may lend support to Herzberg, Mausner, and Snyderman's (1959) two-factor theory. Perhaps the organizational arrangements, as Herzberg et al. theorized, do not enhance satisfaction. or, perhaps, the organizational arrangements in the community college setting are deficient for all groups to the extent that satisfaction is negatively impacted, but the satisfaction with intrinsic and extrinsic/social variables results in 182

PAGE 194

positive work satisfaction. The most important finding in the work satisfaction research by Mottaz (1985) was the strong connection between satisfaction and intrinsic factors. Mottaz found this connection to be supported across occupational groups, concluding that the determinants of work satisfaction are similar across groups. This dissertation research generally supports Mottazs findings when tested for full-and part-time workers. Limitations of This study The findings of this study are limited by the nature of forced-choice survey data gathering. Further, the study is delimited by the instrument used. It is recommended that for further study, consideration be given to the implications of modifying the survey questions to include a neutral or no opinion category, based upon comments written on the survey by respondents. It is further recommended that additional extrinsic/ social variables be included. The findings may be delimited by the choice of faculty as the part-and full-time worker populations. The professional and independent characteristics of teaching could delimit the ability to generalize these 183

PAGE 195

findings to populations in other work environments. Recommendations for Further Research These findings raise a number of topics for further inquiry. A more in-depth examination of the relationship among the independent variables and among the dependent variables should be of interest. It appears that more research must be done to understand the underlying satisfaction factors. It would be useful to probe how group membership predicts working definitions of the variables. Concepts like supervision and promotion may be operationalized differently for the groups. Consideration should be given to a study that would compare part-time workers in other fields with those in education. This could _later be expanded to a study of workers in "less traditional" settings, e.g. telecommuters. These data could then be compared to the body of existing research on the work satisfaction of fulltime workers. Finally, there is a need to further probe the relationship between satisfaction and commitment. These findings regarding the lack of significant differences in group commitment scores should be further examined. 184

PAGE 196

Summary and Implications for Practice In addition to the theoretical implications, these data should be considered to inform administrative practice. These results provide a more defined picture of the adjunct faculty in community colleges, their reasons for being part-time, their demographics, their values, and their level of work satisfaction. This information is important to the community college administrator and to policy-makers. Part-time faculty are as satisfied as full-time faculty in community colleges. Both groups valued more highly and were more satisfied with intrinsic work satisfaction variables. Both groups were most satisfied with task involvement. This supports the assertion that the nature of the work, not the institutional arrangements, is responsible for the greatest levels of satisfaction. This is supported by the relationship of other intrinsic variables to overall work satisfaction-task significance for full-time and autonomy for parttime--variables for which the faculty derive satisfaction primarily from the nature of the task itself. The variables over which organizations exercise the most control, general working conditions, salary, supervision, and promotion, had the lowest satisfaction 185

PAGE 197

levels and lowest values scores, for faculty groups. Even the "full-mooner" faculty, whose livelihood is not dependent upon their teaching, were not significantly more satisfied and expressed no significantly lower level of organizational commitment than the other four groups. Despite the less than satisfactory extrinsic/ organizational variables, all groups expressed high levels of satisfaction and commitment. These findings suggest that resource scarcity does not preclude the development of effective policies to address workforce needs. Further, the finding--that fulltime faculty, who have greater input opportunities and institutional resource support, do not have greater work satisfaction--indicates an imperative for this reevaluation and for inquiry into the opportunities to enhance the other of the employment experience, i.e. the intrinsic and extrinsic/social. The words of one interviewee, that faculty love their work and hate their workplace, are strongly worded sentiments, but should be heeded. The rank order of the values variables revealed that salary and fringe benefits are at the bottom of the rank order for both full-and part-time faculty. However, the values findings did not appear to predict satisfaction. 186

PAGE 198

Nevertheless, it is incumbent upon administrators and policy-makers to determine the social, and perhaps ethical, implications of current policy. These findings regarding the importance of intrinsic factors in work satisfaction perhaps help to explain the fact that the supply of faculty continues to outstrip demand, as well as the fact that full-time faculty did not demonstrate significantly higher levels of organizational commitment than part-time faculty. Lack of significant group differences may demonstrate that the expressions of commitment are less organizationally oriented than task-or professionally directed. What are the implications for quality and effectiveness of a workforce that is not highly satisfied with organizational arrangements? The interview data indicate pride in the quality of instruction and favorable feedback from students and colleagues. The commitment findings indicate high levels of commitment across groups. The evidence does not support a crisis in quality. In support of earlier research findings, e.g. Herzberg et al. (1959) and Mottaz (1985), extrinsic/ organizational factors have the weakest link to satisfaction, and it appears to commitment, of the 187

PAGE 199

satisfaction constructs. Perhaps the issue becomes one of fairness. Based upon these data, the dissatisfaction with extrinsic/organizational factors is moderated in impact on overall work satisfaction. Nevertheless, researchers, administrators, and policy-makers should be cautioned that satisfaction is a complex construct, and all of its aspects should be considered. 188

PAGE 200

APPENDIX A This questionnaire is designed to assess the relative importance of a variety of identified work satisfaction factors. Please mark the response that most closely reflects your own feelings. GENERAL WORKING CONDITIONS 1. The working hours in this organization are good. _____ strongly Agree/ _____ Agree/ _____ Disagree/ _____ strongly Disagree 2. I often feel pressured by the amount of work that needs to be done. _____ strongly Agree/ _____ Agree/ _____ Disagree/ _____ strongly Disagree 3. The organization provides us with everything necessary to do our jobs well. _____ strongly Agree/ _____ Agree/ _____ Disagree/ _____ strongly Disagree 4. The work load here is definitely too heavy. _____ strongly Agree/ _____ Agree/ _____ Disagree/ _____ strongly Disagree 5. I am satisfied with the physical facilities and equipment available here. _____ strongly Agree/ _____ Agree/ _____ Disagree/ _____ strongly Disagree 6. The working facilities are generally adequate here. _____ strongly Agree/ _____ Agree/ _____ Disagree/ _____ strongly Disagree SALARY 7. I am completely satisfied with my present salary. _____ strongly Agree/ _____ Agree/ _____ Disagree/ _____ strongly Disagree 8. Salary increases around here do not keep up with the rising cost of living. _____ strongly Agree/ _____ Agree/ _____ Disagree/ _____ strongly Disagree 9. I feel that I am underpaid for a person in my position. _____ strongly Agree/ _____ Agree/ _____ Disagree/ _____ strongly Disagree 10. My salary is very adequate for the amount of work I do and my level of training. _____ strongly Agree/ _____ Agree/ _____ Disagree/ _____ strongly Disagree 11. My salary is comparable to the salary of fellow workers. _____ strongly Agree/ _____ Agree/ _____ Disagree/ _____ strongly Disagree SUPERVISION 12. My supervisors are difficult to please. _____ strongly Agree/ _____ Agree/ _____ Disagree/ _____ strongly Disagree 189

PAGE 201

13. I respect the competence and judgment of my superiors. _____ strongly Agree/ _____ Agree/ _____ Disagree/ _____ strongly Disagree 14. My superiors have been generally fair in their dealings with me. _____ Strongly Agree/ _____ Agree/ _____ Disagree/ _____ strongly Disagree 15. My superiors are friendly and helpful. _____ strongly Agree/ _____ Agree/ _____ Disagree/ _____ strongly Disagree 16. My supervisor is sometimes lax in the performance of his/her duties. _____ Strongly Agree/ _____ Agree/ _____ Disagree/ _____ strongly Disagree 17. My superiors praise good work. _____ strongly Agree/ _____ Agree/ _____ Disagree/ _____ Strongly Disagree CO-WORKERS 18. The people I work with help each other out when the need arises. _____ Strongly Agree/ _____ Agree/ _____ Disagree/ _____ strongly Disagree 19. My co-workers are cooperative and helpful. _____ Strongly Agree/ _____ Agree/ _____ Disagree/ _____ strongly Disagree 20. Few workers here are willing to go out of their way to assist others. _____ strongly Agree/ _____ Agree/ _____ Disagree/ _____ strongly Disagree 21. My co-workers are easy to get along with. _____ strongly Agree/ _____ Agree/ _____ Disagree/ _____ Strongly Disagree 22. The people I work with are stimulating and competent in their jobs. _____ strongly Agree/ _____ Agree/ _____ Disagree/ _____ strongly Disagree TASK AUTONOMY 23. I have a good deal of freedom in the performance of my daily tasks. _____ strongly Agree/ _____ Agree/ _____ Disagree/ _____ strongly Disagree 24. I have the opportunity to exercise my own judgment on the job. _____ Strongly Agree/ _____ Agree/ _____ Disagree/ _____ strongly Disagree 25. I have little control over how I carry out my daily tasks. _____ strongly Agree/ _____ Agree/ _____ Disagree/ _____ strongly Disagree 26. I make most work decisions without first consulting my superior. _____ strongly Agree/ _____ Agree/ _____ Disagree/ _____ strongly Disagree 27. I am not able to make changes regarding my job activities. _____ strongly Agree/ _____ Agree/ _____ Disagree/ _____ strongly Disagree 190

PAGE 202

28. My daily activities are largely determined by others. _____ strongly Agree/ _____ Agree/ _____ Disagree/ _____ strongly Disagree 29. I make my own decisions in the performance of my work role. _____ strongly Agree/ _____ Agree/ _____ Disagree/ _____ strongly Disagree TASK SIGNIFICANCE 30. My work is a significant contribution to the successful operation of the organization. _____ strongly Agree/ _____ Agree/ _____ Disagree/ _____ strongly Disagree 31. sometimes I am not sure I completely understand the purpose of what I'm doing. _____ strongly Agree/ _____ Agree/ _____ Disagree/ _____ strongly Disagree 32. My work is really important and worthwhile. _____ strongly Agree/ _____ Agree/ _____ Disagree/ _____ strongly Disagree 33. I often wonder what the importance of my job really is. _____ strongly Agree/ _____ Agree/ _____ Disagree/ _____ strongly Disagree 34. I often feel that my work counts for very little around here. _____ Strongly Agree/ _____ Agree/ _____ Disagree/ _____ strongly Disagree 35. I understand how my work role fits into the overall operation of this organization. _____ strongly Agree/ ______ Agree/ _____ Disagree/ _____ strongly Disagree 36. I understand how my work fits with the work of others here. _____ strongly Agree/ ______ Agree/ _____ Disagree/ _____ strongly Disagree TASK INVOLVEMENT 37. I do not feel a sense of accomplishment in the type of work I do. _____ strongly Agree/ ______ Agree/ _____ Disagree/ _____ strongly Disagree 38. My salary is the most rewarding aspect of my job. _____ strongly Agree/ _____ Agree/ _____ Disagree/ _____ strongly Disagree 39. My work provides me with a sense of personal fulfillment. _____ strongly Agree/ _____ Agree/ _____ Disagree/ _____ strongly Disagree 40. I have little opportunity to use my real abilities and skills in the type of work I do. _____ strongly Agree/ _____ Agree/ _____ Disagree/ _____ strongly Disagree 41. My work is a very self-rewarding experience. _____ strongly Agree/ _____ Agree/ _____ Disagree/ _____ strongly Disagree 42. My work is often routine and dull, providing little opportunity for creativity. _____ strongly Agree/ _____ Agree/ _____ Disagree/ _____ strongly Disagree 191

PAGE 203

43. My work is interesting and challenging. _____ strongly Agree/ _____ Agree/ _____ Disagree/ _____ Strongly Disagree OVERALL WORK SATISFACTION 44. Generally speaking, I am satisfied with this job. _____ Strongly Agree/ _____ Agree/ _____ Disagree/ _____ strongly Disagree 45. If I had the opportunity to start over again, I would choose the same type of work I presently do. _____ Strongly Agree/ _____ Agree/ _____ Disagree/ _____ Strongly Disagree 46. Taking into consideration all things about my job, I am very satisfied. _____ strongly Agree/ _____ Agree/ _____ Disagree/ _____ strongly Disagree ORGANIZATIONAL COMMITMENT 47. I am willing to put in a great deal of effort beyond that normally eKpected in order to help this organization be successful. _____ strongly Agree/ _____ Agree/ _____ Disagree/ _____ strongly Disagree 48. I talk up this organization to my friends as a great organization to work for. _____ Strongly Agree/ _____ Agree/ _____ Disagree/ _____ Strongly Disagree 49. I feel very little loyalty to this organization. _____ strongly Agree/ _____ Agree/ _____ Disagree/ _____ strongly Disagree 50. I would accept almost any type of job assignment in order to keep working for this organization. _____ strongly Agree/ _____ Agree/ _____ Disagree/ _____ strongly Disagree 51. I find that my values and the organization's values are very similar. _____ strongly Agree/ _____ Agree/ _____ Disagree/ _____ strongly Disagree 52. I am proud to tell others that I am part of this organization. _____ strongly Agree/ _____ Agree/ _____ Disagree/ _____ strongly Disagree 53. I could just as well be working for a different organization as long as the type of work was similar. _____ strongly Agree/ _____ Agree/ _____ Disagree/ _____ strongly Disagree 54. This organization really inspires the very best in me in the way of job performance. _____ strongly Agree/ _____ Agree/ _____ Disagree/ _____ strongly Disagree 55. It would take very little change in my present circumstances to cause me to leave the organization. _____ strongly Agree/ _____ Agree/ _____ Disagree/ _____ strongly Disagree 192

PAGE 204

56. I am extremely glad that I chose this organization to work for over others I was considering at the time I joined. _____ strongly Agree/ _____ Agree/ _____ Disagree/ _____ strongly Disagree 57. There's not too much to be gained by sticking with this organization indefinitely. _____ strongly Agree/ _____ Agree/ _____ Disagree/ _____ strongly Disagree 58. Often, I find it difficult to agree with this organization's policies on important matters relating to its employees. _____ strongly Agree/ _____ Agree/ _____ Disagree/ _____ strongly Disagree 59. I really care about the fate of this organization. _____ strongly Agree/ _____ Agree/ _____ Disagree/ _____ strongly Disagree 60. For me this is the best of all possible organizations for which to work. _____ strongly Agree/ _____ Agree/ _____ Disagree/ _____ strongly Disagree 61. Deciding to work for this organization was a definite mistake on my part. _____ strongly Agree/ _____ Agree/ _____ Disagree/ _____ strongly Disagree WORK VALUES Please rate each of the following nine work rewards on a scale of 1 to 10, in terms of how important it is to you. l = not very important; 10 = very important. 62. Freedom and responsibility in work rating 63. Salary rating 64. Friendly and helpful supervisors ratiilg 65. Meaningful, worthwhile work rating 66. Interesting, creative, challenging work rating 67. General working conditions rating 68. Fringe benefits rating 193

PAGE 205

PROMOTION 69. The promotion policies here are unfair. _____ strongly Agree/ _____ Agree/ _____ Disagree/ _____ strongly Disagree 70. There are good opportunities for promotions here. _____ strongly Agree/ _____ Agree/ _____ Disagree/ _____ strongly Disagree 71. The chance for a promotion here is slim unless one gets a break. _____ strongly Agree/ _____ Agree/ _____ Disagree/ _____ strongly Disagree 72. I am completely satisfied with the promotion policies. _____ strongly Agree/ _____ Agree/ _____ Disagree/ _____ strongly Disagree Questionnaire developed by Clifford J. Mottaz, University of Wisconsin-River Falls 194

PAGE 206

1. How many years have you taught in higher education? years 2. How long have you been with this community college? years 3. Check ALL that describe your academic preparation: _____ High school diploma Some college ====: Associate degree _____ Bachelors degree Masters degree -----Professional designation (e .g. CPA) -----Juris doctorate A.B.D. (all but dissertation) Doctoral degree 4. Are you affiliated with any other colleges or universities in addition to this community college? Yes -----No If yes, please list -----------------------------------------5. If you answered Yes to #4, on the average, how many credit (or noncredit) hours do you teach at other institutions? # credit (noncredit) hours 6. Do you participate in scholarly activities related to your discipline or teaching (e.g. publishing, lecturing, consulting?) yes no rr-yes, please specify type of activity. 7. Gender female male 8. Ethnici ty 9. Age African American American Indian ----Asian ----caucasian Hispanic Other: years 10. How many wage-earners are there in your household? 1 (self only) 2 3 or more 195

PAGE 207

PLEASE ANSWER TBE FOLLOWING QUESTIONS IN REFERENCE TO THIS COMMUNITY COLLEGE. 11. What is your discipline or field? 12. On the average, how many credit (or noncredit) hours do you teach each semester at this institution? (or noncredit) hours 13. How is your teaching performance evaluated? Please check ALL that apply. student evaluations frequency: each term annual other: department chair evaluations frequency: each term annual other: administrative evaluations (by Director, Dean, Vice President) frequency: each term annual other: other evaluations, if any specify: 14. Do you participate in institutional committee work? yes no 15. Do you participate in institutionally sponsored professional development activities? ___ yes no 16. Do you participate in formal student advising activities? yes no 17. Do you have a faculty office? ___ yes no 18. If yes to #17, is office shared with other faculty members? ___ yes no If yes, is the office satisfactory? ___ yes no 19. Do you hold office hours at this institution? yes no 196

PAGE 208

20. If yes to #19, are these required by this institution? ___ yes no 21. How often do you spend time with the following members of this institution? Part-time faculty: very often often sometimes ___ hardly ever Is this adequate? yes no Full-time faculty: very often often sometimes hardly ever Is this adequate? yes no Department chairs: very often often sometimes ---hardly ever rs-this adequate? ___ yes no Administrators (Director, Dean, Vice President): very often often sometimes ___ hardly ever Is this adequate? yes no 22. Please classify yourself as ONE of the following. Full-time annual contract Part-time, annual contract ---Part-time, semester or term contract ---Other: 23. Do you participate in community college-sponsored health benefits? Yes No If no,""""WhYnot? covered under own plan Covered under family member's plan Not available for part-time faculty Financial reasons Other: 197

PAGE 209

Answer these last questions ONLY if you do NOT have a full-time annual contract at this community college. 24. If this community college sponsored health benefits for part-time faculty on a shared contribution basis (employer/employee), would you participate? ___ yes no If no, why not? covered under own plan covered under family member's plan financial reasons other: 25. If this community college sponsored health benefits for part-time faculty on a 100% employee (i.e. faculty member) contribution basis, would you participate? ___ yes no If no, why not? covered under own plan ___ covered under family member's plan financial reasons ---other: 26. Biles and Tuckman, 1986, published a taxonomy of part-time faculty. Please classify yourself. Choose ONE. SEMI-RETIRED STUDENT [Currently working part-time while pursuing further education] HOPEFUL FULL-TIMER [Currently would like to secure a full-time college teaching position] E'ULL-MOONER [Currently working 35 or more hours per week elsewhere] PART-MOONER [Currently holding two or more part-time jobs of less than 35 hours per week] HOMEWORKER [Working part-time to allow time to care for children and other relatives] 27. Do you hope to eventually hold a full-time teaching position? ___ yes no If yes;-rn-how many years? years (4/10/94) 198

PAGE 210

or. Don Yeager, Vice President of Instruction Arapahoe community College 2500 West College Avenue Littleton, CO 80160-9002 Dear Don: Last summer, you assisted me by forwarding your adjunct faculty handbook for my examination in conjunction with preliminary dissertation proposal research. I have now passed the colloquium stage (formal committee approval of the research design) and will begin the collection of data. I intend to examine the relative importance of work satisfaction factors for adjunct faculty members in community colleges. The sample will be drawn from four Colorado colleges: Arapahoe Community College, Community College of Aurora, Community College of Denver, and Front Range Community College. Rich Allen, CCCOES, has requested faculty lists from the payroll departments of the colleges. The first phase of the research consists of a demographic survey and a work satisfaction survey that will be administered to a random sample of 400 adjunct faculty from the colleges. The work satisfaction survey only will be administered to full-time faculty for comparison purposes. I would like to distribute the surveys via faculty mailboxes; however, I will request that the surveys be mailed directly to me, postage-prepaid, upon completion. The second phase consists of a series of interviews of adjunct faculty, fulltime faculty, and administrators. I hope that you will consider participating in this phase. I believe that this research will provide all of us with some important information about the composition of our adjunct ranks. Of special interest, I believe, will be the classification of pare time faculty according to a recognized taxonomy that delineates reasons for being part-time (Biles and Tuckman, 1986). I look forward to working with you and welcome your comments, questions, and suggestions. can be reached at 420-9550. Sincerely, Linda s. Bowman Director, Arvada 199

PAGE 211

University of Colorado at Denver Graduate School or PubUc Aftaln 1445 Market Stroot, Sullo 350 Denver, Colorado 80101 Phone: (303) 820-5600 Fax: (303) 534-8774 As a doctoral candidate in the Graduate School of Public Affairs at the University of Colorado at Denver, I am conducting research on the relative importance of work satisfaction factors for faculty members in community colleges. Eight hundred faculty members in four community colleges have been chosen to participate. I hope to receive over a 95 percent response rate. You have been chosen randomly, in order to ensure the validity of the research, but your participation is extremely important to the success of this project. The questionnaire has been designed to be easily answered and to require a minimum amount of time for responding, It has been distributed via your college mailbox for efficiency. However, to ensure anonymity, you should return the questionnaire by mail directly to my home in the enclosed prepaid envelope. The return envelope has your name so that I can follow up with those who do not respond until I receive my targeted response rata; however, I will personally remove the responses and discard the envelopes. Please mail your completed to me by or sooner. There are many important issues for faculty in community colleges. I appreciate your time at this busy point in the semester. If you have further comments, please feel free to include a note with the survey or to call me at 423-0737. Sincerely, f J fA-,.j.t .... JLA.A f.,OW'm..&.------Llnaa s. Bowman 200

PAGE 212

APPENDIX B Variables for Correlation Matrices Composite Variables comp l Comp 2 comp 3 comp 4 Comp 5 Comp 6 comp 7 Comp 8 Comp 9 Comp 10 Values Variables v 62 v 63 v 64 v 65 v 66 v 67 v 68 General Working Conditions Salary Supervision Co-Workers Task Autonomy Task significance Task Involvement Overall Work satisfaction organizational Commitment Promotion Freedom and Responsibility in Work Salary Friendly and Helpful supervisors Meaningful, Worthwhile Work Interesting, Creative, Challenging Work General Working Conditions Fringe Benefits 201

PAGE 213

M U L T I P L E REGRESS I 0 N Listwise Deletion of Missing Data N of Cases = 336 All Faculty Correlation: COMPB COMPl COMP2 COMP3 COMP4 COME'S COMP7 COMPB 1.000 .298 .314 391 .301 .32S .4S7 .602 COMP1 298 1.000 304 .249 .102 .217 .096 .103 COME'2 .314 .304 1.000 .oes .043 .026 .OS6 .lOS COME'3 .391 .249 .08S 1.000 .2SO .366 .38S .351 COME'4 .301 .102 .043 .2SO 1.000 .166 .274 .273 COME'S .32S .217 .026 .366 .166 1.000 .372 332 COMP6 4S7 .096 .OS6 .38S .274 372 1.000 S97 COME'7 .602 .103 .105 .351 .273 .332 .597 1.000 COME'9 .672 .289 .277 .514 .325 .288 458 .501 COME'10 .416 .276 37 3 .320 .204 .112 .255 .233 COME'9 COMP10 COME'S .672 .416 COMP1 .289 276 COME'2 .277 .373 COME'3 .514 .320 COME'4 .325 .204 COME'S .288 .112 COME'6 .458 .255 COMP7 501 .233 COME'9 1.000 .540 COME'10 S40 1.000 202

PAGE 214

M U L T I p L E: R E: G R E: S S 0 N Listwise Deletion of Missing Data N of Cases = 177 FULL-TIME FACULTY Correlation: COMP8 COMPl COMP2 COMP3 COMP4 COMP5 COMP6 COMP7 COMP8 1.000 .321 .215 .420 .355 .355 .445 .599 COMPl .321 1.000 237 .223 .192 .234 .045 .03:: COMP2 .215 237 1.000 097 .109 .032 .134 .121 COMP3 .420 .223 .097 1.000 217 453 451 394 COMP4 .355 .192 .109 .217 1.000 .156 .238 .272 COMP5 .355 .234 .032 .453 .156 1.000 .381 .385 COMP6 .445 045 .134 .451 .238 .381 1.000 .604 COMP7 .599 .032 .121 394 .272 .385 .604 1.000 COMP9 .649 .367 .268 .595 .316 .332 .513 .543 CONP10 .358 364 .337 .446 .214 .182 .335 .273 COMP9 COMP10 COMP8 .649 .358 COMP1 .367 .364 COMP2 .268 .337 COMP3 .585 .446 COMP4 .316 214 CONP5 .33:2 .182 COMP6 513 .335 COMP7 543 27 3 COMP9 1.000 .530 COMP10 .530 1.000 203

PAGE 215

U L T I p L E: R E: G R E: S S I 0 N . .. Listwise Deletion of Missing Data N of Casgs = 146 PART-TIME FACULTY Correlation: COMI?8 COMI?l COMI?2 COMI?3 COMI?4 COMI?5 COMI?7 COMI?8 1.000 .320 .431 .317 .267 .312 416 .580 COMI?1 .320 1.000 .338 .178 ,054 .207 .217 .190 COMI?2 431 .338 1.000 .045 .030 -.001 -.001 .124 COMI?3 .317 .178 .045 1.000 .387 .215 .270 .328 COMI?4 .267 054 ,1)30 .387 1.000 .245 376 .292 .312 207 -.001 .215 .245 1.000 408 .321 COMI?6 .416 .217 -.001 .270 376 408 1.000 .550 COMI?7 .580 .190 .124 .328 .292 .321 .550 1.000 706 .284 .345 .421 373 .258 .323 457 COMI?10 .470 293 458 .187 .142 .055 .119 .168 COMI?9 COMI?10 COMI?8 .706 .470 COME'l .284 .293 COMI?2 .345 458 COMI?3 .421 .187 COMI?4 .373 .142 COMI?5 .258 .055 COMI?6 .323 .119 COMI?7 457 .168 COMI?9 1.000 .549 COME'10 .549 1.000 204

PAGE 216

M U L T I P L E R E G R E S S I 0 N Listwise Deletion of Missing Data N of Cases = 38 HOPEFUL FULL-TIMER Correlation: COMP8 COMP1 COMP2 COMP3 COMP4 COMP5 COMP6 COMP7 COMP8 1.000 .325 .410 .231 .259 .239 .354 .559 COMP1 .325 1.000 .468 .139 097 -.118 .315 .252 COMP2 .410 .468 1.000 .166 .231 -.054 .159 .215 COMP3 .231 .139 .166 1.000 618 .250 .239 .249 COMP4 .259 097 .231 .618 1.000 .116 .341 313 COMP5 .239 -.118 -. 054 .250 .116 1.000 .209 .175 .354 .315 .159 .239 .341 .209 1.000 .583 COMP7 .559 .252 .215 24 9 .313 .175 .583 1.000 COMP9 .558 .262 .316 455 .607 .108 .011 .269 COMP10 .381 .375 .204 .258 .366 -.070 .177 .164 COMP9 COMPlO COMP8 558 .381 COMP1 .262 .375 COMP2 .316 .204 COMP3 455 .258 COMP4 .607 .366 COMP5 .108 -.070 COMP6 071 .177 COMP7 .269 .164 COMP9 1.000 .588 COMPlO .588 1.000 205

PAGE 217

11 U L T I p L E R E G R E S S I o N . . Listwise Deletion of Missing Data N of r:ases 49 FULL-MOONER Correlation: COME'S COMPl COMP2 COMI?3 COMP4 COME'S COMI?6 CONP7 COME'S 1.000 .388 .366 .449 444 .204 .295 .518 COMI?1 .388 1.000 -.030 .460 .043 381 .305 294 COMI?2 .366 -.030 1.000 -,008 .145 -.234 -.300 .052 COMI?3 .449 460 -.008 1.000 .474 411 .377 .353 COMI?4 .444 .043 .145 .474 1.000 .285 .304 .350 COMI?5 .204 .381 -.234 411 .285 1.000 .505 .381 COMI?6 .295 .305 -.300 ,377 .304 .505 1.000 .515 COMI?7 .518 294 .052 ,353 .350 .381 .515 1.000 COMI?9 .670 .441 .255 494 .398 .141 .258 429 COMP10 545 .154 499 .143 .236 -.100 -.085 .149 COMP9 COMPlO COMJ?B .670 545 COMI?1 .447 .154 COME'2 .255 499 COMI?3 4 94 .143 COMI?4 398 .236 COMI?5 .141 -.100 COMJ?6 .258 -.085 COMI?7 .429 .149 COMP9 1.000 .610 COMI?10 .610 1.000 206

PAGE 218

U L T I P L E R E G R E S S I 0 N + + + Deletion of Missing Data N of Cases = 18 PART-MOONER Correlation: COMPB COMP1 COMP2 COMP3 COMP4 COMP5 COMP6 COMP7 COMP8 1.000 .455 .521 .393 -.112 .251 .468 7 92 COMl?1 .455 1.000 632 .016 -.394 -.276 .068 344 COMP2 .521 .632 1.000 .096 -.410 -.282 -.146 .275 COM!?3 .393 .016 .096 1.000 -.045 -.110 .257 311 COM!?4 -.112 -. 394 -.410 -.045 1.000 .292 .215 .093 COMP5 .251 -.276 -.282 -.110 .292 1.000 .423 381 COMP6 468 .068 -.146 257 .215 .423 1.000 .518 COM!?? 792 344 .275 311 093 .381 .518 1.000 cmtP9 .805 .289 .283 .316 -.089 .151 .321 57 3 COt11?10 .706 .210 .295 .268 -.134 .223 450 .624 COMP9 COMPlO COMP8 .805 706 COMP1 .289 .210 COMP2 .283 .295 COMP3 .316 .268 COMP4 -.089 -.134 COMP5 .151 .223 COMP6 .321 .450 COMP7 .573 .624 COMP9 1.000 .654 COMPlO 654 1.000 207

PAGE 219

N U L T I P L E R E G R E S S I 0 tl Listwise Deletion Missing Data N ,)f Cases = 54 OTHER PART-TIMER Correlation: COMP8 COMPl COMP2 COMP3 COMI?4 COMP5 CONI?? COMP8 1.000 .382 .273 .435 .269 .379 .653 .606 COMP1 .382 1.000 .382 .238 .260 237 243 .162 COMP2 .273 .382 1.000 -.041 -.090 .164 091 -.078 COMP3 .435 .238 -.041 1.000 .273 .197 .340 334 COMP4 .269 .260 -.090 .273 1.000 .225 .346 .284 COMP5 .379 .237 .164 .197 .225 1.000 404 .278 COML'6 .653 243 091 340 346 404 1.000 .655 COML'7 .606 .162 -.078 .334 .284 .278 .655 1.000 COMP9 716 .300 .192 457 301 .368 .634 .512 COMP10 .388 .370 .424 .122 .197 .063 .199 084 COMP9 COMP10 COMP8 .716 .388 COMP1 .300 .370 COMP2 .192 .424 COMP3 4 57 .122 COML'4 .301 .197 COMP5 .368 .063 COMP6 634 .199 COML'7 .512 084 COMP9 1.000 441 COMP10 441 1.000 208

PAGE 220

-Correlation Coefficients COME'1 COMP3 COMP4 COMPS COMPG COMP1 1.0001) .2980 .2'31 0918 .2626 .1076 ( 381) ( 3131) ( 311) ( 374) ( 382) ( 382) P= P=-.000 P= .000 P= .016 P= .000 I?= .036 COMP2 2980 1.0000 ,0631 .0391 .0361 04 98 ( 381) ( 381) 374 I ( 3701 ( 3711 ( 3111 P= .000 P= P= .224 P= 454 P= .484 P= .334 .2131 .0631 1.0000 .2492 .3187 .3771 ( 371) 37l I ( 317) ( 372) ( 375) ( 376) P= .000 P= .224 P= P= .000 P= .000 P= .000 COMP4 .0918 .0391 24 92 1.0000 .1856 .2939 ( 3741 ( 370) ( 372) ( 374) ( 372) ( 373) P= .016 I?= .454 I?= .ooo P= P= .000 P= .000 COME'S .2626 .0361 3781 .1856 1.0000 .3582 ( 382) ( 3711 ( 315) ( 372) ( 382) ( 380) I?= .coo p,. .484 I? .ooo P= .ooo P= P= .000 COMI?6 .1076 0498 .3771 2939 .3582 1.0000 ( 382) ( 3711 ( 376) ( 3731 ( 360) ( 382) I?= .036 I?= .334 E'= .coo I?= .000 P= .000 P= COMP7 .1266 .0947 .3472 2987 .3569 .6056 ( 382) ( 377) ( 376) { 374) ( 380) { 381) P= .013 I?= .066 I?= .000 P= .000 P= .000 P-= .000 COMP8 .3149 .2846 .4093 .2906 .3192 .4578 ( 379) ( 314 I ( 313) ( 310) ( 377) ( 379) P= .000 P= .ooo P= .000 P= .ooo P= .000 P= .coo COMP9 .3065 .2447 5304 .3260 .2907 .4540 ( 37 9) ( 37.5) ( 374) ( 371) ( 377) ( 377) I?= .000 P= .000 P= .000 P= .ooo E'= .000 E'= .000 COMP10 .2609 3597 .3326 .1936 .1026 .2496 ( 344) ( 344) ( 344) ( 342) ( 342) ( 343) P= .000 P= .000 P= .000 P= .000 P= 057 p .. .000 V62 .01'78 .0036 .1090 0'125 .2433 .1878 379) ( 374) ( 312) 369) ( 377) ( 377) P= .730 P= 941 I?= .036 P= .164 I?= .000 I?= .000 (Coefficient I (Cases) I 2-tailed Significance) II 11 is printed if a coefficient cannot be computed 209

PAGE 221

Correlation Coefficients COMP1 COMP2 COI1P3 COMP4 COMP5 COMP6 V63 -.0992 -.0990 .0041 .0414 -.0453 0619 ( 378) ( 37 3) ( 371) ( 369) ( 376) ( 376) P= 054 p .. .056 P= 937 I?= .364 pa .382 I?= .189 V64 -.0422 -.0135 .1995 .2000 -.0248 .1518 ( 378) ( 373) ( 371) ( 368) ( 376) ( 376) I?= .413 P= ,795 P= .000 P= .ooo P= .631 P= .003 V65 -.0044 .0056 .0363 .0916 .1190 .1555 ( 380) ( 375) ( 373) ( 370) 378) ( 378) P= .B1 P= 914 P= 485 P= .078 P= .021 P= .C02 V66 -.0415 -.0083 .0625 .1072 .1088 .1503 ( 378) ( 37 3) 371) ( 368) ( 376) ( 376) P= .421 p,. .873 P= .230 P= .040 p .. .035 P= .003 V67 -.0520 -.0340 .0042 .0905 -.1210 0900 ( 377) ( 372) ( 370) ( 367) ( 375) ( 315) P= .314 p,. .514 P= .936 P= ,084 l?= .014 P= .082 V68 -.2493 -.2034 -.0069 0946 -.0982 .1185 ( 374) ( 369) ( 367) 365) ( 372) 372) P= 000 p .. .000 P= .896 P= .101 P= .058 p .. .022 (Coefficient I (Cases) I 2-tailed Significance) " is printed if a coefficient cannot be computed 210

PAGE 222

--Correlation Coefficients COM!?? COM!?B COM!?9 COHPlO V62 V6.3 .1266 .3149 .3085 .2609 .0178 -.0992 ( 3821 ( 37 9) ( 379) ( 34 4 I ( 379) ( 378) P= 013 P= .coo P= .000 P= .000 P= .730 P= .054 COMP2 .0::147 .2848 .2447 .3597 .0038 -.0990 ( 377) ( 374) { 375) { 344) { 374) ( 373) P= .066 P= .coo P= .000 p .. .ooo P= 941 P= .056 COMP3 .3472 .4093 .5304 .3326 .1090 .0041 ( 376) ( 373) ( 374) ( 3441 ( 3721 ( 371) !?= .coo !?= .coo l'.000 !?= .ooo P= .036 !?= .937 COMP4 2987 .2906 .3260 .1938 .0725 .0474 ( 3741 ( 370) ( 3711 ( 3421 ( 3691 ( 369) !?= .coo !?= .ooo !?= .000 !?= .ooo !?= .164 !?= .364 COM!?5 .3589 3192 2907 .1028 2433 -.0453 ( 3801 ( 3771 ( 377) ( 3421 ( 377) ( 376) !?= .000 !?= .000 !?= .000 !?= .057 !?= .ooo P= .382 COMP6 .6056 .4578 .4540 24 98 .1878 0679 ( 3811 ( 379) ( 3771 ( 3431 ( 377) ( 376) P= .coo !?= .000 .000 P= .000 P= .coo !?= .189 COMP7 1.0000 .5924 .4885 .2125 .2430 -. 0041 ( 382) ( 318) ( 3?7) ( 3441 ( 377) ( 376) P= !?= .000 P= .coo P= 000 !?= .000 !?= .936 COMP8 5924 1.0000 6875 .4222 .1116 -.1130 ( 3781 ( 379) ( 376) ( 3411 ( 375) ( 3Hl P= .coo P= P= .ooo P= .000 P= ,031 P= 029 COMP9 .4885 .6875 1.0000 5471 0787 -.0903 ( 377) ( 3761 ( 379) ( 342) ( 3751 ( 3741 P= .000 !?= .000 !?= !?= .000 !?= .128 P= .081 COM!?10 .2125 .4222 5471 1.0000 .0155 -.0905 ( 3441 ( 341) ( 342) ( 344) ( 3421 ( 341) !?= .000 !?= .000 p ... ooo !?= P= ,775 P= .138 V62 .2430 .1116 .0797 .0155 1.0000 .3965 311) ( 375) ( 375) 342) ( 379) ( 378) P= .000 !?= .031 p .. .128 !?= ,775 P= P= .coo (Coefficient I (Cases) I 2-tailed Significance) .. .. is printed if a coefficient cannot be computed 211

PAGE 223

Correlation Coefficients COM!?? COMI?S COMP9 COMP10 V62 V63 V63 -. 0041 -.1130 -.0903 -.0805 .3965 1.0000 ( 376) ( 374) ( 3741 ( 341) ( 379) ( 3781 P= 936 P= .029 I?= .091 I?= .139 I?= .000 P= V64 .0873 0817 .1623 .0507 2893 .3690 ( 376) ( 314) ( 374) ( 341) ( 379) ( 377) I?= .091 I?= .115 I?= .002 I?= .350 I?= .000 I?= .000 V65 .2639 .0990 0918 -.0278 .6679 .3743 ( 379) ( 316) ( 316) ( 343i ( 3791 ( 3181 J?m .000 I?= .055 E'= .076 E'= .607 P= .000 P= .ooo V66 2923 .1445 .1214 .0273 .6641 .3346 ( 376) ( 314) ( 3741 ( 3411 ( 379) ( 3711 I?= .000 I?= .005 I?= .019 I?= .615 I?= .000 I?= .000 V67 .0511 .0062 .0511 .0669 .3200 .3969 315) ( 314) ( 374) ( 340) ( 377) ( 376) I?= .324 I?= .905 I?= .324 I?= .219 I?= .000 P= .000 V68 .0473 -.0445 .0129 -.0727 2097 5595 372) ( 370) ( 370) ( 339) ( 373) ( 3731 I?= .363 I?= 394 I?= .906 P= .192 I?= .000 I?= .ooo (Coefficient I (Cases) I 2-tailed Significance) II II is printed if a coefficient cannot be computed 212

PAGE 224

-Cor relati:n coefficients V64 V65 V66 V67 '168 C:OMPl -.0422 -. 00<14 -.0415 -.0520 -.2493 ( 378) ( 380) ( 378) ( 377) ( 374) P= 413 P= .931 P= .421 I?= .314 P= .000 COtIP2 -. 0135 .0056 -.0083 -.03<10 -.2034 ( 373) ( 375) ( 373) ( 372) ( 369) I?= 795 p .. .914 I?= .873 I?= .514 I?= .000 COMI?3 .1995 .0363 0625 .0042 -.0069 ( 371) ( 373) ( 371) ( 370) ( 367) I?= .000 I?= .465 I?= .230 P= 936 E'= .696 COMI?4 .2000 .0916 .1072 .0905 .0846 ( 368) ( 370) ( 368) I 367) I 365) I?= .ooo I?= 078 I?= 040 I?= 084 I?= .107 COt11?5 -.0248 .1190 .1088 -. 127 0 -.0982 ( 376) 378) ( 376) ( 375) ( 372) I?= .631 I?= .021 I?= .035 I?= .014 I?= .058 COMI?6 .1518 .1555 .1503 .0900 .1185 ( 376) 378) ( 376) ( 375) ( 372) I?= .003 I?= .002 I?= .003 1?=.082 E'= .022 COMI?7 097 3 .2639 .2923 0511 0473 376) ( 378) ( 376) ( 375) ( 372) P= .091 pa .ooo I?= .000 P= .324 I?= .363 COMI?8 0817 .0990 .1445 .0062 -.0445 ( 37l) ( 376) ( 374) ( 374) ( 370) I?= .115 I?= .055 I?= .005 I? a .905 I?= 394 COMI?9 .1623 0918 .1214 0511 .0128 374) ( 376) ( 374) ( 374) ( 370) P= .002 p .. .076 I?= .019 P= .324 P= .806 COMI?10 .0507 -.0278 0273 .0669 -.0727 ( 341) ( 343) ( 341) ( 340) ( 338) P=-.350 I?= 607 I?= .615 I?= .219 I?= .182 V62 .2893 6679 .6641 .3200 2097 378) ( 379) ( 378) 377) ( 373) I?= .000 I? a .000 I?= .000 I?= .000 I?= .000 (Coefficient I (Cases) I 2-tailed Significance) II II is printed if a coefficient cannot be computed 213

PAGE 225

Correlatio:>n Ccefficients V64 V65 V66 V67 V68 VS3 .3680 3743 .3346 .3969 .5595 ( 377) ( 378 I ( 377) ( 376) ( 373) P= .000 P= .000 P= .ooo P= .000 P= .ooo V64 1.0000 3974 .3406 .4860 .3948 I 378) ( 378) I 377) ( 376) I 372) P= I?= .ooo I?= .000 P= .000 I?= .ooo V65 3974 1.0000 7979 3742 .2444 ( 378) I 380) I 378) I 377) I 37 3) P= .000 P= P= .000 f'= .000 P= .ooo V66 .3406 7978 1.0000 .4052 .2506 ( 377) ( 379) ( 378) ( 376) ( 372) I?= .000 I?= .000 P= I?= .ooo I?= .000 V67 4860 3742 4052 1.0000 .4931 ( 376) ( 377) ( 376) I 377) I 372) P= .ooo P= .000 P= .000 P= P= .ooo V68 3948 .2444 .2506 .4931 1.0000 372) ( 373) ( 372) 372) ( 374) I?= .ooo pm .000 P= .000 I?= .000 I?= (Coefficient I (Cases) I 2-tailed Significance) II II is printed if a coefficient cannot be computed 214

PAGE 226

LIST OF SOURCES CONSULTED Ad Hoc committee on Adjunct Faculty, Colorado. Nov. 17, 1992. "Policy Recommendations for Adjunct Faculty." Del. to Colorado Commission on Higher Education. Allen, Lucile A., and Robert L. Sutherland. 1963. Role conflicts and Congruences Experienced by New Faculty Members as They Enter the Culture of a Community College. Austin: University of Texas. The Almanac of Higher Education 1993. 1993. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press. American Association of University Professors. 1993. "Report: The Status of Non-Tenure Track Faculty." Academe 2 (July/August): 39-46. Baird, Leonard L., and Rodney T. Hartnett, and Associates. 1980. Understanding Student and Faculty Life. San Francisco: Jessey-Bass Publishers. Bellott, Fred I<., and F. Dexter Tutor. 1990. "A Challenge to the Conventional Wisdom of Herzberg and Maslow Theories." Nineteenth Annual Meeting of the Mid South Educational Research Association. New Orleans, Nov. Beman, Richard R. 1980. "Observations of an Adjunct Faculty Member." Ed. Michael H. Parsons. Using Part Time Faculty Effectively. San Francisco: Jessey-Bass Publishers, 81-4. Biddle, Bruce J. 1964. "Roles, Goals, and Value Structures in Organizations." Eds. Coopers, Leavitt, and Shelly. New Perspectives in Organization Research. New York: John Wiley & Sons, Inc., 150-72. Biles, George E., and Howard P. Tuckman. 1986. Part-time Faculty Personnel Management Policies. New York: Macmillan Publishing company. 215

PAGE 227

Bockman, Valerie M. 1971. "The Herzberg Controversy." Personnel Psychology 24: 155-89. Bok, Derek. 1986. Higher Learning. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press. Boyer, Ernest L. 1987. The Undergraduate Experience in America. New York: Harper & Row, Publishers. Brody, Nathan. 1983. Human Motivation. New York: Academic Press. Campbell, Dale F., and Associates. 1985. Leadership strategies for Community College Effectiveness. Washington, DC: American Association of Community and Junior Colleges. Chatman, Jennifer A. 1989. "Improving Interactionist Organizational Research: A Model of PersonOrganization Fit." Academy of Management Review 14.3: 333-49. Cheney, Lynne v. 1990. Tyrannical Machines. Washington, DC: National Endowment for the Humanities. Cohen, Arthur M. 1987. The Collegiate Function of Community Colleges. San Francisco: Jessey-Bass Publishers 1972. Confronting Identity: The Community College Instructor. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall, Inc. and Florence B. Brawer. 1989. The American Community College. Second Edition. San Francisco: Jessey-Bass Publishers. James c. Palmer, and K. Diane zwemer. 1986. Key Resources on community Colleges. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass Publishers. Ed. 1973. Toward a Professional Faculty. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass, Inc. Cook, John D., Sue J. Hepworth, Toby D. Wall, and Peter B. Warr. 1981. The Experience of Work. London: Academic Press. 216

PAGE 228

Cooper, w. w., H. J. Leavitt, and M. w. Shelly, II, Eds. 1964. New Perspectives in Organization Research. New York: John Wiley & Sons, Inc. cyert, Richard M., and James G. March. 1963. A Behavioral Theory of the Firm. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall, Inc. Deci, Edward L., and Richard M. Ryan. 1985. Intrinsic Motivation and Self Determination in Human Behavior. New York: Plenum Press. Diesing, Paul. 1991. How Does Social science Work? Pittsburgh: University of Pittsburgh Press. Emmert, Mark Allen. 1983. "Coevolutionary Theory and organizational Commitment: An Exploratory study in Bureaucratic Behavior." Diss. Syracuse University. Etzioni, Amitai. 1975. A Comparative Analysis of Complex Organizations. New York: The Free Press. Etzioni, Amitai, Ed. 1969. Readings on Modern organizations. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall, Inc. Farrell, Daniel, and caryl E. Rusbult. 1981. "Exchange Variables as Predictors of Job Satisfaction, Job Commitment, and Turnover: The Impact of Rewards, costs Alternatives, and Investments." organizational Behavior and Human Performance 28.1: 78-95. Finkelstein, Martin J. 1984. The American Academic Profession. Columbus: Ohio State University Press. Follett, Mary Parker. 1982. Dynamic Administration. Eds. Fox and Urwick. New York: Hippocrene Books, Inc. Freedman, Mervin. 1979. Academic Culture and Faculty Development. Berkeley: Montaigne, Inc. Friedlander, Jack. 1980. "Instructional Practices of Part-Time Faculty." Ed. Michael H. Parsons. Using Part-Time Faculty Effectively. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass Publishers. 27-36. 217

PAGE 229

Gappa, Judith M., and David w. Leslie. 1993. The Invisible Faculty: Improving the Status of Part Timers in Higher Education. San Francisco: JesseyBass Publishers. Gertner, Harold F., Julianne Mahler, and Jeanne Bell Nicholson. 1987. Organization Theory: A Public Perspective. Pacific Grove: Brooks/Cole Publishing Company. Graham, Cole Blease, Jr. and Steven w. Hays. 1993. Managing the Public organization. Washington, DC: c Q Press. Gruneberg, Michael M. 1979. Understanding Job Satisfaction. New York: John Wiley & Sons. Guastello, Stephen J. 1987. "A Butterfly catastrophe Model of Motivation in Organizations." Journal of Applied Psychology 72.1: 165-82. Guzley, Ruth M. 1992. "Organizational Climate and communication Climate: Predictors of Commitment to the Organization." Management communication Quarterly 5.4 (May): 379-402. 1991. "Toward a Unified Theory of Commitment: A Test of Brinkman's Model." Diss. Arizona State University. Hemmasi, Masoud, Lee A. Graf, and John A. Lust. 1992. "Correlates of Pay and Benefit Satisfaction: The Unique Case of Public University Faculty." Public Personnel Management 21.4 (Winter): 429-43. Herzberg, Frederick. 1982. The Managerial Choice, Second Edition. Salt Lake City: Olympus Publishing Co. 1966. Work and the Nature of Man. Cleveland: The World Publishing Company. Bernard Mausner, and Barbara Bloch Snyderman. 1959. Motivation to Work. London: Chapman & Hall, Limited. House, Robert J., and Lawrence A. Wigdor. 1967. "Herzberg's Dual-Factor Theory of Job Satisfaction and Motivation: A Review of the Evidence and a criticism." Personnel Psychology 20.4: 369-89. 218

PAGE 230

Huselid, Mark A., and Nancy E. Day. 1991. "Organizational commitment, Job Involvement, and Turnover: A Substantive and Methodological Analysis." Journal of Applied Psychology 76.3: 380-91. Jackofsky, Ellen F., James Salter, and Lawrence H. Peters. 1986. "Reducing Turnover Among Part-Time Employees." Personnel (May): 41-43. Jahoda, Marie. 1981. "Work, Employment, and Unemplo}'lnent. 11 American Psychologist 36.2: 184-91. Judge, Timothy A., and Robert D. Bretz, Jr. 1992. "Effects of Work Values on Job Choice Decisions." Journal of Applied Psychology 77.3: 261-71. Kalleberg, Arne L. 1977. "Work Values and Job Rewards: A Theory of Job Satisfaction." A1nerican Sociological Review 42: 124-43. Kanter, Rosabeth Moss. 1989. When Giants Learn to Dance. New York: Simon and Schuster. Katz, Daniel, and Robert L. Kahn. 1966. The Social Psychology of Organizations. New York: John Wiley & Sons, Inc. Katz, Ralph, and John VanMaanen. 1977. "The Loci of Work Satisfaction: Job, Interaction, and Policy." Human Relations 30.5: 469-86. Katzell, Raymond A. 1979. "Changing Attitudes toward Work." Work in America: The Decade Ahead. Ed. Clark Kerr and Jerome M. Rosow. New York: Van Nostrand Reinhold Company. 35-57. and Donna E. Thompson. 1990. "Work Motivation: Theory and Practice." American Psychologist 45.2 (February): 145-53. Keeley, Michael. 1988. A Social-Contract Theory of Organizations. Notre Dame, IN: University of Notre Dame Press. 219

PAGE 231

Kelly, Diana K. 1991. Part-Time Faculty in the community College: A study of Their Qualifications, Frustrations, and Involvement. May. San Francisco: Annual Forum of Association for Institutional Research. Kerr, Clark, and Jerome M. Rosow, eds. 1979. Work in America: The Decade Ahead. New York: Van Nostrand Reinhold Company. Knowles, Malcolm s. 1980. The Modern Practice of Adult Education. Chicago: Follett Publishing Company. Kohn, Alfie. 1993. "Why Incentive Plans Cannot Work." Harvard Business Review (September/October): 54-63. Lawler, Edward E., III. 1973. Motivation in Work Organizations. Monterey: Brooks/Cole Publishing Company. Leslie, David w., Samuel E. Kellams, and G. Manny Gunne. 1982. Part-time Faculty in American Higher Education. New York: Praeger Publishers. Lessnoff, Michael. 1986. Social Contract. New York: Macmillan. Lowther, M.A., J.s. stark, M.L. Genthon, and R.J. Bentley. 1990. "Comparing Introductory Course Planning Among Full-time and Part-time Faculty." Research in Higher Education 31.6: 495-517. Maidani, Ebrahim A. 1991. "Comparative Study of Herzberg's Two-Factor Theory of Job Satisfaction Among Public and Private Sectors." Public Personnel Management 20.4 (Winter): 441-48. Maslow, Abraham. 1970. Motivation and Personality. Second Edition. New York: Harper & Row, Publishers. McClelland, David G. 1985. Human Motivation. Glenview, IL: Scott, Foresman and Company. McGrath, Dennis, and Martin B. Spear. 1991. The Academic Crisis of the Community College. Albany: State University of New York. 220

PAGE 232

Meglino, Bruce M., Elizabeth c. Ravlin, and Cheryl L. Adkins. 1989. "A Work Values Approach to Corporate Culture: A Field Test of the Value Congruence Process and Its Relationship to Individual Outcomes." Journal of Applied Psychology 74.3: 424-32. Mohr, Lawrence B. 1982. Explaining Organizational Behavior. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass Publishers. Montgomery, Mark, and James Cosgrove. 1993. "The Effect of Employee Benefits on the Demand for Part-Time Workers." Industrial and Labor Relations Review 47.1 (October): 87-97. Morgan, David L. 1988. Focus Groups as Qualitative Research. Newbury Park: Sage Publications. Morley, Linda s. 1977. "Job Satisfaction of Faculty Teaching Higher Education: An Examination of Herzberg's Dual-Factor Theory and Porter's Need Satisfaction Research." Diss. University of Michigan. Mottaz, Clifford J. 1988. "Determinants of Organizational Commitment." Human Relations 41.6: 467-82. 1985. "The Relative Importance of Intrinsic and Extrinsic Rewards as Determinants of Work Satisfaction." Sociological Quarterly 26.3: 365-85 1981. "Some Determinants of Work Alienation." The Sociological Quarterly 22: 515-29. Mowday, RichardT., Lyman w. Porter, and Richard M. Steers. 1982. Employee-Organization Linkages: The Psychology of Commitment. Absenteeism. and Turnover. New York: Academic Press. National Center for Education Statistics. 1989. National Higher Education Statistics (1989). Washington, D.C.: Department of Education. Neff, Walter s. 1985. Work and Human Behavior. New York: Aldine Publishing company. 221

PAGE 233

Nussel, Edward J., William Wiersma, and Philip J. Rusche. 1988. "Work Satisfaction of Education Professors." Journal of Teacher Education (May/June): 45-50. Office of the Chancellor, California community Colleges. 1987. "Study of Part-Time Instruction." Sacramento, January. Ott, J. Steven. 1989. The Organizational Culture Perspective. Pacific Grove: Brooks/Cole Publishing Company. Park, Chunoh, Nicholas P. Lovrich, and Dennis L. Soden. 1988. "Testing Herzberg's Motivation Theory in a Comparative Study of u.s. and Korean Public Employees." Review of Public Personnel Administration 8.3: 40-60. Parsons, Michael H., Ed. 1980. Using Part-Time Faculty Effectively. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass Publishers. Perrow, Charles. 1972. Complex Organizations. Glenview, IL: Scott, Foresman and Company. Peshkin, Alan. 1993. "The Goodness of Qualitative Research." Educational Researcher (March): 23-29. Pierce, Jon L., Donald G. Gardner, Randall B. Dunham, and Larry L. Cummings. 1993. "Moderation by Organization-based Self-esteem of Role ConditionEmployee Response Relationships." The Academy of Management Journal 36.2 (April): 271-88. Pitt, Allen D. 1975. "A Study of Job Satisfaction of Professors of Public Administration in State Universities." Diss. University of Kansas. Porter, Lyman w., and Edward E. Lawler, III. 1968. Managerial Attitudes and Performance. Homewood, IL: Irwin. and J. Richard Hackman. 1975. Behavior in Organizations. New York: McGraw-Hill Book Company. Puyear, Donald E., and George B. Vaughn, Eds. 1985. Maintaining Institutional Integrity. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass Publishers. 222

PAGE 234

Rainey, Hal G. 1977. "Comparing Public and Private: Conceptual and Empirical Analysis of Incentives and Motivation Among Government and Business Managers." Diss. The Ohio State University. 1991. Understanding and Managing Public organizations. San Francisco: Jessey-Bass Publishers. Rajagopal, I., and W.D. Farr. 1989. "The Political Economy of Part-time Academic Work in canada." Higher Education 18: 267-85. Rasmussen, Alan G. 1991. "The Herzberg Motivation-Hygiene Theory as It Applies to Middle School Principals." DAI 51: 3294A. U of La Verne. Romzek, Barbara s. 1985. "The Effects of Public service Recognition, Job Security and Staff Reductions on organizational Involvement." Public Administration Review (March/April): 282-91. 1990. "Employee Investment and Commitment: The Ties That Bind." Public Administration Review (MayfJune): 374-82. Rorty, Richard. 1982. Conseguences of Pragmatism. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press. Roueche, John E., and George A. Baker, III. 1987. Access & Excellence. Washington, DC: Community College Press. and Robert R. Rose. 1989. Shared Vision. Washington: The Community College Press. Schein, Edgar H. 1991. Organizational Culture and Leadership. san Francisco: Jessey-Bass Publishers. Schneider, Benjamin. 1987. "The People Make the Place." Personnel Psychology 40: 437-53. Seidman, Earl. 1985. In the Words of the Faculty. San Francisco: Jessey-Bass Publishers. Senge, Peter M. 1990. The Fifth Discipline. New York: Doubleday Currency. 223

PAGE 235

Simon, Herbert. 1957. Administrative Behavior. Second Edition. New York: Macmillan Company. Sims, Ronald R., and Serbrenia J. Sims, Eds. 1991. Managing Institutions of Higher Education into the 21st Century. New York: Glenwood Press. Smith, Peter B. 1973. Groups Within Organizations. London: Harper & Row, Publishers. steers, Richard M., and Lyman w. Porter. 1983. Motivation and Work Behavior. New York: McGraw-Hill Book Company. Stewart, G. Bennett, III., et al. 1993. "Rethinking Rewards." Harvard Business Review (November/December): 37-49. Taylor, M. susan, and Cristina M. Giannantonio. 1993. "Forming, Adapting, and Terminating the Employment Relationship: A Review of the Literature from Individual, Organizational, & Interactionist Perspectives." Journal of Management 19.2: 461-515. Thompson, James D. 1967. Organizations in Action. New York: McGraw-Hill Publishing company. Turban, Daniel B., and Allan P. Jones. 1988. "SupervisorSubordinate Similarity: Types, Effects, and Mechanisms." Journal of Applied Psychology 73.2: 228-34. Turban, Daniel B., and Thomas L. Keen. 1993. "Organizational Attractiveness: An Interactionist Perspective." Journal of Applied Psychology 78.2: 184-93. Turner, Marjorie A., and Herbert E. Phillips. 1981. The Care and Feeding of Part-Time Faculty. Gaithersburg, MD: Associated Faculty Press, Inc. Vancouver, Jeffrey B., and Neal W. Schmitt. 1991. "An Exploratory Examination of Person-organization Fit: Organizational Goal Congruence." Personnel Psychology 44: 333-52. 224

PAGE 236

vaughan, George B., and Associates. 1983. Issues for community College Leaders in a New Era. San Francisco: Jessey-Bass Publishers. Vroom, Victor H. 1964. "Some Psychological Aspects of organization Control." New Perspectives in organization Research. Ed. Coopers, Leavitt, and Shelly. New York: John Wiley & Sons, Inc., 72-86 1984. Work and Motivation. Malabar, FL: Robert E. Krieger Publishing Company. Welsch, Harold P., and Helen LaVan. 1981. "Interrelationships Between Organizational Commitment and Job Characteristics, Job Satisfaction, Professional Behavior, and Organizational Climate." Human Relations 34.12: 1079-89. Wheatley, Margaret J. 1992. Leadership and the New Science. San Francisco: Berrett-Koehler Publishers. Withey, Michael J., and William H. Cooper. 1989. "Predicting Exit, Voice, Loyalty, and Neglect." Administrative Science Quarterly 34: 521-39. 225