Aa00002703 00001

AN EX~INATION OF THE RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN LEVEL
OF PHYSICAL ACTIVITY, WORKSITE PHYSICAL FITNESS
FACILITIES, AND EMPLOYEE ATTITUDES AND BEHAVIOR
AT FEDERAL GOVERNMENT AGENCIES
by
Bruce Herbert Kirschner
B.A., State University of New York at Buffalo, 1975
M.A., University of New Mexico, 1977
A thesis submitted to the
Faculty of the Graduate school of Public Affairs of the
University of Colorado in partial fulfillment
of the requirements for the degree of
Doctor of Philosophy
Graduate School of Public Affairs
1990
€Dcopyright by Bruce Herbert Kirschner 1990
All Rights Reserved

This thesis for the
Doctor of Philosophy
degree by
Bruce Herbert Kirschner
has been approved for the
Graduate School
of Public Affairs
Mark A. Emmert
Date ___ ~_)l._'_3~/_,_O____________

Kirschner, Bruce Herbert (Ph.D., Public Administration)
An Examination of the Relationship Between Level of
Physical Activity, Worksite Physical Fitness
Facilities, and Employee Attitudes and Behavior at
Federal Government Agencies
Thesis directed by Professor Franklin J. James
This study examines the relationships between
each of two variables: 1) Federal Government employee
level of physical activity and 2) Federal agency worksite
physical fitness facilities, and several , other variables
of interest to organizations: worker job stress, job
satisfaction, attitudes toward coworkers and local top
management, organizational commitment, and intent to
stay.
It was hypothesized that employees that were more
physically fit or were members of worksite physical
fitness facilities would exhibit lower job stress,
greater job satisfaction, organizational commitment,
intent to stay, and more positive attitudes toward
coworkers and local top management than employees that
were less fit or not members of such facilities.
Federal managers (n = 117), most having employee
physical fitness facilities available in their workplace,
were first surveyed for their opinions on how these
facilities affect employee attitudes and behavior. A
second survey was then used to collect data from

v
employees at th~ee Fede~al agencies with wo~ksite
physical fitness facilities (n = 387) on level of
physical activity, job st~ess, job satisfaction,
attitudes toward cowo~ke~s and local top management,
o~ganizational commitment, and intent to stay.
Using multiple ~eg~ession, the study found a
~elationship between g~eate~ levels of employee physical
fitness, based on a measure of physical ~ctivity, and
reduced job stress, highe~ job satisfaction, g~eater
intent to stay, and more favorable attitudes toward
coworkers and local top management. Although wo~ksite
physical fitness facility membership status was not found
to be of impo~tance, employees that visited thei~
facility mo~e often exhibited lower levels of job stress.
Also, wo~ke~s that engaged in a g~eate~ p~opo~tion of
their exercise at the workplace had higher levels of job
satisfaction, we~e more favorable in their attitudes
towa~d cowo~kers and local top management, but had lower
levels of organizational commitment.
The study's principal finding that higher levels
of employee physical fitness may favo~ably affect certain
job attitudes has implications for organizational policy.
The establishment of physical fitness facilities in
Federal Government, public, and private sector workplace
settings was recommended as an important means toward

vi
improving worker fitness. Additional research on the
relationship between study variables was recommended.
The form and cont~nt of t I

recommend its publicatio
Signed
To the memory of my father, Arthur S. Kirschner
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
This study could not have been completed without
the assistance and support of many individuals.
First and foremost, I will always be grateful to
my wife, Janet P. Lowe, for her tremendous love, support
and patience throughout all my years of post-
baccalaureate education. My sons Aron and Paul also
deserve special mention. Neither of them knew a time
when their father was not working on his doctorate. They
supported their father in a gentle way that only young
children can.
My deep appreciation goes to each of my
dissertation committee members: Dr. Tim Brennan, Dr.
Frank Cesario, Dr. Mark Emmert, and Dr. Max Morton, for
serving in this special capacity. A special thanks goes
to my committee chairperson, Dr. Franklin James, for his
conscientious guidance, contribution of important
suggestions, and constant encouragement.
This study would also not have been possible
without the unsung heroes of the Federal work force who
took whatever action necessary to gain permission for
employees at their agencies to be surveyed. I would like
to especially thank John Lowe and Cathy Niccoletti of the
National Institute for Standards and Technology; Janet

ix
Tietjen, Sue Hester, and Paula Smith of the Internal
Revenue Service; and Doug Stinchcum of the u.S.
Department of Energy. They were the individuals who
really made this study happen.
Carol Jacobson was exceptionally helpful by
instructing me in the intricacies of SPSS-X and PRIMOS on
CU-Denver's PRIME computer. I am thankful to her for
helping me produce the computer output that was so
critical to the conduct of research for the study. Jerry
Howell deserves credit by serving as expert advisor in
the area of physical activity measurement. Laura
Appelbaum assisted in the preliminary review of survey
instruments. Rollie Erickson was instrumental in
development of the spreadsheet used to determine level of
physical activity. Renee Herrera and Sandee Roth were
also of great logistical help through their conscientious
collection and delivery of hard copy computer output from
the CU-Denver Computing Center. My sincere appreciation
goes to the CU-Denver Computlng Services staff, who have
succeeded in making the University's information
technology resources accessible to remotely located
doctoral students like myself.
I will always be indebted to Carla Friedli and
Mark Schroeder for performing a detailed critical review
of the first dissertation draft and for providing
valuable suggestions that were later incorporated into

x
the document's final version. Betty Poe and Larry Oakes
were equally helpful in their review of several early
chapter drafts.
A very special thanks goes to friends Teresa
Rotger, Fred Banta, Dave and Cindy Meyer for their kind
support during my time in school and, in particular,
during the dissertation phase.
The unflagging support of other family members
must also be acknowledged. My parents, Arthur and Miriam
Kirschner, my brother Robert, and sister Esta always had
an encouraging word for me. Edith and Jean Lowe, my
extended family by marriage, also have my thanks in the
same regard. All of them believed that doctoral work was
something I could do and do well.
Finally, a sincere appreciation to all of my
coworkers at the Western Area Power Administration. They
were of invaluable assistance in this endeavor by pre-
testing both surveys used in the study and by being a
generous form of support during the entire dissertation
process.
CONTENTS
CHAPTER I
INTRODUCTION 1
Purpose of the Study 4
Implications of the Study 9
Summary 11
Organization of the Study 11
Notes 13 ·
CHAPTER II
PHYSICAL FITNESS IN THE WORKPLACE 14
The Concept of Physical Fitness 14
The Measurement of Physical Fitness 17
Historical Background 24
Physical Fitness Participation

in the United states .... 25
Worksite Physical Fitness Facilities

. and Programs . . . . . . . . . . . 26
Employee Fitness in the Federal Workplace 32
Summary . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 38
Notes 40
CHAPTER III
REVIEW OF THE LITERATURE 41
Physical Fitness and Physiological Outcomes 42
Physical Fitness and Psychological Outcomes 44

xi i
Employee Physical Fitness and Organizational

Outcomes . . . . . . . 50
Job stress . . . 52
Job Satisfaction . 56
Organizational Commitment 68
Intent to stay or Quit 75
Summary 82
Notes 84
CHAPTER IV
METHODOLOGY . . . . . .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. . .. .. .. .. 86
statement of Research Hypotheses 86
Hypothesis 1 . . .. .. .. .. . .. .. .. 87
Hypothesis 2 . . 88
Hypothes is 3 . . 90
Methodological Approach 91
The Concepts of Reliability and Validity. 97
Development of Survey Instruments 98
Pre-tests . .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. 101
Federal Manager Survey Questionnaire 103
Sample . . .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. 105
Procedures for Data Collection . 108
Response Rate for Federal Manager Survey

Questionnaire . . . . . . . . . . . . 109
Federal Employee Survey Questionnaire 109
Sample 121
u.S. Department of Commerce 122

xiii
Internal Revenue Service . . 124
U. S. Department of Energy 126
Procedures for Data Collection . 127
Response Rate for Federal Employee Survey

Questionnaire . . . .. ....... 128
Data Analysis . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 129
Summary 129
Notes 133
CHAPTER V
RESULTS OF THE STUDY: FEDERAL MANAGER SURVEY

QUESTIONNAIRE .' 135
Background Data 135
Federal Manager Opinions on the Effects

of Federal Agency Physical Fitness Facilities
on Employees . 145
Results . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 147
Variations in Opinion Between Different

Categories of Respondent . ..... 148
Summary 168
Notes 171
CHAPTER VI
RESULTS OF THE STUDY: FEDERAL EMPLOYEE SURVEY

QUESTIONNAIRE 172
Demographic Data 172
Perceptions of Physical Fitness Facility

Effects on Member Job-Related Attitudes
and Behavior . . . . . . . . . . . . 175
Treatment of Data on Level of Physical

Act i vi ty . .. . ... .. . 184
Reliability 193
xiv
Methods for Data Analysis 196
Preliminary Statistical Data Analysis 197
A Theoretical Model . . . . . . . . 199
Multiple Regression Analysis . 202
Job Stress . . . . . . . . . . . . 211
Job Satisfaction . 220
Attitudes Toward Coworkers and Local

Top Management . . . . . . . . 228
Organizational Commitment . . . . . . . . 231
Intent to Stay . 243
Summary 248
Notes . . . . .......... . 253
CHAPTER VII
CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS 256
Conclusions Based on Findings 251
Implications of Findings . . . . . 261
Recommendations for Additional Research 263
Limitations of the Study . . 266
Notes 269
BIBLIOGRAPHY . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 270
APPENDICES
A. Federal Manager Survey Questionnaire . 303
B. Federal Employee Survey Questionnaire 308
C. Cover Letter for Distribution of

Federal Employee survey Questionnaire
at U.S. Department of Commerce . . . . 321
xv
D. Cover Letter for Distribution of

. Federal Employee Survey Questionnaire
at Internal Revenue Service . . . . . 323
E. Cover Letter for Distribution of

Federal Employee Survey Questionnaire
at U.S. Department of Energy ... 325
F. Responses to Attitudinal Items in

Part II of Federal Manager Survey
Questionnaire . . . . . . . . . 327
G. Results of Preliminary Statistical

Data Analysis . . . . . . . . . 335
TABLES
Table
4.1 Major Issues Addressed in Each Part of the
Federal Manager Survey Questionnaire . . . 104
4.2 Numbers and Percentages of Returns for

Federal Manager Survey Questionnaire 109
4.3 Major Issues Addressed in Each Part of the

Federal Employee Survey Questionnaire 110
4.4 Numbers and Percentages of Return by

Agency for Federal Employee Survey
Questionnaire . . . . . . . . • . . 130
5.1 Existence of Employee Physical Fitness

Facility at Respondent Federal Agency
Locat i on . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 137
5.2 Type of Physical Fitness Facility

Arrangement . . . . . . . . . . 137
5.3 Federal Agency Physical Fitness Facility

Years of Operation . . . . . . . . . . 138
5.4 Federal Employees Authorized as Users of

Agency Physical Fitness Facilities . . 138
5.5 Percent of Federal Employees Authorized

as Users of Agency Physical Fitness
Facilities . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 140
5.6 Percent of Federal Employees that Visit

Agency Physical Fitness Facility on a
Regular Basis . . . . . . . . . . . 140
5.7 Type of Facility Based on Availability

of Equipment and User Services 141
5.8 Annual Fees Paid by Employees to Use

Agency Physical Fitness Facility. 141
5.9 Respondent Relationship to Federal

Agency Physical Fitness Facility 143
xvii
Tables (continued)
5.10 Respondent status as User of Federal

Worksite Physical Fitness Facility 143
5.11 Respondent Federal Agency 144
5.12 Location of Survey Respondent

Federal Agency . . . • . . . 146
5.13 Facility Influence on Attitudes

and Behavior of Employees That
Use Them . . . . . . . 149
5.14 Variables Selected for Chi. Square

Analys is . . . . 153
5.15 Association Between Respondent

Availability of Worksite Physical
Fitness Facility and Effects on the
Job stress of Users . . . . . . . . 154

Fitness Facility and Effects on
User Job Satisfaction . . . . . . 155

Amount of Physical Exercise of Users 156

Level of Physical Fitness of Users . 157
5.19 Association Between Respondent Worksite

Physical Fitness Facility Arrangement
and Effects on the Job Satisfaction of
Nonusers . . . . . . . . . . 159

and Effects on Nonuser Attitudes Toward
Top Management . . . . . . . . . . . . 160

and Effects on Level of User Physical
Fi tness .... . . . . . . . . . . . 161
xviii
Tables (continued)
5.22 Association Between Respondent Wor~site

Physical Fitness Facility Type and
Effects on User Intent to Quit . . . . 162

Physical Fitness Facility Type and
Effects on User Level of Physical
Fi tness . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 163
5.24 Association Between Respondent status

as User of Worksite physical Fitness
Facility and Effects on User Attitudes
Toward Top Management . . . 165
5.25 Association Between Respondent status

as User of Worksite Physical Fitness
Facility and Effects on User Level of
Physical Fitness . • . . . . 166
5.26 Association Between ' Respondent status

as User of Worksite Physical Fitness
Facility and Effects on User Overall
Personal Health . . . . . . 167
6.1 Federal Employee Survey - Respondent

Sex . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 173

Ethnic Background
· · · · · · · · · · · · 173

Age category . · · · · · · · · · · · · · · 174

Marital Status
· · · · · · · · · · · · · · 174

Level of Education
· ·
· · · · · · · · · · 176

Job category . · · · · · · · · · · · · · · 176

Work Scnedule
· · · · · · · · · · · · · · 177

Type of Federal Government Appointment 177
xix
Tables (continued)

General Schedule Pay Grade category 178

Annual Family/Household Income
category . . . . . . . . . . . . . 178

Job Tenure category . . . . . . . 179

Agency Tenure category . . . . . . 179

Federal Government Tenure category 180
6.14 Respondent Aware · of Federal Agency

Worksite Physical Fitness Facility 180
6.15 Respondent Status as Member of

Federal Agency Worksite Physical
Fitness Facility . . . . . . . . 181
6.16 Respondent Tenure as Fitness

Facility Member ... 182
6.17 Average Number of Member Weekly

Visits to Facility . . . . . . 182
6.18 Average Percent of Member's Exercise

at Facility . . . . . . . . . 183
6.19 Respondent Annual Facility

Membership Dues . . . . 183
6.20 Facility Increases Respondent

Job Satisfaction . . . . . . 185

Organizational Commitment 185

Intent to Stay with Their Organization 186

Ability to Cope with Job Stress 186
xx
Tables (continued)
6.24 Facility Significantly Contributes

to Amount of Exercise Respondent
Engages in Each Week . . . . . . 187
6.25 Facility Significantly Contributes

to Variety of Physical Activities
Respondent Engages In . . . . 187
6.26 Respondent More Positive Toward

Organization's Local Top Management 188
6.27 Facility is Important Fringe

Benefit of. Working for Respondent's
Organization . . . . • • . . . . . . 188
6.28 Interacting with Other Employees

at the Facility Has Been Enjoyable . 189
6.29 Other Employees Interacted with

at Facility Have Helped Respondent
in Performance of Job . . . . . . 189
6.30 Value Ranges for Level of

Physical Activity Measures 191
6.31 Reliability Coefficients for Indexes

Used in the Study . . . . . . . . 194
6.32 Independent Variables Used in

Multiple Regression 205
6.33 Definitions of Variables Used

in Multiple Regression . . . 206
6.34 Summary Statistics for Dependent

Variables .. . . . . 209
6.35 Multiple Regression With Job stress

as Dependent Variable (Level of
Physical Activity Based on Kcal/Kg/Day) 212
6.36 Multiple Regression With Job

Stress as Dependent Variable
(Level of Physical Activity Based
on Respondent Self-Report) . . . . 214
xxi
Tables (continued)

Satisfaction as Dependent Variable
(Level of Physical Activity Based on
Kcal/Kg/Day) . . . . . . . . . . . • 221

Satisfaction as Dependent Variable
on Respondent Self-Report) . . . . 223
6.39 Multiple Regression With Attitudes

Toward Coworkers as Dependent Variable
(Level of Physical Activity Based on
Kcal/Kg/Day) . . . . . . . . . . . . . 230

Toward Local Top Management as Dependent
Variable (Level of Physical Activity
Based on Kcal/Kg/Day) .......... 231

Toward Coworkers as Dependent Variable
on Respondent Self-Report) . . . . . . 232

Toward Local Top Management as Dependent
Variable (Level of Physical Activity Based
on Respondent Self-Report) . . . . . . 234
6.43 Multiple Regression With Organizational

Commitment as Dependent Variable
on Kcal/Kg/Day) ............. 238
6.44 Multiple Regression With Intent to

Stay as Dependent Variable (Level
of Physical Activity Based on
Kcal/Kg/Day) . . . . . . . . . . . 244
F-1 Facility Increases User and Nonuser

Job Satisfaction . . . . . . . . . 328
F-2 Facility Decreases User and Nonuser

Organizational Commitment ..... 329
F-3 Facility Decreases User and Nonuser

Intent to Leave the Organization . 330
xxii
Tables (continued)
F-4 Facility Does Not Contribute to

Ability of Users to Cope with
Job stress • . . . . . . . . . 331
F-5 Facility Contributes to Improved

Coworker Relations . . . . . . 332
F-6 Facility Has Positive Effects on

User and Nonuser Attitudes Toward
Top Management . . . . . . . . . . 333
F-7 Facility Increases Amount of Physical

Exercise, Level of Physical Fitness
and Overall Personal Health of Users 334
G-1 Association Between Level of Physical

Activity Category Based on
Kcal/kg/day and Respondent Self-Report 336
G-2 T-tests of the Differences Between

Mean Scores on Level of Physical
Activity for Fitness Facility
Members and Nonmembers . . . . . 339
G-3 T-tests of the Differences Between

Mean Scores on Psychosocial Variables
for Fitness Facility Members and
Nonmembers . . . . . . . . . . . . 340
G-4 Differences Between Physical Fitness

Facility Members and Nonmembers
Based on Age • . . . . . . . . • . 343

Facility Members and Nonmembers Based
on Federal Agency Tenure . . . . . 344

on Federal Government Tenure . • . 345

on Job Supervision Category . . . 346
G-8 T-test of the Differences Between

Mean Scores on Psychosocial Variables
for Level of Physical Activity . . . . 349
xxiii
Tables (continued)
G-9 Differ"ence Between Employee Levels

of Physical Activity Based on Age 351
G-10 Difference Between Employee Levels

of Physical Activity Based on Ethnic
Background 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 352
G-11 Difference Between Employee Levels

of Physical Activity Based on
General Schedule Pay Grade 0 0 0 0 353
G-12 Analysis of Variance for Job Stress

by Facility Membership and Physical
Acti vi ty Level 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 356
G-13 Analysis of Variance for Job

Satisfaction by Facility Membership
and Physical Activity Level 0 0 0 0 0 357
G-14 Analysis of Variance for Organizational

Commitment by Facility Membership and
Physical Activity Level 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 358
G-15 Analysis of Variance for Intent to

Stay by Facility Membership and
Physical Activity Level 0 0 00 359
G-16 Analysis of Variance for Attitudes

Toward Coworkers by Facility Membership
and Physical Activity Level 0 0 0 0 0 360
G-l7 Analysis of Variance for Attitudes

Toward Local Top Management by Facility
Membership and Physical Activity Level 0 0 361

Mean Scores on Physical Fitness
and Health Values for Fitness Facility
Members and Nonmembers 0 0 0 • 0 0 0 0 363

Mean Scores on Physical Fitness
and Health Values for Employees
at Lower or Higher Levels of Physical
Acti vi ty 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 • 0 0 0 0 0 364
xxiv
Tables (continued)
G-20 Analysis of Variance for Physical

Fitness and Health Values by
Facility Membership and Physical
Activity Level . . . . . . . . . 365
G-21 Pearson Correlation Coefficients

Between Job stress, Facility
Membership status, Level of
Physical Activity, and Demographic
Var iables . . . . . . . . . . 368

Between Job Satisfaction, Facility
Membership Status, Level of Physical
Activity, and Demographic Variables 369

Between Organizational Commitment,
Facility Membership Status, Level
of Physical Activity, and Demographic
Var tables . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 370

Between Intent to Stay, Facility
Membership Status, Level of Physical
Activity, and Demographic Variables 371

Between Attitudes Toward Coworkers,
Facility Membership Status, Level of
Physical Activity, and Demographic
Var i ables ...•......... 372

Between Attitudes Toward Local
Top Management, Facility Membership
Status, Level of Physical Activity,
and Demographic Var iables . . . 373

Between Facility Membership Status,
Level of Physical Activity, and
Demographic Variables . . . . ... 374

Between Level of Physical Activity,
Facility Membership Status, and
Demographic Variables . . . . . . . 375
xxv
Tables (continued)
G-29 Pearson Correlation Coefficients Between

Demographic Variables . . . . .... 376
FIGURES
Figure
6.1 Theoretical Model for Relationships

Between Study Variables . . . . . 201
CHAPTER I
INTRODUCTION
Both the length of the working day and the amount

of physical labor expended have been sharply
reduced as a result of technological advances
. . . However, the blessings of these advances
can become detriments unless we as a people take
positive steps to insure that every American
takes time for sufficient exercise.
John F. Kennedy
Th~ value of physical activity and fitness in the
promotion and maintenance of personal health has been
acknowledged as early as the ancient Greeks. Plato
quotes Socrates as asking the rhetorical question, "And
is not the bodily habit spoiled by rest and idleness, but
preserved for a long time by motion and exercise?" His
one-member audience, Theaetetus, answers, "True" (Jowett,
1937, p. 154). Concern with the healthy body/healthy
mind relationship has continued through history to the
present.
In the United states, the interest in physical
exercise, personal fitness, and sports participation as
means toward the end of "good health" has been traced
back to the pre-Civil War period (Green, 1986). The
national preoccupation with health has endured until
today, evident with the popularity of personal fitness

2
development in the last several decades. This more
recent "fitness craze," as it is sometimes referred to,
may be attributed to a number of factors. These include
the transition to a service economy where most work is no
longer. physically demanding; a greater public awareness
of the contribution of fitness to cardiovascular health,
physical attractiveness, and general well-being; and an
increase in leisure time for recreational activities. A
recent survey found that Americans are generally living
healthier lifestyles than ever before, with 35 percent
reporting that they engage in reg~lar strenuous exercise
at least three days a week (Rodale et al., 1988).
There also has recently been increased interest
in how higher levels of physical fitness among workers
may have beneficial outcomes for employing organizations.
The private sector in the United States has long accepted
the positive relationship between the health and fitness
level of its personnel and certain organizational
benefits, such as lower health care costs and greater
worker productivity. For this reason, in the last decade
many companies have established worksite physical fitness
facilities, often as a component of a more comprehensive
"wellness" program, to improve the fitness level of their
employees. This has usually entailed making available
showers, lockers, and equipped exercise areas to be used
by employees in conjunction with their participation in

3
running, cycling, weight training and other forms of
physical exercise. Benefits from corporate fitness
facility programs are believed to include greater ease in
recruitment of new employees and, among current
employees, a reduction in health insurance claims (by
lowering the incidence of coronary disease, back pain,
and other ailments), higher morale, lower absenteeism,
decreased turnover, greater productivity, and fewer
accidents. Therefore, many U.S. companies have sought to
establish worksite physical fitness facilities and
related programs for their employees. It is generally
accepted that these kinds of facilities make sound
business sense by providing an attractive return on
investment to the employer. Although reliable figures
are not available, it is estimated that at least 1,000
and perhaps several thousand American companies now have
worksite fitness facilities available for use by their
employees (Behrens and Weiss, 1988; Scherr Trenk, 1989).
More recently, the public sector, including the
Federal Government, has actively followed this same
approach for increasing work force productivity and cost
savings in an era of fiscal constraint. For example, a
number of Federal agencies, including the u.S. Department
of Transportation, u.S. Department of Justice, and u.S.
Department of Energy, have established worksite physical
fitness facilities for their employees. constance

4
Horner, former Director of the u.s. Office of Personnel
Management, the Federal agency which provides personnel
services to over 3 million Federal civilian employees,
states:
As the nation's largest employer, the Federal

government is committed to increased efficiency
and productivity in the services it provides the
public. One of the key elements in achieving
these goals is assuring the health and well-being
of the Federal work force. Indeed, employees are
our most important resource.
There is a growing awareness that health and
fitness programs can play an important role in
employee productivity improvement efforts (U.S.
Office of Personnel Management, 1988, p. ii).
The Federal Government, which has emphasized the
relationship between employee fitness and work force
productivity, was estimated to have nearly 90 worksite
fitness facilities at the end of fiscal year (FY) 1988
(Constantine and Scott, 1989).
Purpose of the study
A comprehensive body of published research
supports the existence of a positive relationship between
improved personal physical fitness from increased levels
of physical activity and enhanced measures on
physiological variables. A smaller body of literature
which supports the beneficial effects of an individual's
improved level of physical fitness on psychological
measures also exists. However, although available
research tends to support the common belief that physical

5
exercise has a favorable effect on an individual's
physiological and psycholo~ical state, relatively little
research is available on how employee physical fitness
levels may influence "psychosocial" (that is, both
psychological and sociological) factors of benefit to the
organization. Perhaps more importantly, there has been
even less research conducted on how worksite physical
fitness facilities may influence employee psychosocial
variables of interest to employers. These variables
include job stress, job satisfaction, organizational
commitment, and an employee's intent to stay with their
organization. Each of these attitudes and behaviors, in
turn, are believed to have direct or indirect effects on
turnover and productivity, which are considered to have
even greater ramifications for organizational health.
This study will explore how employee physical
fitness, based on level of physical activity, and
worksite physical fitness facilities may influence the
selected psychosocial variables of job stress, job
satisfaction, attitudes toward coworkers and local top
management, organizational commitment, and intent to
stay. Relationships between certain of the psychosocial
variables will also be examined. Federal Government
managers and employees will serve as the research
population. Survey research will be used as the method
for the collection of study data.

6
Through its examination of the above variables,
this study will seek to fill gaps in existing research.
For example, although physical exercise is considered to
be an effective method for the reduction of psychological
stress, there is very little available research on the
specific relationship between exercise and job-related
stress.
Similarly, job satisfaction, which has been
associated with several behaviors which affect
organizational effectiveness, has been a subject of great
interest to social scientists since the 1930s. However,
research on the relationship between employee physical
fitness and job satisfaction is relatively limited (Cox
et al., 1981). The existence of a possible relationship
between job stress and job satisfaction has also not been
adequately studied.
Organizational commitment, a work-related
attitude believed to be antecedent to important employee
behaviors such as absenteeism and turnover, has also been
studied by social science researchers. It has been
suggested that organizations that willingly provide their
employees with physical fitness facilities in the
workplace will secure greater commitment from workers
because the organization has demonstrated that it is
interested in their health and welfare (Falkenberg,

7
1987). However, this observation has not been the
subject of empirical research.
An employee's intent to stay with their
organization, an attitude found to b~ strongly related to
turnover behavior, has also been a focus for study by
behavioral researchers. Available research has indicated
that the existence of employer-sponsored physical fitness
facilities and programs at the worksite has reduced
employee turnover (Cox et al., 1981; Song et al., 1982;
Tsai et al., 1987). However, these studies did not
distinguish betwe~n the effects of improved worker
physical fitness and the mere existence of these
facilities on employee turnover.
Perhaps more importantly, a better understanding
of how employee level of physical fitness and worksite
physical fitness facilities affect certain employee
attitudes and behavior may help alleviate several
problems now facing the public sector. For example,
increasing attention is being paid to a "slowly emerging
crisis of competence" (Johnston, 1988, p. 29) in the
Federal Government, which may eventually challenge
whether the Federal labor force will be able to fulfill
its responsibility for meeting the future needs of the
American public (National Commission on the Public
Service, 1989; u.s. General Accounting Office, 1988).
Even the private sector is reported to be alarmed about

8
the deteriorating state of the U.S. civil service and its
effect on business (Clark, 1989a).
Concerns about the vitality of the civil service
have primarily been attributed to problems associated
with the recruitment and retention of well-qualified
personnel, with the retention of Federal workers
considered a more serious matter than that of recruitment
(Kohout, 1988). A serious and continuing Federal
Government "brain drain" is believed to exist, a
perception confirmed by a large majority of Federal
executives and "workers (Clark and Wachtel, 1988; Turek-
Brezina et al., 1989). Recent r~search also indicates
that turnover has increased at the Federal level in the
ten years since 1976, pa~ticularly for "baby boomers,"
that is, those employees born in the 20-year period
following World War II and who are presently between the
ages of 30 and 39 (Lewis and Ha, 1988).
Compensation, primarily in the form of pay, is
considered the most important issue in government
employee retention. 1 In the public sector, where budget
constraints usually dictate that employee fringe benefits
take a back seat to other spending priorities, fitness
facilities may present themselves as a job "perk" taken
less for granted by employees than by their counterparts
in the private sector. Therefore, the existence of
Federal agency worksite physical fitness facilities,

9
perhaps considered a form of compensatory benefit, may
increase the likelihood that employees will stay with
their organization.
Thus, this study will seek to contribute to the
existing body of organizational behavior literature by
addressing a neglected, but potentially important area in
the field. The results of this study may then influence
future institutional policies related to the promotion of
workforce physical fitness in the public as well as
private sectors.
Implications of the study
The promotion of employee physical fitness and
the development and implementation of worksite physical
fitness facilities is usually based on a recognized need
to improve the cardiovascular functioning and overall
physical health of workers. However, the importance of
side benefits associated with worker fitness promotion
and the establishment of these kinds of facilities has
been neglected. Existing research has failed to examine
the relative importance of employee physical fitness and
the existence of worksite physical fitness facilities on
the psychosocial variables of job stress, job
satisfaction, attitudes toward coworkers and management,
organizational commitment, and intent - to stay. Since
this study will address the relationships, if any,

10
between these selected variables, a potentially important
contribution will be made to the organizational behavior
literature.
Also, if the presence of physical fitness
facilities at the worksite for Federal employees is found
to be a factor in retention, an increase in the
establishment of these kinds of facilities may contribute
to alleviating a perceived "quiet crisis" in the Federal
Government.
In addition, this study will provide demographic
data on those workers who use and those that do not use
agency worksite physical fitness facilities. This should
yield information of value in determining how to better
attract populations less likely to belong to fitness
facilities or engage in physical activity. Finally,
results of the study should suggest areas for future
research.
This study may have important public and private
sector policy implications related to worksite fitness
promotion and the future establishment of physical
fitness facilities for employees in the workplace if
findings indicate that they may influence psychosocial
variables often associated with worker and organizational
productivity. That is, if the value of these facilities
in terms of their influence on the important psychosocial
variables of job stress, job satisfaction, organizational

11
commitment, and intent to stay is recognized, a much
greater emphasis may be placed on improving levels of
employee fitness and the development of worksite fitness
facilities.
. Summary
This study will explore the relationships between
the level of Federal employee physical fitness, the
existence of Federal agency worksite physical fitness
facilities, and the dependent variables of job stress,
job satisfaction, attitudes toward coworkers and local
top management, organizational commitment, and intent to
stay. Federal Government managers and employees will
serve as the research population. Survey research will
serve as the method for data collection. The outcome of
this study may have important implications for Federal
Government, public, and private sector policy with
respect to the promotion of employee physical fitness and
the establishment of physical fitness facilities by
organizations for the engagement in physical exercise by
employees in the workplace.
Organization of the study
This dissertation is organized into seven
chapters. Chapter 1 presents an introductory statement
of the research problem, the purpose of the study, and

12
its implications. Chapter 2 examines the concept of
physical fitness, including its measurement and history.
The past and present status of worksite physical fitness
facilities, with emphasis on those in the Federal
Government, are also discussed in Chapter 2. Chapter 3
provides a review and summary of the literature relating
to the physiological and psychological outcomes of
physical fitness. A literature review of the theories
and research associated with job stress, job
satisfaction, organizational commitment, and intent to
stay are also presented in this ~hapter. Chapter 4
presents the study's research hypotheses, a discussion of
the methodological approach to be used, and a description
of the surveys used for the collection of data. Chapter
5 provides an analysis of the data obtained from a survey
of Federal Government managers and a discussion of
research findings. Chapter 6 presents analysis of the
data and research findings based on a survey of Federal
employees. Chapter 7, the final chapter, presents
conclusions based on results of the study and their
implications, offers recommendations for the conduct of
future research in related areas of organizational
behavior, and addresses limitations of the study.

13
Notes
1. Although evidence suggests salary is not as

important to those employed in the public sector as those
in the private sector, the disparity in pay between both
sectors is still wide, leading many to consider it as
contributing to an exodus of Federal workers,
particularly at executive levels, to the private sector
(Grimm, 1988; Holzer and Rabin, 1987; Turek-Brezina et
al, 1989).
CHAPTER II
PHYSICAL FITNESS IN THE WORKPLACE
The Concept of Physical Fitness
Defining the concept of physical fitness has been

a source of consternation to physiologists and others for
some time (Pate, 1988; Shephard, 1977). Although it has
been defined in general terms as "the ability to carry
out daily tasks with vigor and alertness, without undue
fatigue and with ample energy to enjoy leisure-time
pursuits and to meet unforeseen emergencies" (Caspersen
et al., 1985, p. "128), various definitions of physical
fitness often reflect different orientations. For our
purposes here, Shephard (1977) has defined physical
fitness in terms of physiological capacity,
characterizing it as
the ability of a man to maintain the various
processes involved in metabolic exchange as close
to the resting state as is mutually possible
during performance of a strenuous and fully
learned task for moderate time (1 - 60 minutes),
with a capacity to reac~ a higher steady rate of
working than the 'unfit' and to restore promptly
after exercise all equilibria which are disturbed
(p. 6).
The components of physical fitness are generally

considered to fall into two groups: health-related and
skill-related. The health-related aspects of fitness
15
involve the cardiovascular, pulmonary, and muscular
systems. Components of health-related fitness include
cardiorespiratory and muscular endurance, muscular
strength, body composition, and flexibility (Caspersen et
al., 1985). Cardiorespiratory endurance refers to "the
ability of the circulatory and respiratory systems to
supply fuel during sustained physical activity and to
eliminate fatigue products after supplying fuel"
(Casperson et al., 1985, p. 129). Muscular endurance
"relates to the ability of muscle groups to exert
external force for many repetitions or successive
exertions" (Casperson et a1., 1985, p. 129). Muscular
strength relates to "the relative capacity of a muscle or
muscle group for exerting force against some external
resistance" (Falls et al., 1980, p. 7). Body composition
is "the relative percentages of fat and fat-free body
mass" (Falls et al., 1980, p. 6). Flexibility is defined
as "the degree to which a joint may move through its
maximal possible normal range of motion" (Falls et al.,
1980, p. 7; Caspersen et al., 1985; Ledwidge, 1980). The
components of skill-related fitness, which are related
more to athletic ability, are agility, balance,
coordination, speed, power, and reaction time (Caspersen
et al., 1985). The concept of health-related fitness
will be the definitional focus of physical fitness used
in the context of this study.

16
The concept of physical fitness is distinguished

from the related concepts of "physical activity" and
"exercise." Physical activity is defined as "any bodily
movement produced by skeletal muscles that results in
energy expenditure" (Caspersen et al., 1985, p. 129).
Physical activity may then be assigned to occupational,
sports, conditioning, household, or other activity
categories.
The term "exercise," often used interchangeably
with "physical activity," is considered a subcategory of
the latter and is defined as "physical activity that is
planned, structured, repetitive, and purposive in the
sense that improvement or maintenance of one or more
components of. physical fitness ·is an objective"
(caspersen et al., 1985, p. 129). Physical activity and
exercise are similar in that both
involve any bodily movement produced by skeletal
muscles that expends energy, are measured by
kilocalories ranging continuously from low to
high, and are positively correlated with physical
fitness as the intensity, duration, and frequency
of movements increase (Casperson et al., 1985, p.
128).
Although almost all sports and conditioning
activities are considered to be a form of exerCise,
occupational and household tasks, if regularly planned
and performed in a labor-producing rather than a labor-
saving manner, may also qualify as exercise (Casperson et
al.,1985).
17
Exercise which promotes cardiovascular and
pulmonary endurance is known as "aerobic" or oxygen-
consuming exercise. Running, bicycling, swimming, and
cross-country skiing are considered the most popular
forms of aerobic exercise for promoting cardiovascular
and pulmonary health. Many other forms of exercise, such
as softball, golf, and bowling, do not qualify as aerobic
exercise because they do not require the same level of
physical effort or produce the same effects.
The Measurement of Physical Fitness
The basic components of health-related physical
fitness, as discussed earlier, are cardiovascular
endurance, muscular strength, body composition, and
flexibility. However, cardiovascular endurance, the
ability of the heart and lungs to supply oxygen and
nutrients to exercising muscles over an extended period
of time and often used synonymously with the term
"physical fitness," is considered the most important
feature in the individual's physiological profile. This
is primarily due to the major role it is believed to play
in the prevention of cardiovascular disease (Falls et
al.,1980).
There are a number of methods available for
measuring each of the health-related components of
physical fitness, with the appropriateness of each method

18
usually dependent on its setting, such as the laboratory,
or its purpose, such as for epidemiologic study or se1f-
assessment purposes. The balance of this section will
briefly discuss those measures available for the
assessment of health-related fitness.
The most popular method for assessment of
muscular strength is the one repetition maximum test.
The specific muscle group identified for testing is
selected and then individuals are given a series of
trials to determine the greatest weight they can lift
just once for that particular lift (Casperson et al.,
1985; Falls et al., 1980; Pdllock et al., 1978; Shephard,
1986b; Wilmore, 1977). Additional tests for muscular
strength include the use of dynamometers, cable
tensiometers and other equipment which are expensive and
"do not always provide a sUbstantial improvement in
measurement accuracy" (Pollock et al., 1978, p. 105).
Several methods are also available for estimating
. "body composition," the relative amounts of muscle, fat,
bone, and other vital parts of the body, or "fatness,"
i. e. , . percent body fat. These include underwater
weighing and the use of either skin calipers or the self-
administered pinch test for determination of skinfold
thickness (Casperson et al., 1985; Falls et al., 1980;
Pollock et al., 1978; Shephard, 1986b; Wilmore,
1977).
19
Tests that assess the actual range of motion of
the various joints are considered the most accurate for
purposes of measuring flexibility. These require the use
of equipment, such as flexometers, or can be performed as
a simple field test, such as the sit-and-reach test, a
hyperextension test for assessing lower back flexibility
(Casperson et al., 1985; Falls et al., 1980; Pollock et
al., 1978; Shephard, 198Gb; Wilmore, 1977).
The best measures of cardiovascular function are
the electrocardiogram (EKG), which is a measure of the
. transmission of electrical impulses that cause
contractio'n in the heart, and maximal oxygen consumption
(V02 max), described as both a measure of the "highest
attainable, oxygen consumption value in maximal or .
exhaustive exercise" (Wilmore, 1977, p. 103) and as '''the
heart's maximal capabilities for pumping blood into the
body's systemic circulation" (Falls et al., 1980, p.
128). Usually conducted as a laboratory test, V02 max is
considered the best objective measure of cardiovascular
endurance and is measured while the individual walks or
runs on a treadmill, .rides a stationary bicycle
ergometer, rows on a rowing ergometer, or swims in a
swimming flume. During the test, an EKG is performed to
assess the normality of heart function and heart rate
during exercise. At the same time, the individual is
gradually brought to a state of total fatigue or
20
exhaustion during a period usually less than 20 minutes
while various measures of expired air are taken. Several
field tests of cardiovascular endurance are also
available, such as the Canadian Home Fitness Test and the

~
step test. Although these tests are much more simple to
administer than the laboratory measure, they are
generally considered to be of more limited value in the
assessment of V02 max (Wilmore, 1977; Shephard, 1986b).
Unfortunately, the costs associated with both
laboratory and field tests of cardiovascular endurance
and capacity render them impractical for application in
studies of large populations. These costs include
expenses associated with retaining experienced testing
personnel, the time required for subjects to participate,
and expenditures for specialized equipment and
facilities.
For these reasons, other methods for assessing
fitness are usually used for large studies. In light of
the relationship between physical fitness and physical
activity, the measurement of activity patterns rather
than any changes in physiological status that activity
itself may produce offers a more practical methodological
approach (Shephard, 1977). Therefore, the measurement of
physical activity has become a very popular method for
assessing levels of cardiovascular endurance and physical
fitness in studies of large populations. Although the

21
exact nature of the relationships have yet to be
determined, it is believed that physical activity is
positively correlated and physical exercise is very
positively correlated with physical fitness (Casperson et
al., 1985; Shephard, 1977).
Over 30 different methods for the assessment of
physical activity in population studies have been
identified. These include behavioral observation, use of
mechanical and electronic instruments for the monitoring
of body movement and heart rate, and survey procedures.
However, like other methods for measuring ~ardiovascular
endur~nce, most of the methods available are not
applicable for studies of large populations "because of
the cost and time burden on both participants and
researcher" (Washburn and Montoye, 1986, p. 563).
Survey procedures have become i-ncreasingly
popular in the conduct of epidemiologic studies of
physical activity because of their ease of
implementation. They are now considered the most
practical means of measuring physical activity in large
populations (LaPorte et al., 1985; Washburn and Montoye,
1986). Survey procedures solicit information on the
nature of an individual's physical activity over a
specified period of time. Common data collection methods
include personal interview, telephone interview, self-
administration, mail survey, or a combination of these

22
approaches. A summary index is then used to rank order
individuals based on their level of physical activity or
on a calculated estimate of kilocalories expended
(LaPorte et al., 1985).
There are four general categories of survey
procedures: 1) "diary surveys," which are self-
administered and use short time frames, i.e., less than
24 hours; 2) "recall surveys," which use 1 to 7 day time
frames and collect data through personal or telephone
interviews or mail questionnaires; 3) "quantitative
history surveys," which are administered similar to the
recall survey, but use a longer time frame, e.g., one
year; and 4) the "general survey," which seeks little
specific information about the nature and detail of
physical activities regardless of the time frame (LaPorte
eta!.,1985).
Survey procedures for the collection of data on
physical activity are not without their limitations.
These include the capacity of an individual to remember
details of past activity and, when short time frames are
used, the likelihood of neglecting activity performed
during other seasons (LaPorte et al., 1985). In
addition,
they lack the objectivity of electronic and

mechanical monitoring . . . . little is known
about the dimensions of the physical activity
being measured, [they rely] on the participant's
cooperation, and . . . reliability and validity
23
of recall are often in~omplete or undetermined

(LaPorte et al., 1985, p. 143).
Several researchers have also compared the
results of physical activity surveys with objective
measures of cardiovascular fitness, such as resting heart
rate and V02 max, and have found a relatively high
correlation between both measures, serving to indirectly
validate the surveys (LaPorte et al., 1985; Washburn and
Montoye, 1986). However, since hereditary is believed to
affect one's ability to perform objective fitness
measurement tests, the association between physical
activity and fitness is not considered to be as strong.
As Washburn and Montoye observe:
This relationship • • . can be expected to be

weakened in part because of the strong genetic
influences on physical work capacity and maximal
oxygen uptake. Therefore, the magnitude of the
relationship between a physical activity
questionnaire and a measure of cardiovascular
fitness should not, in itself, be interpreted as
strong evidence for the validity of activity
questionnaires (1986, p. 574).
Despite their limitations, the use of survey
procedures in the collection of data on physical activity
still offer the best available approach for measuring
physical activity in large populations because they
"appear to be relatively reliable and unlikely to alter
normal daily physical activity" while not producing
"major selection bias and are inexpensive to administer"
(LaPorte et al., 1985, p. 143). Thus, due to the strong

24
association between physical activity and cardiovascular
endurance, this methodological approach offers the most
practical means for measuring the physical fitness of
many individuals · in large research stud ies.
Historical Background
The concept of and interest in physical fitness
has taken varied forms in history. Early man, concerned
primarily with the hunting and gathering of food, was
able to preserve a relatively high level of fitness
merely through his efforts to survive. Ancient Greek and
Roman civilizations greatly valued fitness of the
individual for purposes of sport and military readiness.
Military organIzatIons have since continued to playa
major international role in the promotion of physical
fitness (Shephard, 1977).
In the United States, the popular concepts of
health and physical fitness have evolved since the early
19th century. Prior to the Civil War, the pursuit of
fitness was fueled by religious reformers, who saw it as
a means toward the "perfect" society they envisioned for
the future. Following the Civil War, many Americans,
particularly those in sedentary occupations, became
increasingly receptive to the idea that they could gain
more energy and improve ' their lives through exercise and
sport. By the 1920s, rotundity was no longer a

25
reflection of one's wealth. Instead, having muscles
without having to engage in physical labor indicated that
one had leisure time as well as the discipline to engage
in physical fitness training (Green, 1986). This
national preoccupation with health and fitness has
continued to the present, although the form of
participation has changed over time. The broad concept
of health, including personal fitness, is now considered
an important life concern for many people (Yankelovich
and Gurin, 1989).
Physical Fitness Participation in the United states
A recent survey on exercise participation among
Americans found that most respondents (79 percent)
indicated that they engaged in exercise on a regular
basis. However, only 35 percent of respondents reported
that they got regular strenuous exercise at least 3 days
a week (the minimum level recognized for maintenance of
fitness and good health); only 20 percent indicated that
they exercised 4 or more days a week (the minimum level
required to improve conditioning); and only 9 percent
reported that strenuous exercise was a regular and
routine feature of their lifestyle. Respondents who
reported engaging in strenuous exercise on a regular
basis were also more likely to report excellent physical
health.
26
In terms of demographics, the survey also found

that more men (44 percent) than women (28 percent)
engaged in strenuous exercise on a regular basis.
strenuous exercisers were also more likely to be between
18 and 29 years old, live in the western U.S., reside in
a central city, be a college graduate and have a higher
than average household income. Survey researchers also
concluded that although there has not been a significant
change in the number of people engaging in regular
strenuous exercise since 1983, American interest in
health has not peaked, as some have suggested (Rodale et
al., 1988). The survey's overall findings are confirmed
by the results of a review of other national surveys
conducted in the United states and Canada between 1972
and 1983 (stephens'et al., 1985).
Worksite Physical Fitness Facilities and Programs
The broad interest in the development of personal

physical fitness has extended into the workplace. The
establishment of facilities for workers to engage in
exercise activities at the workslte has become
increas,ingly commonplace dur ing the last several decades.
An "employee physical fitness facility" or
"worksite physical fitness facility" refers to equipment,
space, and related accommodations made available by the
employer for its employees to engage in exercise for the
27
purpose of promoting personal physical fitness. Most
often this entails the provision of showers, lockers, and
equipment such as stationary bicycles, treadmills, rowing
machines, and multistation weight machines or free
weights. More elaborate facilities may include full-time
management staff, indoor running tracks, and pools. At
the very least, worksite fitness facilities include only
showers for use by workers. Facilities are usually made
available at no or low cost to employees.
Physical fitness facilities located in the
workplace for use by employees are not a recent
phenomena. The Pullman Company of Chicago is credited
with being the first company in the U.S. to establish
athletic facilities and implement an organized sports
program for its employees in 1879 (Anderson, 1951;
Kondrasuk, 1980; Shephard, 1986b). In 1894, the National
Cash Register Company in Dayton, Ohio introduced morning
and afternoon exercise breaks for its workers. The
company later installed a gymnasium and built a 325 acre
park where employees could engage in physical exercise
and sports (Caldwell, 1976; Timmons, 1981). However,
most early efforts emphasized employee participation in
recreational sport activities. Less importance was
placed on personal physical fitness development. A major
shift in emphasis from recreation to fitness in worksite
fitness programs did not occur until the 1960s.

28
Participation in these kinds of programs was then often
restricted to senior and top management personnel
(Shephard, 1986b).
The 1970s and 1980s brought dramatic growth in
the development and implementation of worksite physical
fitness facilities and related programs by employers for
their employees. It is estimated that perhaps as many as
several thousand private sector companies now offer some
form of employee physical fitness facility, with over 22
percent of all American worksites reported to have them
available for employees (Behrens and Weiss, 1988).
However, some companies have opted to purchase
memberships in local private health clubs for their
employees in lieu of onsite facilities.
Worksite physical fitness facilities are often
provided by employers as a component of a more
comprehensive employee "wellness" program, which caters
to the physiological and the psychological needs of
workers. "Wellness" has been defined as a "freely chosen
lifestyle aimed at achieving and maintaining an
individual's good health" (Hartman and Cozzetto, 1984, p.
108) and as
an integrated . method of functioning which is

oriented toward maximizing the potential of which
individuals are capable within the environment
where they are functioning. It is the direction
in progress forward involving body, mind and
spirit (Hartman and Cozzetto, 1984, p. 109).
29
The wellness concept assigns much greater
responsibility to the individual for the management of
personal physical and mental health and general well-
being. The workplace is considered an ideal setting for
the promotion of wellness because most people spend about
one-third of their waking hours on the job, making
participation more convenient and accessible. It is also
usually much less expensive than participation in similar
programs offered outside the workplace, offers an
indigenous employee support network for lifestyle change,
and presents management with an excellent opportunity to
communicate with employees. Perhaps for the foregoing
reasons, studies indicate that individuals are mor~
likely to become involved in health . programs at work than
in other settings (Brennan, 1982; Conrad, 1987; Hartman
and Cozzetto, 1984; Novelli and Ziska, 1982). Wellness
programs typically include health assessment, education,
and intervention opportunities for employees, such as
smoking cessation clinics, stress management classes, and
hypertension control programs, but differ in their
comprehensiveness from organization to organization.
Considered primarily an American phenomenon, the
popularity of worksite wellness programs and physical
fitness facilities in this country have been attributed
to the "cultural preoccupation with health and wellness;
the corporate incentive due to employer-paid health

30
insurance; and the policy concern with spiraling health
costs" (Conrad, 1987, p. 270). Since 1965, the overall
cost of health care has risen from an estimated $42
billion to $500 billion, over 11 percent of the Gross
National Product (Miller et al., 1989). After two
consecutive years of single digit increases, the cost of
employer-sponsored health care jumped by 18.6 percent in
1988 (Coy, 1989). The private sector is responsible for
a large portion of these costs, which are projected to
continue their upward spiral (Alaniz, 1989; Smith et al.,
1986). Therefore, the establishment of these kinds of
programs and facilities are seen by employers as a cost
containment strategy for rapidly escalating health care
costs.
other reasons cited for the interest in worksite
wellness programs and physical fitness facilities are
their potential for reducing known coronary risk factors;
lowering the incidence of disability and mortality;
decreasing absenteeism; improving morale; and increasing
productivity (Conrad, 1987; Fielding, 1982; Novelli and
Ziska, 1982). It is also believed that once individuals
begin to participate in an exercise program, the
likelihood that they are ready to modify other health-
related behavior, such as to stop smoking, is enhanced
(Baun and Williams, 1985). According to a recent
national survey, worksite wellness activities are now

31
found in nearly two-thirds of u.s. worksites with 50 or
more employees, with larger organizations more · likely to
offer these programs than smaller ones (Behrens and
Weiss, 1988). The cost-effectiveness and ·overall value
of these programs are of continuing interest to
organizations (Beck, 1982; Brennan, 1982; Collings~ 1982;
Conrad, 1987; Cunningham, 1982; Feuer, 1985; Fielding,
1979; Fielding, 1982; Hartman and Cozzetto, 1984; Pyle,
1979; Rogers et al., 1981; Shephard, 1989; Smith et al.,
1986; Spilman et a1., 1986).
Worksite physical fitness facilities for
employees, like wellness programs in general, owe their
success primarily to convenience. According to Haskell
and Blair (1982), their close proximity "can eliminate
many of the reasons adults have for not exercising
regularly. They do not have to locate a facility, drive
somewhere else, find a parking place, or get concerned
about transporting equipment and clothing" (p. 263).
Research has also indicated that proximity to an exercise
facility is a factor in physical fitness participation
(Falls et al., 1980).
Although worksite physical fitness facilities are
primarily found in the u.S. private sector at companies
such as Kimberly-Clark, Xerox, and the Adolph Coors

32
Company, the public sector has more recently recognized
the value of employee. physical fitness.
Employee Fitness in the Federal Workplace
Although the history of worksite physical fitness
can be traced back to the late 1800s, the concept of
employee physical conditioning at the worksite is
considered a more recent phenomena in the public sector
and among civilian agencies of the U.S. Federal
Government. Their very beginnings in the Federal sector
may be attributed to the u.s. military, which estaplished
a gymnasium a~ the West Point Military Academy in 1817.
World War II brought a resurgence in interest of the
fltn~ss level of the armed forces (Shephard, 1986b). The
Depart"ment of Defense has continued to emphasize the
importance of physical fitness in the military. Other
government agencies, such as the Federal Bureau of
Investigation and the u.S. Department of Treasury, have
also operated physical fitness programs for many years so
that their law enforcement personnel could meet
"readiness" standards (Frerking, 1987). However, similar
provisions were usually not made for Federal civilian
employees, although some agencies did eventually offer
" use of their worksite physical fitness facilities to a
broader segment of their workforce.

33
The Federal Government appears to lag behind the
private secto~ in the establishment of worksite fitness
facilities. This may be attributed to a number of
reasons. Fi~st, Public Law 79-658, passed in 1946,
provided for Federal agencies to establish health
se~vices programs to promote and maintain the level of
physical and mental fitness of their civilian employees.
But, the law only authorized, not mandated, agencies to
offer health protection and disease prevention programs.
It also did not include specific provisions for the
implementation of employee physical fitness facilities
and related programs. Second, according to several
observers, the prevalence of "bureaucratic red tape, lack
of top management commitment • . . fear of public
criticism for spending tax dollars on health/fitness
programs" (Smith, 1985, p. 24) for Federal workers, and
the lack of suitable space have all contributed to the
lack of support for these kinds of facilities and
programs for Federal employees (Miller et al., 1989;
Constantine and Scott, 1989).
However, the last decade has witnessed a number
of developments which have fostered the establishment of
worksite fitness facilities in the Federal sector.
First, the Reagan Administration mandated the formation
of the Federal Interagency Health/Fitness Council in
1982. Created by the President's Council on Physical

34
Fitness and Sports in cooperation with the u.S. Office of
Personnel Management, this Council was charged with
interagency coordination of physical fitness and sports
activities in the Federal establishment (Execu·t ive Order
12345, 1982). More importantly, in the mid-1980s,
several key Federal agencies cooperated in the removal of
legal and regulatory impediments to the establishment of
civilian employee fitness facilities in the Federal
workplace. The Office of Management and Budget (OMB) in
the Executive Office of the President later transferred
its authority for Federal employee health

, and · fitness
concerns to the u.S. Office of Personnel Management
(OPM), the agency already principally responsible for
Federal occupational health programs. In April, 1986 OMB
rescinded its Circular A-72, which addressed Federal
employee occupational health programs. At the same time
OPM revised the Federal Personnel Manual System, Chapter
792, "Federal Employees' Health and Counseling Programs,"
to include the establishment and operation of physical
fitness facilities within the scope of existing
occupational health programs, although subject to
prevailing budget constraints. The revised authority did
not extend to the use of Federal funds to pay for
employee memberships in private health clubs. In early
1987, the General Services Administration (GSA), the
agency responsible for the construction and operation of

35
Federal buildings, issued new regulations governing the
installation of physical fitness facilities in GSA-
controlled space. These regulations, which established
building standards for exercise, locker, and shower
rooms, were replaced in March, 1989 by revised
regulations. These revised guidelines for establishment
of Federal fitness programs and fa~ilities required that
agencies include in their plans the results of a survey
evaluating employee interest, demonstration of a long-
term commitment to employees' fitness and health, and
equal opportunity for participation by all employees.
Perhaps more importantly, under the earlier regulation,
agencies sponsoring these kinds of facilities paid for
the construction of toilets and showers. GSA would now
pay for their installation under the new regulation. 1
As a result of these relatively recent regulatory
changes, the number of Federal Government worksite
physical fitness facilities has grown dramatically.
Approximately 34 facilities of this kind were in
existence in fiscal year (FY) 1987. Twenty-six (26)
fitness facilities wer~ opened in FY 1988. An estimated
22 fitness facilities were scheduled to be opened in FY
1989 (Constantine and Scott, 1989). However, accurate
figures on the number of existing and planned Federal
facilities are difficult to determine since no one agency
is responsible for the oversight of such facilities.

36
Like the private sector, the nature of worksite
fitness facilities and programs may vary greatly among
Federal agencies (Division of Federal Occupational and
Beneficiary Health Services, 1989). Some agencies offer
only showers for their employees. Other agencies may
provide a wide array of equipment and services. For
example, the u.S. Department of Justice (DOJ) Fitness
center in Washington, D.C., which is managed by full-time
fitness professional staff, offers fitness testing, a
broad range of exercise equipment, and physical
conditioning ~nd behavior modification classes to its
estimated 1,400 members. Many Federal facilities are
managed by employee associations, but are actually
administered by contract staff, such as the DOJ Fitness
Center. contract staff, who usually administer these
programs in whole or part, are often used for general
program management and health appraisal and
medical/physical screening testing. Agency staff and
volunteers frequently complement contract staff in the
facility's administration.
Membership and partiCipation in all civilian
agency fitnes~ facilities is voluntary. User fees also
vary among Federal agencies. Some agencies provide
Federal employees free access to facilities, while others
require payment of a fixed annual membership fee or
charge participants based on their salary. However, user

37
fees are nearly always lower than individual memberships
available at local fitness establishments (Constantine
and Scott, 1989).
A number of Federal agencies have recently been
active in pro.moting the development of worksite physical
fitness facilities in the Federal Government. OPM
established the Director's Award for Outstanding
Health/Fitness Programs in 1987 with the purpose of
having agencies create and improve these kinds of
facilities and programs as well as to identify those
which could serve as models for other agencies (U.S.
Office of Personnel Management, 1987). In the same year,
OPM established an Employee Health and Fitness Training
Course for Federal agency personnel, concluded a series
of regional conferences which had begun in 1985 on Public
Employee Health and Fitness Programs, and published a
comprehensive update to the FEDERAL FITKIT, the first
guide designed specifically to assist Federal agencies in
the establishment of worksite health and fitness
facilities. The Public Health Service of the u.S.
Department of Health and Human Services also recently
established standards and assessment criteria to assist
Federal managers in the planning, development, operation,
and evaluation of comprehensive physical fitness programs
(U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, 1988).

38
Summary
Physical fitness, generally defined in terms of
human physiological capacity, may be measured objectively
by using one of several methods available. However, the
most practical method for the study of physical fitness
levels in large populations is through surveying
individual physical activity patterns.
The interest in cultivation of personal health
and physical fitness has evolved through history. The
establishment of worksite physical fitness facilities and
employee wellness programs for private sector workers
during the last decade reflects the popular interest in
exercise participation as well as the intent of
organizations to contain spiraling health care costs.
The Federal Government's ,interest in worksite
physical fitness promotion for its own workforce is a
more recent phenomena. However, several key Federal
agencies have taken important steps to revise government
rules and regulations in order to encourage the
establishment of onsite physical fitness facilities for
Federal employees. As a result, the number of these
kinds of facilities that are sponsored by Federal '
agencies continues to grow.
The following chapter will review the literature
of physical fitness as it relates to human physiological

39
and psychological functioning, with emphasis on employee

job stress, job satisfaction, organizational commitment,
and intent to stay with the organization.
40
Notes
1. Recent amendments to ~egulations and legal

opinions indicate that Fede~al agencies may also now pay
for employees to use off-site physical fitness facilities
owned and ope~ated by p~ivate comme~cial establishments.
CHAPTER III
REVIEW OF THE LITERATURE
Available zeseazch suggests that an individual's
level of personal physical fitness has an effect on both
physiological and psychological states. A relatively
large body of research on the physiological benefits of
regular physical exercise already exists. To a lesser
extent, there also exists a body of research on the
psychological aspects of improved physical conditioning.
However, there is very little research available on the
social psychologica~ nature of physical exercise and
related activities. Similarly, the literature on
worksite physical fitness facilities and programs,
particularly as they relate to job-related employee
attitudes and behavior of interest to organizations, is
rather limited.
The first pazt of this chapter will review the
literature of physical fitness in terms of its effects on
physiological and psychological functioning. The balance
of the chapter will examine the literature of employee
and intent to stay or quit, and how these variables may
be affected by worker level of physical fitness and the

42
existence of employer-provided worksite physical fitness
facilities.
Physical Fitness and Physiological outcomes
The medical literature abounds with research on
the relationship between physical fitness and
physiological variables. Much of the literature,
particularly as it relates to occupational health, has
focused on the favorable effects of regular exercise on
certain coronary risk factors, such as hypertension,
levels of blood cholesterol and triglycerides, and
percent body fat. However, regular physical exercise has
also been credited with having a beneficial effect on
obesity, pulmonary function, resting heart rate, muscular
strength, flexibility, and other measures of personal
health. Research also suggests that an increase in an
individual's level of physical fitness may offer other
health benefits to the individual, such as reducing the
incidence of lower back problems and having a mediating
influence on the aging process.
Coronary heart disease (CHO), also referred to as
cardiovascular disease, is considered by the World Health
Organization "as potentially the greatest epidemic the
world has faced" (Pauly et al., 1982, p. 457) as well as
a leading contributor to adult mortality in most
industrialized nations (Falls et al., 1980). Morris

43
produced the first major research showing a statistically
significant relationship between physical activity and
CHD (Morris et al., 1953). Morris and his associates
found that British bus conductors, who had to climb up
and down double-decker buses to collect fares, had
manifestations of CHD only 70 percent as much as the more
sedentary bus drivers. Also, of greater significance,
conductors had only 53 percent of the incidence of
myocardial infarction and 46 percent of the overall CHD
mortality of the bus drivers (Thomas, 1979). Subsequent
research on physical activity and coronary risk has
confirmed the early findings of Morris ~nd his colleagues
(Cooper et al., 1976; Dannenberg et al., 1989; Dawber,
1980; Falls et al., 1980; Fogle ' and Verdesca, 1975;
Folsom et al., 1985; Friedewald, ' 1985; Haskell, 1984;
Hickey et al., 1975; Horne, 1975; Kahn, 1963; Leon and
Blackburn, 1977; Montoye, 1969; Morris et al., 1973;
'Morrison et al., 1984; Pate and Blair, 1983; Shephard,
1977; Siscovick et al., 1985).
Research on public and private sector employer-
sponsored worksite physical conditioning programs for
workers has also demonstrated their value for
significantly reducing CHD risks among participants
(Barnard and Anthony, 1980; Bjurstrom and Alexiou, 1978;
Dedmon et al., 1979; Pauly et al., 1982). Other
available research, particularly that conducted in

44
occupational settings, has indicated the value of
physical exercise in hypertension control (Paolone et
al., 1976; Shephard, 1987; Siscovick et al., 1985);
reducing obesity and percent body fat (Cox -et al., 1981;
Paolone et al., 1976; Shephard, 1987); increasing aerobic
power (Cox et al., 1981; Massie and Shephard, 1971);
promoting greater muscular strength and flexibility (Cox
et al., 1981; Falls et al., 1980; Rhodes and Dunwoody,
1980); and in the prevention and control of lower back
problems (Pollock et al., 1978), diabetes, and
osteoporosis (Shephard, 1987; Siscovick et al., 1985).
The value of physical exercise in mediating the negative
effects of the natural human aging process has also been
recognized , (Ostrow, 1984; Shephard, 1987). A lower
incidence of cancer and mortality in general has also
been associated with exercise and physical fitness (Blair
et al., 1989; Ekelund et al., 1988; Kohl et al., 1988;
Severson et al., 1989; Slattery et al., 1989; Vena et
al., 1985).
Physical Fitness and Psychological Outcomes
A relationship is believed to exist between
physical fitness and certain psychological variables.
Many individuals who participate in physical fitness
activities report that they "feel better" and experience
other psychological benefits, lending credence to the

45
age-old concept of a healthy mind in a healthy body.
But, as one observer points out, "Never have so many said
so much with so little research support" (Lion, 1978, p.
1215). However, a body of literature has continued to
grow in support of subjective observations that an
'individual's participation in strenuous physical activity
also has beneficial psychological effects. Research
suggests that it may provide reduced levels of stress,
anxiety and depression; improved self-concept; and better
mental performance. Also, available research suggests
that physically fit sUQjects exhibit a number of
desirable personality traits. The balance of this
section will briefly address supporting research.
Physical exercise is widely considered to be a
natural and effective antidote for human "stress," a
concept defined by Hans Selye as the "non-specific
response of the body to any demand made upon it" by a
dynamic external environment (Selye, 1974, p. 14).
Although the existence of stress is an accepted part of
life, recent surveys indicate that 32 percent of
Americans report being under a great deal of stress at
least several days a week, with women and those
individuals in the 40 to 49 years old age group
experiencing the greatest stress (Rodale et al., 1988).
stress reactions, in response to ever increasing
environmental demands placed on human adaptability by

46
contemporary society, have both physiological and
psychological dimensions. Physiologically, these
reactions take the form of increases in blood pressure,
sweating, faster heart and breathing rates, and greater
blood flow to the muscles. Often referred to as the
"fight-or-flight" response, stress is usually associated
with increased human performance, but only up to a point.
By contributing to high blood pressure, a heart attack,
or stroke, stress can also have deleterious effects on
the individual who cannot respond appropriately, that is,
by fighting, running, or coping in some way (Benson and
Allen, 1980).
stress has also been often associated with "Type
A" behavioral patterns, which is described as an
overt behavioral syndrome or life style .

characterized by extremes of competitiveness,
striving for achievement, agressiveness [sic]
. . . haste, impatience, restlessness, hyper-
alertness, explosiveness of speech, tensenes~ of
facial musculature, and feelings of being under the
pressure of time and under the challenge of
responsibility (Pollock et al., 1978, p. 4).
Type A behavior, in turn, has been closely linked to high
CHD risk (Pollock et al., 1978).
Physical exercise is widely considered as one
proven method for countering the harmful effects of
stress. Since the physiological adjustments accompanying
the fight-or-flight response prepare the individual for
physical activity, it is believed that engaging in

47
exercise can "burn off" the response's negative
physiological effects by permitting the individual to
react "in the manner nature intended" (Benson and Allen,
1980, p. 87). Research supports the theory that repeated
physical exercise serves to "condition" the individual's
stress adaptation mechanism through the increased
sensitization and better adjustment capabilities of the
adrenal glands and autonomic nervous system (Falls et
al., 1980; Felts and Vaccaro, 1988; Holmes and Roth,
1988; Keller and Seraganian, 1984; Michael; 1957;
Shephard, 1986a; Shephard, 1986b; Sinyor et al., 1983).
Several studies have also suggested the value of exercise
in reducing the symptoms of coronary-prone Type A
behavior, such as anger and frustration (Taylor et a1.,
1985).
Physical exercise 15 also believed to alleviate
anxiety and depression, which have been characterized as
"two undesirable psychological states which have reached
pandemic proportions" and now affect much of the
population (Pollock et al., 1978, p. 3). A number of
researchers have reported that physical activity reduces
levels of anxiety (Baun et al., 1987; Felts and Vaccaro,
1988; Douglas, 1976; Labbe et al., 1988; Ledwidge, 1980;
Lion, 1978; Morgan and Horstman, 1976; Shephard, 1983;
Sime, 1984) and depression (Baun et al., 1987; Folkins,
1976; Jasnoski, 1988; Labbe et al., 1988; Ledwidge, 1980;

48
Morgan et al., 1970; Pollock et al., 1978; Shephard,
1983; Sime, 1984; Taylor et al., 1985).
Available research also suggests a positive
relationship between perceived or real physical fitness
and self-concept (Collingwood and Willett, 1971; Falls et
al., 1980; Heaps, 1978; Henderson, 1974; Hughes, 1984;
King et al., 1989; MacMahon and Gross, 1988; White,
1973). According to some researchers, "physical fitness
determined on the basis of perceived or actual physical
performance, seems an important aspect of the construct
of self-concept" (Leonardson, 1977, p. 62).
Less research has been conducted on the effects
of exercise, both beneficial and deleterious, on mental
functioning. However, existing research suggests that
regular exercise improves cognitive functioning (Lichtman
and Poser, 1983; Ohlsson et al., 1975; Powell, 1975;
Sjoberg et al., 1975) and enhances learning processes and
intellectual development, perhaps through the
acceleration of psychomotor development (Shephard, 1983;
Shephard, 1986a). More recent research on physical
exercise and mental functioning has found a consistently
positive relationship between running, one of the most
popular forms of exercise, and enhanced creativity
(Hinkle and Tuckman, 1988).
Other research has examined the personality
traits of individuals as it related to their level of

49
physical conditioning. Researchers have reported that
physically fit individuals tend to be "more
intellectually inclined, emotionally stable, composed,
self-confident, easygoing, relaxed, less ambitious, and
unconventional" (Young and Ismail, 1976a, p. 513) than
those that are less fit (Rhodes and Dunwoody, 1980; Young
and Ismail, 1977) and that they are "significantly more
intelligent, imaginative, reserved, self-sufficient,
sober, shy, and forthright than the general population"
(Hartung and Farge, 1977, p. 541).1 Individuals
exhibiting higher levels of physical fitness have also
been found to be "self-confident, psychologically
resilient, self-disciplined, and competitive" (Hogan,
1989, p. 287).
A critical review of the literature that attempts
to relate physical fitness training to improvements on
psychological variables found that although available
research suggests improvements in mood, self-concept, and
work behavior, the empirical support for its effects on
cognitive functioning are less clear (Folkins and Slme,
1981). More importantly, the authors observed that
studies of physical fitness effects on psychological
health are, in general, poorly designed. They also
concluded that there are other significant methodological
concerns, aside from design problems, which would need to
be addressed by future researchers in this area. 2 Other

50
reviews of the literature on the psychological effects of
physical exercise have also confirmed the prevalence of
methodological weaknesses in research on the
psychological benefits of physical fitness training and
exercise participation (Hughes, 1984; Taylor et al.,
1985).3 Several observers also note that exercise
participation may actually have negative psychological
effects, such as addiction to exercise and its
corresponding decrease in job and marriage involvement
(Baun et al., 1987; Hughes, 1984; Taylor et al., 1985).
However, additional research needs to be conducted. in
this area.
Employee Physical Fitness and Organizational Outcomes
It has long been known that by attending to the
psychological needs of workers, organizations can reap
benefits in the form of greater job satisfaction,
increased morale, and less turnover among their
employees.
More recently, the importance of the
physiological well-being of workers as a component of
organizational vitality has been recognized. The outcome
of studies conducted during the last several decades
indicate that an increase in the physical fitness level
of workers bring a number of organizational benefits.
For example, although research findings on the effects of

51
employee physical fitness level on work productivity and
performance are inconclusive, they suggest the existence
of a positive relationship (Bernacki and Baun, 1984;
Blair et al., 1980; Donoghue, 1977; Driver and Ratliff,
1982; Edwards and Gettman, 1980; Frew and Bruning, 1987;
Haskell and Blair, 1982; Howard and Mikalachki, 1979;
aden et al., 1989; Shephard, 1986b; Shephard et al.,
1980a; Stallings et al., 1975). Similarly, research on
the ability of employee physical fitness to reduce
absenteeism (Baun et al., 1986; Bonilla, 1989; Cox et
al., 1981; Donoghue, 1977; . Hoffman and Hobson, 1984;
Shephard 1986a; Shephard 1986b; Song et al., 1982;
Timmons and Middleton, 1986); lower employee health and
medical costs (Baun et al., 1986; Bly et al., 1986;
Herzlinger and Calkins, 1986; Shephard, 1983; Shephard et
al., 1982; Wright, 1982) and reduce the incidence of on-
the-job accidents and injuries (Barnard and Anthony,
1980; Driver and Ratliff, 1982; Shephard, 1986a; Shephard
1986b) has also been inconclusive, but suggests the
existence of positive relationships.
In recent years, organizations have sought to
integrate the psychological and physiological
perspectives of the worker through the development of
worksite health promotion or wellness programs which
emphasize the importance of individual responsibility for
personal fitness. The experience of American business

52
continues to suggest that there are significant benefits
to be realized by the sponsorship of worksite physical
fitness facilities as an integral component. of employee
health promotion and wellness programs.
The balance of this chapter will survey the
literature available on the relationship between level of
employee physical fitness, worksite physical fitness
facilities, and psychosocial variables of continuing
interest to organizations and which are the principal
focus of this study: employee job stress, job
satisfaction, organizational commitment, and attitudes
relating to a worker's intent to stay or quit. This
discussion will also address the effects of other
variables on these job-related attitudes and behaviors. 4
Job stress
An individual's level of overall personal stress
may be a byproduct of his job. Although no common
definition or conceptualization of job or work-related
stress is available (Schuler, 1980), Newman and Beehr
(1979), after a comprehensive review of related research,
have defined it as "a situation wherein job related
factors interact with the worker to change (i.e., disrupt
or enhance) his or her psychological and/or physiological
condition such that the person (i.e., mind-body) is
forced to deviate from normal functioning" (p. 1).

53
Specific sources of work-related stress may
include organizational structure, organizational change,
leader behavior, role conflict and ambiguity, work
overload, lack of autonomy, working conditions, and
inadequate group support (Hopper, 1988; Ivancevich and
Matteson, 1980; Ivancevich et al., 1983; Kahn, 1987; Katz
and Kahn, 1978; Quick and Quick, 1984; Quick et al.,
1985; Schuler, 1980; Schwartz, 1982). Research also
suggests that the organizational "environment,
particularly the frustrations and deprivations associated
with bureaucracy and the lack of power, activates ~he
defenses against anger and rage that in turn lead to
[stress] symptom formation" (Zaleznik et al., 1977, p.
151) .
Kets de Vries (1979) observes that chronic
disease due to job-related stress has dire consequences
for the organization, including "work below capacity,
inefficiencies on the job, output problems, excessive
absenteeism, morale problems . . . labor unrest • . . .
[and the] premature death of highly trained executives"
(p. 4). Others also acknowledge the prevalence of stress
in the workplace and its negative effects on the
organization, such as a higher rate of accidents;
increased theft, sabotage, and vandalism; higher costs
for property, medical, and casualty insurance; more
grievances; greater job dissatisfaction; and an overall

54
decrease in organizational effectiveness (Benner, 1984;
Fraser, 1983; Ivancevich and Matteson, 1980; Ivancevich
et al., 1983; Voluck and Abramson, 1987; Wolf and
Finestone, 1986; Zaccaro and Riley, 1987). In addition,
stress-related disability compensation claims, filed by
workers in response to psychological job pressures, have
shown a steady increase in the last decade and now
account for 14 percent of all occupational disease claims
(West and West, 1989). Observers note that the courts
have given stress-related claims a sympathetic ear and
that employees can win them even in the absence ·o f
physical symptoms (Adams, 1987; Voluck and Abramson,
1987). Quick and others (1985) identify the indirect
costs of job stress to the organization as the "loss of
vltality, communication breakdowns, faulty decision
making, decline in the quality of work relations, and
opportunity costs associated with sluggish responses to
changing business environments" (p. 132). Estimates of
the total cost of stress range from $75 to $150 billion a
year (Nykodym and George, 1989; West and West, 1989).
A number of personal and organizational
strategies are available for responding to job stress
(Hopper, 1988; Ivancevich et al., 1983; Kahn, 1987; Kets
de Vries, 1979; Newman and Beehr, 1979; Nykodym and
George, 1989; West and West, 1989). Personal approaches
to stress management include meditation, biofeedback,

55
exercise, counseling; and use of prescription drugs
(Davis, 1981; Ivancevich and Matteson, 1980; Quick and
Quick, 1984; Zaccaro and Riley, 1987). Organizational
approaches for managing stress include job redesign or
enrichment, altered reward systems, changing workflows
and schedules, the provision of career counselin~,
modification of organizational structures and climates,
improvements in physical environment, and the
establishment of worksite physical fitness facilities
(Alexander, 1988; Baun et a1., 1987; Hopper, 1988;
Ivancevich and Matteson, 1980; Quick and Quick, 1984;
Quick et al., 1985).
As noted earlier, physical exercise is considered
to be a natural and effective method for the reduction of
stress. Worksite physical fitness facilities are
considered to be of value in reducing employee job stress
by providing an opportunity for physical exercise.
Shephard (198Gb) suggests that employee participation in
worksite fitness programs may reduce job stress through
both
direct and indirect mechanisms, including a

matching of physical stamina to task demands, the
relief of boredom, provision of an outlet for the
tensions associated with an excessive mental
load, and an improvement of attitudes towards the
company (p. 58).
It has also been suggested that "just the escape
from routine job-related tasks to exercise alone or in a

56
social setting . . . may provide a natural and socially
acceptable release from stress or tension" (Haskell and
Blair, 1962, p. 255). Although some research suggests
the value of worksite fitness facilities in reducing job
stress among workers (Rhodes and Dunwoody, 1960), there
is still relatively little empirical evidence to support
this common view.
Job Satisfaction
Observers have noted how the large number of
books and articles that have appeared on the subj~ct of
job satisfaction since the 1930s demonstrate a broad
professional interest in this topic (Gruneberg, 1976;
Grurieberg, 1979; Hopkins, 1983; Locke, 1969; Locke, 1970;
Hottaz, 1965; Hottaz, 1967). The size of the research
literature also suggests the complexity of this worker
attitude as well as the relative ease in collecting data
on job satisfaction through the use of standardized
surveys. In addition, an understanding of factors
affecting job satisfaction is of value in improving the
general well-being of most people, who spend a large part
of their daily lives in the workplace (Gruneberg, 1979) ..
Perhaps more importantly, job satisfaction has been found
to be consistently related to certain important worker
behaviors, including absenteeism, turnover, and worker

57
productivity, which have a corresponding effect on
organizational effectiveness (Mottaz, 1987; Rambo, 1982).
Although a clear consensus on the meaning of the
term "job satisfaction" does not exist, a number of
different conceptual and operational definitions have
been developed by researchers in the field (Wanous and
Lawler, 1972). Locke (1969) offers one of the more
commonly referenced definitions, characterizing it as
"the pleasurable emotional state resulting from the
appraisal of one's job as achieving or facilitating the
achievement of one's job values" (p. 316). Similarly,
Hottaz defines it as "a positive affective response
resulting from an evaluation of the total work situation
(1987, p. 541) • . • . [It exists 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" (1985, p. 366).
There is some disagreement among researchers as
to what workers base their evaluation of job satisfaction
on, although it "is generally considered to be a function
of work-related rewards and values" (Mottaz, 1987, p.
542). Four general theoretical approaches to the concept
of job satisfaction have been observed in the literature
(Rambo, 1982). The first, represented by the work of
Vroom (1964), refers to the worker's evaluation of job

58
satisfaction being based on their reaction to job
experiences that have already taken place as well as
their expectations of events that have not yet occurred.
This theory of job satisfaction may be found in his
expectancy/valence theory. According to Vroom,
"expectancy" relates to a worker's assessment of the
probability of attaining a desired outcome and "valence"
relates to an worker's values (Lutrin and Settle, 1976;
Steers and Porter, 1975). With respect to job
satisfaction, valence relates to the nature of rewards
and punishments that could be applied to them at work.
Therefore, employees
who are satisfied with their jobs are those who,

when they think of the job, tend to anticipate
outcomes which produce positive emotions. They
think of the job as having good potential for
making them feel good. Workers who are
dissatisfied with the job are those who
anticipate negative outcomes from their work.
When these workers consider the future, they
anticipate outcomes that will make them feel bad
(Rambo, 1982).
The second approach, represented by the works of
Maslow, Herzberg, and Porter, defines job satisfaction in
terms of need satisfaction, i.e., the extent to which the
job has fulfilled the psychological needs of the
individual worker (Gruneberg, 1976; Gruneberg, 1979;
Herzberg, 1966; Hopkins, 1983; steers and Porter, 1975).
According to Maslow's need hierarchy theory,
individuals act to satisfy an ascending hierarchy of

59
human needs. The satisfaction of basic physiological and
material needs (food, water, shelter, and sex) are found
at the base of the hierarchy. Needs for personal safety
and minimum job security are next in the ascending
hierarchy, followed by social needs (group acceptance and
beneficial interpersonal relationships) and then certain
psychological needs, such as ego satisfaction and
independence. "Self-actualization," feelings of personal
fulfillment from using one's creative abilities and
independence to the greatest degree possible, is located
at the top of Maslow's hierarchy (Lutrin and Settle,
1976).
Herzberg's motivation-hygiene theory, also
referred to as the two-factor theory of motivation, is
based on the assumption that factors related to job
satisfaction, such as the task itself, achievement
recognition, or status, are different from those related
to job dissatisfaction, such as organizational rules and
policies, peer relations, salary, and physical working
conditions. Research conducted by Herzberg also found
that the intangible aspects of jobs, such as recognition,
opportunities for initiative and creativity, were greater
contributors to job satisfaction than tangible job
features, such as salary and fringe benefits (Gordon,
1982).
60
Porter contends that job satisfaction will exist
when there' is little or no discrepancy between certain
need fulfilling conditions employees expect and those
they actually experience in a job. Job dissatisfaction
increases when the discrepancy between what the employee
believes should be and what actually is widens.
Therefore, Porter defines job satisfaction in terms of
the employee's "perception of deficiencies in need
fulfillment that exist in the job environment" (Rambo,
1982, p. 209).
The third approach, advanced by Locke (1969),
dlstinguishes between need fulfillment and value
attainment of the worker. According to Locke, an
evaluation of job satisfaction is based on the extent to
which a job yields things that are valued by the
employee. He states that "job satisfaction and
dissatisfaction are a function of the perceived
relationship between what one wants from one's job and
what one perceives it as offering or entailing" (p. 316),
with the lower the discrepancy between wants and
outcomes, the greater the level of job satisfaction
reported.
The fourth approach to the concept of job
satisfaction defines it in terms of the extent to which
employees perceive their jobs as providing a distribution
of outcomes that are seen as equitable. In other words,

61
the degree of equity or inequity (the ratio of what an
individual puts into a job, such as effort, relative to
what they receive, such as pay, when compared to relevant
others) is considered a major determinant of job
satisfaction (Adams, 1975; steers and Porter, 1975).
Most of the research on job satisfaction has
focused on identification of its antecedents or
determinants, that is, those variables that influence it.
Based on the results of prior research, these
determinants of work attitudes may be classified into
three principal groups: characteristics of the
individual, i.e., personal demographics; the nature of
task or job itself, i.e., intrinsic rewards; and the work
sett'ing, Le., extrinsic rewards (Mottaz, 1987).
The demographic characteristics of workers, such
as age, gender, race, and level of education, have often
been studied to determine what effect, if any, they may
have on job satisfaction. In general, the outcome of
research on how individual demographic differences are
associated with job satisfaction has been inconsistent
(Gruneberg, 1976; Gruneberg, 1979; Hopkins, 1983; Nash,
1985; Rambo, 1982; Yavaprabhas, 1984). However, some
trends in research findings are evident. For example,
available research suggests the existence of a positive
relationship between age and job satisfaction. That is,
the older the worker, the higher the level of job

62
satisfaction (Gruneberg, 1979; Hopkins, 1983; Nash, 1985;
Rambo, 1982; Rhodes, 1983; Saleh and Otis, 1976). Other
studies have shown a significant association between race
and job satisfaction, with black workers often reporting
lower levels of work satisfaction when compared to white
employees (Gruneberg, 1979; Hopkins, 1983; Rambo, 1982).
Existing research also indicates that there may be very
little or no effect of certain person~l characteristics
on job satisfaction. For example, although several
studies show a significant association between gender and
job satisfaction, with males usually more satisfied than
females (Gruneberg, 1979; Hulin and Smith, 1976), other
research has demonstrated that females experience more
job satisfaction (Hopkins, 1983; Summers and DeCotiis,
1988) or that no significant differences between the
sexes with respect to this work attitude exist
(Gruneberg, 1979; Mottaz, 1986; Nash, 1985; Rambo, 1982;
Summers and DeCotiis, 1988). Similarly, altho~gh a
number of studies report a relationship between level of
education and job satisfaction (Klein and Maher, 1976),
associations have been reported to be both positive and
negative (Gruneberg, 1979; Rambo, 1982; Hopkins, 1983;
Nash,1985).
The job-related personal characteristics of
occupational level, job status, and job and

63
organizational tenure, have also been studied to
determine their effect, if any, on job satisfaction.
In terms of occupational level and job status,
overall job satisfaction has been reported to .be greater
among those higher in the organizational structure, such
as managers, and those higher in social status, such as
those in professional jobs (Hopkins, 1983; Rambo, 1982).
Job tenure has also been positively associated with job
satisfaction, that is, satisfaction increases with tenure
(Gruneberg, 1979; Hopkins, 1983; Nash, 1985; Rambo,
1982).
However, research on the relationship between the
job characteristics of workers and job satisfaction
continue to have inconclusive results. For example, a
meta-analysis of research on six demographic and job-
related characteristics (age, race, gender, education,
job tenure, and organizational tenure) from 21 stUdies on
job satisfaction found that, except for age and
organizational tenure, associations did not differ
significantly from zero, although strength and patterns
of association did differ by organization type (Brush et
al.,1987).
Intrinsic work rewards, such as task autonomy,
i.e., the degree of self-direction in task performance;
task involvement, i.e., whether work is interesting or
rewarding; task significance, i.e., if the task is

64
perceived as significant or a meaningful contribution to
the work process; and the challe'nging nature of the job,
are considered to be ' strong determinants of work
attitudes, particularly job satisfaction (Gruneberg,
1979; Mottaz, 1987).
Research has indicated that extrinsic work
rewards, such as pay, general working conditions, fringe
benefits, promotional opportunities, and relations with
supervisors and co-workers, are also important
determinants of job satisfaction, but to a lesser degree
than intrinsic rewards (Gruneberg, 1979; Mottaz, 1985;
Mottaz, 1987). Other job context factors, such as
organizational climate, structure, and size, may also
influence the degree of job satisfaction (Gruneberg,
1979; Kovach, 1977).
Job satisfaction, when treated as an independent
variable, has also been associated with the presence or
absence of other important worker , attitudes, such as
organizational commitment (Bateman and strasser, 1984;
Hopkins, 1983; Mottaz, 1987); absenteeism (Gruneberg,
1979; Metzner and Mann, 1976); turnover (Carsten and
Spector, 1987; Farrell and Rusbult, 1981; Gruneberg,
1979; Hulin, 1976); performance (Greene, 1975; Lawler and
Porter, 1976; Porter and Lawler, 1968; Schwab and
Cummings, 1973; Shore and Martin, 1989); productivity
(Katzell and Yankelovich, 1975); physical and mental

6S
health (Gruneberg, 1979); and life satisfaction (Steiner
and Truxillo, 1989).
The nature of job satisfaction, specifically as
it relates to public sector employees, has also been
examined in the literature, although to a much lesser
extent. According to Yavaprabhas (1984) existing
research has "dealt mostly with documenting the
differences in job satisfa~tion across various categories
of public employees rather than explaining why it occurs"
(p. 32). Recent research on job satisfaction among
public employees has taken a number of different '
approaches, including studies of municipal employees
(Arminana, '1985), State government employees (Hopkins,
1983), a comparison of State government professionals and
blue-collar workers (Cherniss and Kane, 1987), entry-
level employees (Koch and steers, 1978), and Federal
Government employees (Yavaprabhas, 1984).
In terms of job satisfaction among Federal
Government employees, a 1986 survey conducted by the u.s.
Mer.it Systems Protection Board (1987) found that a large
majority of workers have positive attitudes toward their
jobs. This was considered partly attributable to ' the
quality of supervision, the good use made of their skills
and abilities, and the presence of meaningful work.
However, survey respondents also indicated that they
believed that they were paid less than their non-Federal

66
counterparts, with the higher the respondent's pay grade
level, the less likely they were to consider salary as a
reason to continue employment with the Federal
Government.
It is widely believed that a positive
relationship exists between employee levels of physical
fitness and job satisfaction and morale, althou9h limited
research is available to support this belief. Some
contend that greater job satisfaction is the result of a
more enhanced self-concept, that is, "people who feel
better about themselves , will usually have a greater
amount of satisfaction with the work they do" (Hoffman
and Hobson, 1984, p. 107). However, since the
relationship between self-concept and job satisfaction is
not addressed in the research literature, the linkage
between fitness training and job satisfaction, if it
exists, must be considered a tenuous one.
It is also presumed that a greater level of job
satisfaction has a corresponding favorable effect on
organizational productivity (Katzell and Yankelovich,
1975). However, as one observer notes, "the question
remains as to whether an increase of worker satisfaction
could improve industrial performance" (Shephard, 1986a,
p. 92).
A Canadian study of a worksite physical fitness
program measured job satisfaction, morale, and general

67
perceptions of work among employees. The study found
that 47 percent of the worksite exercise progr~m
participants reported greater alertness, improved
relations with co-workers and supervisors, and found
their work less routine and more enjoyable since
beginning the fitness program. The remaining exercisers
reported no change in the same attitudinal measures.
However, no significant differences were found in job
satisfaction between exercisers and a nonexercising
control group. Significant differences in job
satisfaction also were not found between pre- and post-
tests for exercise program participants. Researchers
concluded that the finding of no significant change for
the experimental group might be due to a weakness of the
measuring instrument (Cox et aL, 1981).
Another study found that participants in a
company-sponsored fitness program experienced a 50
percent increase in job satisfaction after 6 months in
the program while the nonexercising control group had a
14 percent increase during the same period (Frew and
Bruning, 1987). Results for a similar study showed a
positive relationship between an employee fitness program
and job satisfaction, but statistical significance was
not found (Oden et al., 1989).
The existence of employer-provided worksite
physical fitness facilities, considered a fringe benefit

68
of employment and, therefore, an extrinsic work reward,
has not been identified in the research literature as a
significant factor affecting job satisfaction. However,
the literature does not take into account the fact that
personal physical fitness has become a greater value
among the general public in the last few decades. Taking
into consideration the theory that worker job
satisfaction is based on need fulfillment consistent with
personal values (Locke, 1969), the availability of
physical fitness facilities may be important as a factor
antecedent to job satisfaction for those individuals who
more highly value the development and maintenance of a
greater level of personal physical fitness.
Organizational Commitment
Organizational commitment is another work-related
attitude often studied by researchers. The demonstrated
interest in the concept of organizational commitment may
be attributed to several reasons, including: it
increases our understanding of how individuals identify
with certain aspects of their .e nvironment; it has been
found to be a relatively reliable indicator of certain
important employee behaviors, such as turnover and
absenteeism; and its enhancement has long been a concern
to managers and researchers (Mowday et al., 1982; Welsch
and LaVan, 1981).

69
Like the concept of job satisfaction, there is
little consensus on the meaning of the term, with the
existence of a number of different conceptual and
operational definitions for organizational commitment
(Angle and Perry, 1981; Becker, 1960; Buchanan, 1974;
Hrebiniak and Alutto, 1972; Marsh and Mannari, 1977;
Meyer et al., 1989; Mottaz, 1987; Mowday et al., 1979;
Mowday et al., 1982; Penley and Gould, 1988; Porter et
al., 1974; Reichers, 1985; Salancik, 1977; Shoemaker et
al., 1977; steers, 1977).
Mowday, Steer~, and Porter (1979) have developed
one of the most popular definitions for organizational
commitment. They define it as
the relative strength o£ an individual's

identification with and involvement in a
particular organization. It can be characterized
by at least three related factors: (1) a strong
belief in and acceptance of the organization's
goals and values; (2) a willingness to exert
considerable effort on behalf of the
organization; and (3) a strong desire to maintain
membership in the organization (p. 226).
According to the Mowday, steers, and Porter,
organizational commitment is not just passive loyalty, it
is an active relationship where individuals are willing
to make personal contributions to promote their
organization's well being. Therefore, commitment may "be
inferred not only from the expressions of an individual's
beliefs and opinions but also from his or her actions"
(Mowday et al., 1979, p. 226).

70
The concept of organizational commitment is
distinguished from the related concept of job
satisfaction in that the former is , viewed as a more
global construct, emphasizing an employee's attachment to
the employing organization as a whole, including its
goals and values. However, job satisfaction is
considered a reflection of an individual's response to
their specific task environment, i.e., their job or
certain aspects of their job. Organizational commitment
is also considered to be a more stable attitude over time
than job satisfaction (Mowday et al., 1979).
Since all workers do not develop' attachments to
their employing organizations that are equally strong,
discovering the antecedents of organizational commitment
has been an important research topic. Angle and Perry
(1983) posit the existence of two general types of models
for antecedents of organizational commitment: the
member-based model and the organization-based model.
Member-based models consider the locus of
commitment to reside in the attributes and actions of the
individual. That is, certain "foregone events have
certain cost or forfeiture implications for the present
and have therefore placed restraints on the person's
options" (Angle and Perry, 1983, p. 125). Howard
Becker's (1960) theory of side-bets is considered to be
representative of this approach. This theory suggests

71
that an individual places side-bets, i.e., makes
investments in his organization or occupational field, by
staking something valued in it. Therefore,
organizational or occupational commitment increases with
the number of side-bets at stake. Commitment is then
considered
primarily a matter of accrued investments. While

partly a function of personal choice, such
incremental investments are mostly a result of
passing through organizational and career
structures. Implicit is the idea that as
investments or side-bets increase over time the
attractiveness of other organizations or
occupations tends to decline (Alutto et al.,
1973, p. 448).
A number of personal characteristics are
considered to be important variables in the member-based
model, many of which qualify as side-bet investments.
These include age, sex, marital status, educational
level, organizational tenure, years of total experience,
and others.
The organization-based model is based on the
concept of commitment as a function of how the employee
has been treated by the organization. In other words, in
a reciprocal arrangement based on a "psychological
contract", the individual "brings need (sic) and goals to
an organization and agrees to supply her or his skills
and energies in exchange for organizational resources
capable of satisfying those needs and goals" (Angle and
Perry, 1983, p. 127).5

72
P~io~ ~esea~ch has indicated the existence of a

relationship between a numbe~ of pe~sonal cha~acteristics
and organizational commitment. Fo~ example, it has been
positively related to age (Alutto et al., 1973; Angle and
Pe~ry, 1981; Angle and Pe~~y, 1983; Hanlon, 1986;
Hrebiniak and Alutto, 1972; Mowday, et al., 1982;
Shoemaker et al., 1977; Steers, 1977; Welsch and LaVan,
1981); o~ganizationa1 tenure (Angle and Perry, 1983;
Buchanan, 1974; Mowday et al., 1982); and yea~s of
experience (Alutto et al., 1973; Hrebiniak and A1utto,
1972). Organizational commitment has also been found to
have positive and negative associations with education
(Angle and Pe~ry, 1981; Angle and Perry, 1983; Bateman
and strasser, 1984; Mottaz, 1987; Steers, 1977; Welsch
and LaVan, 1981), sex (Alutto et al., 1973; Angle and
Perry, 1981; Angle and Pe~ry, 1983; Hrebiniak and Alutto,
1972), and marital status (Alutto et al., 1973).
However, as DeCotiis and Summers (1987) suggest, the
~esults of this ~esearch has been "consistently
unimpressive" (p. 449). Instead, research on
o~ganizational commitment has demonst~ated g~eater
support for theo~ganization-based model (Angle and
Perry, 1983; Bateman and Strasse~, 1984; Buchanan, 1974;

Eisenberger et a1., 1990; Mottaz, 1987). This is
consistent with Stee~s' (1977) obse~vation that people
come to o~ganizations with ce~tain needs,

desi~es, skills, and so forth, and expect to find
73
a work environment where they can utilize their

abilities and satisfy many of their basic needs.
When the organization provides such a vehicle
(for example, where it makes effective use of its
employees, is dependable, and so forth), the
likelihood of increasing commitment is apparently
enhanced (p. 53).
Organizational commitment has also been examined
as an independent variable with possible causal
relationships with a number of other variables of
interest to the organization, including job satisfaction
(Bateman and strasser, 1984; Lee, 1971; Mottaz, 1987);
productivity and performance (Lee, 1971; Meyer et al.,
1989; Mowday et al., 1979; steers, 1977); organizational
effectiveness (Angle and Perry, 1981); intent to quit
(Shore and Martin, 1989; steers, 1977); and turnover
(Angle and Perry, 1981; Blau and Boal, 1989; OeCotiis and
Summers, 1987; Lee, 1971; Porter et al., 1974; Porter et
al., 1976; Mowday et al., 1979; Peters et al., 1981;
steers, 1977; Williams and Hazer, 1986). In most cases,
research supports the existence of a positive
relationship between organizational commitment and other
employee psychosocial variables, but empirical work on
the specific nature of these relationships is lacking.
The existence of employer-provided worksite
physical fitness facilities may have a beneficial effect
on organizational commitment because the organization has
demonstrated an obvious interest in the health and
welfare of its employees. As part of the reciprocal or

74
exchange relationship suggested by the organization-based
model of organizational commitment, many employees,
especially those that value physical fitness as a
personal need and/or an individual goal, may become more
committed to their employing organization. As Falkenberg
(1987) observes:
One factor which has been identified as

influencing commitment is the extent to which an
organization is seen as dependable in carrying
out its commitment to employees. It is more
likely that an organization will be perceived as
concerned about employees' welfare if the
organization supports an identifiable activity
that is related more directly to employee goals
rather than company goals . . . • given the rising
participation in physical activity, employee
exercise programs address the personal needs of
many employees. Thus by supporting an employee
fitness program, a company can demonstrate
concern for employees' health and nonwork needs
(p. 516).
Also, although not addressed in the literature of
organizational commitment, workers that demonstrate the
ability to adhere to a physically demanding exercise
program may be more likely to exhibit other strong
commitment behavior, such as greater than average loyalty
to their job and employer. Additionally, an improvement
in a worker's level of physical fitness may somehow
increase his capacity for or willingness to making
organizational commitments. Additional research would be
necessary to support the existence of relationships based
on these observations.
75
Intent to stay o~ Quit
An employee's "intent to quit" is a j ob.-~elated
attitude defined as a "wo~ker's intentions, desi~es, and
plans to quit their job" (Williams and Hazer, 1986, p.
222). An employee's intent to quit is considered "a
c~itical variable in the process leading to voluntary
staying or leaving behavior . . . (and an] immediate
p~ecursor of staying or leaving behavior" (Bluedorn,
1982a, p. 78). Therefore, it is an attitude directly
related to the more important job-related behavior of
voluntary organizational separation and turnover.
Research has consistently supported a strong relationship
between intent to stay o~ quit attitudes and turnover
behavior (Bannister and Griffeth, 1986; Bluedorn, 1982a;
Dalessio et al., 1986; Kraut, 1975; Mobley, 1982). In
light of its effect on organizational turnover, studies
of employee intent to stay or quit attitudes alone have
been a subject of interest to researchers.
Mobley (1982) defines the concept of "employee
turnover" as "the cessation of membership in an

,
organization by an individual who received monetary
compensation from the o~ganization" (p. 10): It has also
been characterized as "the degree of movement across the
membership boundary of a social system." The latter
definition emphasizes the concept's dynamic nature and,

76
by including the acts of entering the organization as
well as leaving it, provides a broader perspective of the
turnover process (Bluedorn, 1982a, p. 78).
A large body of literature already exists on the
study of turnover as an important employee behavior
(B1uedorn, 1982a). Although turnover is believed to
provide certain welcome organizational benefits, the
interest demonstrated in this topic is principally due to
the recognition that it can also present serious negative
organizational consequences. 6 According to Mobley
(1982), these may include significant costs "in terms of
lost recruitment, training, socialization investments,
disruption and replacement costs, and a variety of
indirect costs" (p. v), such as "the loss of efficiency
on the part of the leaver prior to separation, and [the]
cost of having a position vacant during the search for a
replacement" (p. 20). The costs associated with turnover
have also been recognized by others (Bannister and
Griffeth, 1986; Mobley, 1982; Mowday et al., 1982;
Roseman, 1981). The actual economic value of turnover is
often dependent on labor availability and training costs.
For example, high turnover may have less of an impact on
organizations that are characterized by assembly-line
production than those with a high replacement cost for
senior managers. It can also cause greater absenteeism
and have major consequences for organizational

77
effectiveness and performance (Bluedorn, 1982a). In
addition, the personal and societal consequences of
turnover have been acknowledged (Bluedorn, 1982a; Mobley,
1982; Mowday et al., 1982).
Like job satisfaction and organizational
commitment, much of the available literature on turnover
has focused on its antecedents. Research has supported
the existence of a causal relationship between a number
of variables and organizational turnover. The
demographic variables of age and organizational tenure
have been consistently found to have a negative
association with turnover, with other personal
characteristics usually having a weaker effect, if any
influence at all (Bannister and Griffeth, 1986; Bluedorn,
1982b; Mobley et al., 1979; Porter and steers, 1973;
Rhodes, 1983; Williams and Hazer, 1986). Job
satisfaction and organizational commitment are considered
to have a strong negative relationship with turnover,
with the preponderance of support for the latter variable
as being more important (Bannister and Griffeth, 1986;
Farrell and Rusbult, 1981; Mobley, 1982; Peters et al.,
1981; Porter et al., 1974; Porter et al., 1976; Williams
and Hazer, 1986). Other variables found to be antecedent
of turnover are level of pay and the expectancy of
finding an alternative job (Dansereau et al., 1974;
Michaels and Spector, 1982; Mobley, 1982). A

78
relationship between level of stress and turnover has

also been suggested, but "conceptual and empirical
linkages between . . . [both these variables] have been
inadequately researched" (Mobley, 1982, p. 107). Several
models for the effects of different sets of variables on
turnover are addressed in the literature (Bluedorn,
1982a; Bluedorn, 1982b; Mowday et al., 1982; Williams and
Hazer, 1986).
Several benefits have been cited for the
measurement of an employee's intent to stay or quit over
measurement of an organization's actual rate of employee
turnover. These include the lower cost of research
associated with the collection of statements of employee
intentions to remain with or leave their organization
rather than data on turnover. Also, results may be
obtained much more quickly than having to wait for
turnover to merely occur (Bluedorn, 1982a).
Employee turnover may also be affected by the
existence of employer-sponsored physical fitness
programs. A Canadian study (Cox et al., 1981), which
examined the effects of a "white-collar" employee fitness
program on turnover and other variables of organizational
importance, found that over a ten month period exercisers
showed a turnover rate of only 1.5 percent relat i ve· to a
rate of 15 percent for the company's other employees
during the same period. Researchers calculated it would
79
save the company $510,000 annually, based on elimination
of the costs associated with hiring and training new
personnel, if turnover for the company was reduced to 1.5
percent. A follow-up to this study (Song et al., 1982),
which examined the continued effects of the same employee
fitness program participation on absenteeism and·
turnover, found that both absenteeism and turnover for
the entire company were lower than when the initial study
was conducted the previous year. Initial "high
adherents," i.e., employees who att~nded more than two
sessions of exercise per week, showed no specific
advantage relative to other subjects participating in the
study. However, when researchers reclassified the data
"to indicate persistent high adherence, an advantage of
decreased absenteeism and turnover again became apparent"
(p. 399). Researchers concluded that
If there is indeed a specific benefit from

regular exercise, the nature of the association
remains to be explored. It could arise simply
from the fact that absenteeism makes it more
difficult to attend an average of at least two
exercise class sessions per week. Alternatively,
enjoyment of the physical activity classes may
encourage attendance at the office building.
Finally, there is the possibility that some more
long-lasting effect upon physiology or psychology
improves work performance. To distinguish the
first two possibilities clearly from the third,
it would be necessary to set up an experiment
where an employee fitness programme is compared
with a programme of equal intensity, performed at
home (p. 398).
80
Shephard (198Gb) cites similar findings from
another Canadian study where fitness program participants
had a turnover rate of 3.5 percent relative to a division
average of 10.3 percent. Another study (Tsai et al.,
1987), which also examined the relationship of exercise
adherence in a corporate fitness program to corporate
turnover, found that "the probability of continued
employment among exercisers was significantly greater
than among none~ercisers," with differen~es "particularly
profound among female clerical employees" (p. 572).
Although researchers did not try to identify a c~usal
relationshi~ between variables, they concluded that "the
provision of an exercise program does playa role in
retaining employees" (p. 575) and speculated that its
influence was strongest "in employment groups where the
personal financial benefits are the greatest," such as
clerks, craftsman, laborers, and service workers (p.
572). However, little other empirical evidence exists to
support anecdotal reports of a positive relationship
between employee fitness programs and greater retention
of workers.
The existence of worksite physical fitness
facilities may be a neglected factor in a worker's
calculation to stay or leave his or her organization.
Falkenberg (1987) suggests that the availability of
worksite physical fitness facilities as a fringe benefit

81
may present itself as one more compelling reason for
certain employees to stay:
If there are similar opportunities in other

companies, the differentiating factors in the
decision process will not be the job
characteristics, but the attractiveness of the
working conditions. Individuals who participate
in employee fitness programs may realize there
are similar opportunities, but may be motivated
to stay with their current company because of the
attractiveness of the fitness program/facilities
(p. 516).
The existence of worksite physical fitness
facilities may also qualify as a side-bet consistent with
Becker's (1960) theory of organizational commitment.
That is, individual's who consider their own level of
individual physical fitness as an important personal
value may be less inclined to leave their organization
because of comfort with a work-out routine they have
consistently engaged in through use of certain equipment
or attendance at particular classes (for example,
aerobics) offered at the workplace facility. Therefore,
a worker may decide not to leave their present employer
because the availability of and their participation in
the worksite fitness facility presents itself as a reward
that, when combined with other side-bets, reinforces
behavioral and organizational commitment.
There is also anecdotal evidence that suggests
that companies that sponsor programs of this kind cannot
only better retain current employees, but use it as an

82
enticing fringe benefit to attract and recruit potential
employees, particularly in areas where there is a demand
for fitness facilities (Gelman et al., 1984; Hoffman and
Hobson, 1984; Shephard, 1986b).
Summary
This chapter provided a review of the literature
which examines the effects of personal physical fitness
on physiological and psychological outcomes. The
literature of job stress, job satisfaction,
organizational commitment, and intent to stay or quit was
also reviewed, with the antecedents of these important ·
employee attitudes and behavior discussed.
Employee physical fitness and worker
participation in worksite physical fitness facilities and
programs may also be antecedent to job stress, job
stay or quit attitudes and behavior. The literature
provides a number of anecdotal observations supporting a
positive relationship between higher levels of physical
fitness and lower job stress and higher job satisfaction
among employees. Similarly, this review of the
literature discussed anecdotal observations on the
positive relationship between worksite physical fitness
facilities and the job-related psychosocial variables of
job stress, organizational commitment, and intent to stay

83
with or leave the organization. That is, these
facilities may reduce employee job stress, increase
worker commitment to the employing organization, and
promote the likelihood that they will continue employment
there. However, a review of the relevant literature
reveals an absence of empir ieal resea·rch in these areas.
Therefore, there is insufficient evidence to confirm
these observations.
84
Notes
1. A study of middle-aged male runners by

Hartung and Farge (1977) found that subjects either
possessed or developed "high levels of self-sufficiency
and imagination and tend toward introversion in their
personality makeup." However, researchers concluded that
it was unknown if these characteristics were "a result of
or a causal factor in" their running program (p. 541).
2. According to Folkins and Sime (1981), only

about 15 percent of the studies they reviewed would
qualify as true experiments, with most of these using
clinical populations. Most of the true experiments using
normal populations had been performed with children and
only one of these used a cardiovascular fitness measure.
Nearly one-half of the studies they reviewed employed a
preexperimental design, such as the one-shot case study,
one-group pretest-posttest design, and the static-group
comparison 'design (Campbell and stanley, 1963). They
considered preexperimental designs to be "largely
uninterpretable" (p. 373) due to their failure to control
for extraneous variables which threaten internal validity
by confounding the effects of treatment variables.
Folkins and Sime recommended that futUre research in this
area seek to correct methodological design weaknesses,
standardize the duration and intensity of exercise
programs for study, link research to an existing
theoretical framework of psychological functioning, and
devote more attention to differences between individuals.
3. For example, Hughes (1984) identifies three

different kinds of methodological problems in his review
of research on the psychological effects of exercise:
"poor choices of measures of psychological constructs,
experimenter/subject biases, and inadequate descriptions
of methods" (p. 67).
4. This discussion is necessarily brief compared

to the voluminous literature which exists on job stress,
job satisfaction, organizational commitment, and intent
to stay or quit.
5. Recent studies report a positive relationship

between workers' perception of being valued and cared
about by their organization and "(a) conscientiousness in
carrying out conventional job responsibilities, (b)
expressed affective and calculative involvements in the
organization, and (e) innovation on behalf of the
organization in the absence of anticipated direct reward
85
or personal recognition" (Eisenberger et al., 1990, p.

51).
6. The benefits of organizational turnover

include: the displacement of poor performers or
"problem" employees and their replacement with those
having new knowledge, experience, ideas, and approaches;
cost savings by exchanging higher-priced employees with
lower-priced employees with equivalent capability; and
providing management an opportunity to reevaluate job
content and organizational structures (Mobley, 1982;
Roseman, 1981).
CHAPTER IV
METHODOLOGY
This chapter will present the study's research
hypotheses; discuss the methodological approach used in
the study; provide the rationale for application of the
survey method for the collection of study data; review
pre-test procedures and results; describe the data
collection instruments used; present background
information on the Federal agencies which served as
research populations for the study; and discuss the
procedures used for selection of the sample and
collection of the data.
statement of Resea.r:ch Hypotheses
Research questions raised in Chapters I and III
gave origin to three general hypotheses for examination
and testing in the context of the study. A brief
discussion of the rationale for including each hypothesis
in the study and a statement of each hypothesis is
presented below.
87
Hypothesis 1
It is often pIesumed that individuals that belong
to and use wOIksite physical fitness facilities will
engage in higheI levels of physical activity than
individuals that do not. HoweveI, often employees who
become "membeIs" of such facilities do not actually use
these facilities to the extent that they may have
planned. For example, an employee may join a facility as
a member in JanuaIY of a given year to fulfill a New
YeaI's Iesolution to lose weight and become mOIe
physically fit. The discomfoIt associated with beginning
an exeIcise Iegime then begins to take its toll with the
employee soon losing inteIest in visiting the facility
and paIticipating in Iegular physical activity.
ConveIsely, an employee may select not to become a membeI
of theiI oIganization's wOIksite physical fitness
facility but Iegularly paIticipates in exercise at home
OI at a pIivate exeIcise facility. A Ieview of the
liteIatuIe suggests that employees that belong to
wOIksite fitness facilities engage in higheI levels of
physical activity than those that do not. However, none
of the existing IeseaIch specifically tests this
assumption. TheIefoIe, fUItheI confirmation of this
assumption is waIIanted. This hypothesis will test
whether theIe aIe actually diffeIences in level of

88
physical activity between members and nonmembers of these
kinds of facilities.
Hypothesis 1: Worksite physical fitness facility members
will have higher levels of physical
activity, based on a measure of daily
caloric expenditure, than nonmembers.
Hypothesis 2
The mere existence of worksite physical fitness
facilities for employees may affect employee job stress,
top management, organizational commitment, and intent to
stay with the organization.
Several observers have suggested that workers
that have an opportunity to "e~cape" from their normal
work environment into another setting may be better able
to relieve job-related stress and tension (Haskell and
Blair, 1982; Shephard, 198Gb). Worksite physical fitness
facilities, by integrating the work and nonwork values
and goals of employees, may also serve to increase job
satisfaction. Similarly, Falkenberg (1987) observes that
employees may become more committed to organizations that
have demonstrated, through their support of worksite
exercise programs, a concern for the health and personal
needs of workers. For the same reason, workers that use

89
these facilities may also be more favorable in their
attitudes toward local top management, that is, those
that have and continue to make the facility available to
them. Members of worksite fitness facilities are also
given the opportunity to meet and affiliate with other
employees in an approved workplace social setting. For
this reason these workers may have more positive
attitudes toward their coworkers.
Falkenberg (1987) also suggests that employer-
sponsored physical fitness facilities in the workplace,
as a fringe benefit of potential va~ue to many employees,
may present a compelling reason for workers to stay with
their organization. Although findings from some studies
have supported this view (Cox et al., 1981; Song et al.,
1982; Tsai et al., 1987), there is no research evidence
to confirm related observations on the influence of these
kinds of facilities on the other psychosocial variables.
In addition, existing research has failed to distinguish
which effects, if any, may be attributed to greater
employee physical fitness and which to only the existence
of these worksite facilities. Therefore, the second
research hypothesis involves differences between members
and nonmembers of such facilities.
will have lower levels of job stress,

90
higher levels of job satisfaction,
organizational commitment, and intent to
stay and will be more positive in their
attitudes toward coworkers and local top
management than nonmembers.
Hypothesis 3
Anecdotal observations have also suggested that
employees who are more physically fit will exhibit less
job stress and greater job satisfaction than other
workers. Prior resea~ch, although limited, has supported
these same assumptions (Cox et al., 1981; Rhodes and
Dunwoody, 1980). However, the examination of a
relationship between employee physical fitness and the
variables of job stress and job satisfaction has only
been of peripheral interest to researchers. Previous
research on employee physical fitness has also neglected
to study the relationship between employee physical
fitness and the job-related psychosocial variables of
organizational commitment, intent to stay, and attitudes
toward coworkers and local top management. The absence
of research on the relationship among these variables
indicates the need for a more rigorous investigation. A
relationship between physical fitness and these
psychosocial variables is posited in the third general
research hypothesis of the study.

91
Hypothesis 3: Employees with higher levels of physical
fitness, based on a measure of physical
activity, will have lower levels of job
stress, higher levels of job satisfaction,
stay, and will be more positive in their
management than employees with lower
levels of physical fitness. "
Demographic differences between employees
engaging in lower or higher levels of physical activity
and between Federal agency physical fitness facility
members and nonmembers will also be examined in the
context of the study.
Methodological Approach
The purpose of this study is to develop a better
understanding of the relationship, if any, among level of
employee physical activity, worksite physical fitness
facilities, and certain employee attitudes and behavior.
Toward this end, a two part methodological design was
used. First, Federal Government managers with some
responsibility for worksite employee physical fitness
facilities were requested to provide their opinions on
the effects of these kinds of facilities on Federal

92
employee attitudes and behavior. Second, a sample of
Federal employees at three different Federal Government
agencies with worksite physical fitness facilities were
studied in order to more directly assess the association
among level of physical fitness, these kinds of
facilities, and worker attitudes and behavior. For
purposes of comparison, two different categorical schemes
composed of separate groupings of employees at each
agency were then studied: i) members and nonmembers of

worksite physical fitness facilities and 2) employee
groups based on level of physical activity. Although the
study was intended to be largely exploratory in nature,
it did include the testing of selected hypotheses
suggested by a review of the literature. Survey
research, employing two different standardized and self-
administered questionnaires, was used to collect data for
each separate population used in the study.
A number of research designs were considered for
use in the conduct of this study. True experimental
designs, which attempt to control for the effect of
extraneous factors on hypothesized relationships through
random selection of subjects, use of control groups, and
before and after testing, are generally considered
preferred for purposes of social science research
(Babbie, 1986; Campbell and Stanley, 1963; Cook and
Campbell, 1979; Welch and Comer, 1983). However, the

93
various forms of experimental design have their own
inherent problems in terms of both internal and external
validity. Campbell and Stanley (1963) and Cook and
Campbell (1979) identify a number of different threats to
internal validity, which refers to the possibility that
conclusions based on the results of an experiment will
not truly reflect what has actually occurred. If not
properly controlled, these threats may then confound the
effects of the experimental treatment. Threats to
i~ternal validity include history, maturation, testing,
instrumentat-ion, exp~rimental mortality, and selection-
maturation interaction.' Sources of external invalidity,
which refers to limits in the ability to generalize
experimental findings to different settings or groups of
individuals, include interactions between selection and
treatment, setting and treatment, and history and
treatment. 2
Use of a true experimental design for purposes of
this study were considered impractical for several
reasons. First, the use of randomization for the
selection subjects was not possible. Random selection
would have required that access to Federal agency
worksite physical fitness facilities be denied to certain
employees. Similarly, those employees selected for
assignment to a control group would have had to
necessarily terminate all participation in physical

94
exercise. Finding subjects that would have been willing
to comply with these methodological requirements for the
duration of the study would have been very difficult, if
not impossible.
Second, there also would be problems associated
with the use of "comparison" groups, a form of control
group, in the study. Here employees from Federal
agencies with worksite physical fitness facilities would
be contrasted with a comparison group composed of
employees from matched agencies that did not have these
kinds of facilities. However, often significant
differences between Federal agencies, such as management
style, workforce characteristics, and location, might
confound the relationships between the independent and
dependent variables of interest.
Finally, the conduct of pre-tests for this study
'would have been very difficult. This would have required
finding a Federal agency that was in the final phase of
worksite fitness facility implementation and that would
have approved the conduct of a pre-test. At any given
time, very few agencies are at this stage in the process.
Most agencies either have facilities already in place or
are still in the planning and development phase. The use
of pre-tests would have also required the identification
of subjects with different levels of physical fitness
prior to conduct of the study.

95
The design used in the conduct of this study must
be considered "ex post facto." That is, it involved the
conduct of a post-test following introduction of the
treatments, i.e., participation in physical activity and
the establishment of a worksite physical fitness
facility. Due to several weaknesses in this
methodological design, including the absence of
randomization, control groups, and before and after
testing, only causal inferences, not the identification
of causal relationships, can be made. For this reason,
this study must be cons idered explora~ory "in nature.
However, despite the limita"tions of this methodological
design, it served as an acceptable alternative to other
experimental designs.
The three Federal agencies that served as
research populations for the study were selected based on
practical and logistical considerations. Although a
number of Federal agencies were approached and requested
to participate in the study, only three were able to
obtain the required administrative approvals necessary
for conduct of the study at their location. Also, two of
the participating agencies were located in relatively
close proximity to the researcher. It was believed that
favorable logistical conditions would promote ease in the
collection of study data.

96
Survey research using self-administered
questionnaires was selected as . the data collection method
of choice for this study for several reasons. This type
of survey instrument is a common data collection tool in
the social sciences because it offers several distinct
advantages over other available methods. These
advantages include economy by reducing data collection
costs; less time needed for the conduct of research;
anonymity and privacy to encourage more candid responses;
the feasibility of using large, geographically dispersed
samples; the collection of greater amounts of data; and
the convenience of having standardized data collected for
purposes of quantitative analysis (Babbie, 1986; Miller,
1983).
There are also disadvantages to the survey
research method. These include the problem of
nonreturns; a biased sample due to respondents differing
significantly from nonrespondents; lack of flexibility in
study design; and a tendency to be artificial in terms of
gaining a full sense of social processes in their natural
settings (Babbie, 1986; Miller, 1983). However, the
advantages of survey research outweighed its
disadvantages and, therefore, was selected for
application in this study.

97
The concepts of Reliability and Validity
Attention to the related concepts of reliability
and validity is important in the undertaking of any
research project because both are key criteria for good
measures in data collection. Reliability refers to "that
quality of measurement method that suggests that the same
data would have been collected each time in repeated
observations of the same phenomenon" (Babbie, 1983, p.
558; Welch and Comer, 1983). Not to be confused with
reliability, the concept of "validity" refers to the
ability of an instrument to accurately measure what it is
intended to measure (Babbie, 1983; Welch and Comer,
1983).
Ways to maximize levels of reliability and
validity for each of the data collection instruments used
in the study were sought. Actions taken toward this end
included: 1) primary reliance on indexes developed by
other researchers that had been previously tested for
reliability and validated; 2) examination of the
instruments by experienced reviewers prior to their
application; and 3) pre-testing of the instruments by
individuals very similar in background to those intended
for use in this study. With respect to reliability, when
appropriate, the wording of items was revised so that
questions were as unambiguous as possible, all

98
respondents received the same set of instructions for
their survey, and all respondents received them in the
same manner.
Development of Survey Instruments
Two surveys were developed for use in the study.
The first survey was developed for use by Federal
managers. The second survey was developed for
distribution to individuals employed by Federal agencies
with access to worksite physical fitness facilities.
The specific steps followed in the development of
both survey instruments included:
1) a review of the literature related to each of the
variables of interest in the study for identification
of existing indexes for their measurement;
2) construction of draft survey instruments;
3) review of the instruments by the researcher's
dissertation committee and several other reviewers
with expertise in survey research;
4) pre-tests of both draft survey instruments; and
5) modification of both survey instruments based on pre-
test experience.
A review of the literature did not reveal any
previous surveys of individuals for their opinions on the
effects of worksite physical fitness facilities on

99
employee attitudes and behavior. 3 Although separate
instruments were available for the measurement of
physical activity, job stress, job satisfactio'n,
organizational commitment, and intent to stay or quit,
they would have to be consolidated into one survey
instrument for purposes of this study. For this reason,
it was determined that two new survey instruments would
need to be developed for the collection of data in the
context of this study.
The Federal Manager Survey Questionnaire
(Appendix A), the first survey to actually be used in the
study, was developed for the collection of data from
Federal managers on their attitudes relating to the
effects of these kinds of facilities on employee
psychosocial variables. It was believed that individuals
who were formally associated with facilities of this kind
and who were P9sitioned to observe Federal employees who
used such facilities could corroborate several theories
suggested by a review of the literature. A listing of
, only those Federal managers who were actually responsible
for the oversight or administration of Federal Government
worksite physical fitness facilities was not available.
However, a listing of Federal managers that combined
those that were associated with these kinds of facilities
and those that would be associated with them had it been
available in their agency was located. Since this list

100
was used for distribution of this survey, recipients
included two groups of Federal managers: 1) those having
fitness facilities in their workplace and 2) those
without such facilities in their workplace.
The other data collection instrument used in the
study, referred to as the Federal Employee Survey
Questionnaire (Appendix B), was developed for the
collection of data from Federal employees on their use of
worksite physical fitness facilities, level of physical
activity, job stress, and attitudes relating to job
satisfaction, coworkers, local top management,
organizational commitment, and intent to stay with the
organization. Data on personal and job-related
demographic characteristics were also collected. For
comparative purposes, the survey was administered to two
separate groups from each of the three participating
Federal Government agencies: 1) workers that were
members and 2) workers that were not members of their
worksite physical fitness facility. This instrument was
composed primarily of indexes developed and used
previously by other researchers, as well as several items
developed by the researcher. The results of this survey
would then be used to corroborate findings based on
responses to the Federal Manager Survey Questionnaire.

101
The following section discusses the nature and outcome of
pre~tests performed on both survey instruments.
Pre-tests
Pre-tests of both instruments were conducted in
order to identify weaknesses in the wording, sequence,
and format of the surveys and, therefore, to increase the
likelihood of obtaining reliable and valid responses.
Similarly, the conduct of pre-tests would reduce the
likelihood that respondents would experience difficulty
in compl~ting the surveys, encouraging a greater.rate of
return. All pre-testing was conducted during the Fall of
1988 at the headquarters of the Western Area Power
Administration (Western), a Federal hydroelectric power
marketing agency of the u.s. Department of Energy located
in Golden, Colorado. An employee physical fitness
facility was established at this location in 1984.
The Federal Manager Survey Questionnaire was pre-
tested by five management personnel at the Western Area
Power Administration. Their comments on the survey and
the explanatory cover letter addressed to respondents
were then incorporated into the final version for
distribution.
The Federal Employee Survey Questionnaire was
preliminarily pre-tested by three Western Area Power
Administration employees. Each preliminary pre-test

102
participant was informally requested to fill out the
survey, report any difficulties experienced in
understanding or otherwise responding to survey items,
and to record the amount of time it took to complete.
The average time reported for the completion of the
preliminary pre-test survey was nearly 27 minutes.
Based on comments received from individuals
participating in the preliminary pre-test, the instrument
was modified and distributed again to a larger group of
employees (n = 24) for the final pre-test. Distribution
was made to worksite physical fitness facility members
and nonmembers representing a broad range of personal
demographic characteristics. The same procedures used in
the preliminary pre-test were followed. Four of the 24 '
individuals who agreed to participate in the final pre-
test reviewed and commented on the survey, but did not
actually complete it.
Of the 20 individuals who agreed to complete the
survey, 19 (95 percent) filled out and returned their
survey. The average time reported for completion of the
final pre-test survey was approximately 26 minutes.
Critical comments were also received from all four
reviewers. Comments received from employees and
reviewers participating in the final pre-test were then
used to make a number of wording and format modifications
to the Federal Employee Survey Questionnaire.

103
In general, pre-test participants for both data
collection instruments reported that they experienced
little difficulty in understanding and/or completing
their assigned survey. Detailed descriptions of both
survey instruments are provided in the following
sections.
Federal Manager Survey Questionnaire
Due to the specialized nature of this measuring
instrument, it was assumed that no related instruments in
this area had been developed. This assumption was
subsequently confirmed by a review of the literature.
Therefore, this secondary data collection instrument was
developed entirely by the researcher. It requested
information from Federal manager respondents on the
nature of their worksite physical fitness facilities, if
available, and how these facilities might affect Federal
employee attitudes and behavior. The final Federal
Manager Survey Questionnaire (Appendix A) contained two
parts, each with a different orientation. Table 4.1
provides a listing of the major concerns addressed by
each part.
Part I included 13 items requesting information
on (1) the existence of an employee physical fitness
facility at the respondent's worksite and, if applicable,
(2) whether it was operated as part of a single or multi-

104
TABLE 4.1
MAJOR ISSUES ADDRESSED IN EACH PART OF

FEDERAL MANAGER SURVEY QUESTIONNAIRE
PART I - RESPONDENT AND WORKSITE PHYSICAL FITNESS

FACILITY CHARACTERISTICS
1. Existence of worksite physical ' fitness facility at

respondent location
2. Operational arrangement
3. Years of facility operation
4. Number of authorized users (Federal employees
only)
5. Percent of authorized users (Federal employees
only)
6. Percent of authorized users visiting fac~lity
regularly
7. Description of facility equipment/services
available
8. Annual user fee for facility
9. Respondent responsibility for facility
10. Respondent status as user
11. Agency name
12~ Agency location
13. Respondent job title
PART II - POSSIBLE EFFECTS OF WORKSITE PHYSICAL FITNESS

FACILITY ON EMPLOYEE ATTITUDES AND BEHAVIOR
1. User/nonuser job satisfaction

2. User/nonuser organizational commitment
3. User/nonuser intent to quit
4. User job stress
5. User coworker relations
6. User/nonuser attitudes toward local top management
7. User amount of physical exercise
8. User level of physical fitness
9. User overall personal health
105
agency arrangement; (3) length of time the facility had
been operating; (4) statistics on facility use; (5)
nature of facilities; (6) user fees; (7) respondent's
relationship to the facility and job title; (8)
respondent status as facility user; and (9) agency name
and location.
Part II of the Feder~l Manager Survey
Questionnaire contained 13 items requesting respondent
opinions on the possible effects of worksite physical
fitness facilities on the attitudes and behavior of
Federal employees,including job stress, job
satisfaction, relations with coworkers, attitudes toward
local top management, organizational commitment, intent
to leave the organization, physical activity, and overall
health. All items in this part featured a 5-point
Likert-type scale ranging from "strongly agree" to
"strongly disagree." The wording of three items (Numbers
3, 4, and 7) were reversed in an attempt to reduce
response set bias.
Sample
This section provides information on selection of
the population for the Federal Manager Survey
Questionnaire and procedures for the collection of data
for this survey.

106
This survey, the first data collection instrument
to actually be used in the study, was distributed to all
individuals identified in the only two available lists of
individuals responsible for the management and/or the
administration of Federal Government worksite physical
fitness facilities.
The first list was developed by the u.s. Office
of Personnel Management (OPM) for inclusion in the
FEDERAL FIT KIT, a document which provides information
for the establishment, maintenance, and improvement of
Federal agency employee health/fitness programs and
facilities (U.S. Office of Personnel Management, 1988).
This list provided the names and work addresses of 46
Federal Government representatives in the Washington,
D.C. metropolitan area with responsibility for Federal
Government worksite physical fitness facilities.
The second list included the names and addresses
of 174 Federal agency representatives with some
responsibility for the development, implementation,
and/or maintenance of Federal worksite fitness
facilities. Although many of the individuals listed had
worksite physical fitness facilities available, many also
did not. This latter list was developed by the Public
Health Service (PHS) of the U.S. Department of Health and
Human Services and used in its 1988 survey of Federal
employee fitness programs. The PHS list was based on its

107
own information as well as information from the
President's Council on Physical Fitness and Sports, OPM,
and the General Services Administration on existing and
proposed Federal agency worksite health/fitness programs.
The purpose of the PHS survey was not to produce a
complete inventory of these kinds of. programs, but rather
to develop a current profile of their different types and
levels in the Federal Government. Therefore, survey
recipients did not represent all known programs and
facilities. In several cases, more than one survey
recipient was associated with the same facility or
agency.
Both lists were cross-referenced to eliminate any
duplication of names. The names of several other Federal
managers known by the researcher to have related
responsibilities but who were not on either the FEDERAL
FIT KIT or PHS list were also added. A final list of 209
names and addresses was developed for distribution of the
Federal Manager Survey Questionnaire.
The cover letter transmitting the survey
(Appendix A) stated that it "should be completed by the
Federal employee who is or who would probably be
responsible for [the] administration or oversight" of the
agency's worksite physical fitness facility and not "by
the person responsible for the day-to-day management or
delivery of [the] agency fitness facility program." The

108
purpose here was to reduce the likelihood of a
respondent's personal bias as a result of their direct
program promotion responsibilities. Therefore, the
targeted respondent was an individual with a more
objective perspective who may have had the opportunity to
observe firsthand the effects of worksite physical
fitness facilities on the attitudes and behavior of
Federal employees that were users and nonusers of such
facilities.
Procedures for Data Collection
Two hundred and nine (209) Federal Manager Survey
Questionnaires were distributed by mail in late October,
1988. Respondents received the cover letter explaining
the purpose of the study and who should complete the
survey; a blank copy of the Federal Manager Survey
Questionnaire; and a pre-addressed postage-paid envelope
for returning the completed survey directly to the
researcher. Respondents were asked to complete and mail
the survey as soon as possible and were offered a copy of
the study's findings if they provided their name and
mailing address on the last page of the returned survey.
In mid-November, with a response rate of 35 percent, a
reminder postcard was mailed to all nonrespondents by the
researcher.
109
Response Rate for Federal Manager Survey Questionnaire
By January 31, 1988, the deadline established for
collection of Federal Manager Survey Questionnaires, a
total of 117 surveys had been received. This represented
a response rate of 56 percent (Table 4.2). This total
response rate was considered acceptable for purposes of
this study."
TABLE 4.2
NUMBERS AND PERCENTAGES OF RETURNS

FOR FEDERAL MANAGER SURVEY QUESTIONNAIRE
Number of Number of
Questionnaires Questionnaires Percent of
Mailed Returned Returns
209 117 56
Federal Employee Survey Questionnaire
The Federal Employee Survey Questionnaire was the
second data collection instrument used in the study. The
final survey contained six parts, each with a different
orientation (Appendix B). Table 4.3 provides a listing
of the major concerns addressed by each part of the
survey.
110
TABLE 4.3

FEDERAL EMPLOYEE SURVEY QUESTIONNAIRE
PART I - RELATIONSHIP TO WORKSITE PHYSICAL FITNESS

FACILITY AND EFFECTS ON MEMBER ATTITUDES AND BEHAVIOR
1. Existence of worksite physical fitness facility

2. Status as member
3. Membership tenure and usage
4. Membership dues paid
5. Effect on job stress
6. Enjoy Interaction with coworkers
7. Helped in performance of job
8. Effect on attitudes toward top management
9. Importance as fringe benefit
10. Effect on job satisfaction
11. Effect on organizational commitment
12. Effect on intent to stay
13. Effect on amount of physical activities
14. Effect on variety of physical activities
PART II - PERSONAL PHYSICAL FITNESS VARIABLES
1. Physical fitness and health as personal values

2. Self-assessment of physical fitness level
3. Body weight (in pounds)
4. Checklist of physical activities
PART III - JOB SATISFACTION AND ORGANIZATIONAL COMMITMENT
1. Job satisfaction, including attitudes toward the

following:
a. General working conditions

b. Salary
c. Promotion policy and opportunity
d. Supervisors
e. Coworkers
f. Top management
g. Fringe benefits
h. Task autonomy
i. Task significance
j. Task involvement
k. Overall job satisfaction
2. Organizational commitment
111
Table 4.3 (continued)

PART IV - INTENT TO QUIT THE ORGANIZATION
The employee's chances of still working for the

organization in:
1. Three months
2. Six months
3. One year
4~ Two years
PART V - JOB STRESS
1. Feelings of job-related conflict or ambiguity
PART VI - GENERAL DEMOGRAPHIC INFORMATION
1. Sex
2. Ethnic background
3. Age
4. Marital status
5. Educational level
6. Job category
7. Work schedule
8. Federal job appointment type
9. Salary
10. Family income
11. Job tenure
12. Organization tenure
13. Federal Government tenure
112
Part I asked questions about the employee's
relationship, if any, to their agency's worksite physical
fitness facility and how it may have affected certain
personal attitudes and behavior. Respondents were first
asked if they we.r e aware of the existence of a wOl:ksite
physical fitness facility at their duty location and if
they were a member of the facility. A series of items
were then provided for response only by members of the
facility. Items requested information from respondents
on: 1) membership tenure; (2) level of facility use; (3)
annual membership dues paid; and (3) how its existence
may have affected the employee's attitudes with respect
to job stress, job satisfaction, organizational
commitment, coworkers, top management, intent to stay
with the agency, and the amount and variety of physical
activities engaged in. Part I was composed entirely of
items constructed by the researcher.
Part II of the Federal Employee Survey
Questionnaire asked questions about the employee's
relationship to personal physical fitness. This part
included the following items: (1) a rating of physical
fitness and health as personal values, (2) a self-
assessment of physical fitness level, (3) body weight in
pounds, and (4) a checklist to account for time spent
during the previous week engaged in different physical
activities. 5
113
The first three items in Part II, which asked
employees to rate physical fitness and health as personal
values and to self-assess their present level of physical
fitness, were constructed by the researcher.
The balance of Part II, intended to collect more
objective data on the respondent's level of physical
fitness, was based on the Stanford 7-Day Physical
Activity Recall index, a measure of physical activity.
Although a number of indexes for collecting data on the
level of physical activity are available, the Stanford 7-
Day Physical Activity Recall is considered one of the
best available measures for this purpose (LaPorte et a1.,
1985; Montoye and Taylor, 1984; Washburn and Montoye,
1986). The method was originally developed for
application in a survey used in a study on community
prevention of coronary heart disease. It was
designed to have a relatively short recall period

for increased accuracy, to be simple and easy to
administer, to be applicable to both sexes across
a wide age spectrum, and to assess both
occupational and leisure activity (Blair, 1984,
p. 430).
Raw data from the index, i.e., hours in and
intensity levels for various categories of physical
activity, are ~sed to calculate energy expenditure
through use of a worksheet. Information on physical
activity is then provided in units of total calories
expended. Data collected by the Stanford 7-Day Physical

114
.
Activity Recall has been determined to be valid and
reliable when compared to physiological measures of
fitness (Taylor et al., 1984). Others have also
referenced the potential value of this index as a measure
of personal fitness level (Blair, et al., 1985; Howell,
1986; LaPorte et al., 1985; Montoye and Taylor, 1984;
Sallis, et al., 1985; Washburn and Montoye, 1986). As
one observer notes, it
has been indirectly validated using results from

a community health survey, a randomized clinical
trial, and two worksite health promotion programs
yielding expected relationships with cross-
sectional physica.l activity patterns of men and
women; changes in maximal oxygen consumption,
body fatness, high-density lipoprotein (HDL)-
cholesterol and triglycerides; as well as
increased physical activity over time due to
intervention efforts . . . . A short-term
repeatability of r = 0.67 has been established.
Future research employing this technique is
likely to prove valuable as a physical activity
assessment tool (LaPorte et al., 1985, p. 136).
Although it was originally designed to be
administered by an interviewer, it was simplified and
adapted to a self-administered version by the researcher
for use in this study. Research suggests that
abbreviated, self-administered versions of the Stanford
7-Day Physical Activity Recall can yield information on
physical activity comparable to that provided by the more
extensive, interviewer-administered version (Howell,
1986). Additional refinements were made to the original
index, including its conversion to a checklist format, as

115
a result of the survey's pre-test. As discussed in
Chapter II, measures of physical activity, a~though
strongly and positively correlated with measures of
physical fitness, are not equivalent. However, the use
of objective measures of physical fitness were considered
to be too costly for practical application in this study.
Part III contained two indexes. The first index
measured respondent job satisfaction. The second index
measured respondent organizational commitment. Both
indexes have been used previously by other researchers.
The first index, for the measurement of job
satisfaction, was developed by Clifford J. Mottaz, a
Professor of Sociology at the University of Wisconsin at
River Falls. This index was' used to measure job
satisfaction in several studi'e s he conducted on this
topic (Mottaz, 1985; Mottaz, 1986; Mottaz, 1987).
Although a review of the literature revealed that there
were several other indexes available for the measurement
of job satisfaction, the Mottaz instrument was selected
because of its ease of administration and conformity to
other indexes used in the survey instrument. According
to Mottaz, he developed this instrument in response to
his perception that existing instruments for the
collection of data on job satisfaction were inadequate
(telephone conversation, August 16, 1988).

116
The instrument includes ten scales, each composed
of several questions designed to measure intrinsic work
variables, i.e., general working conditions, salary,
promotions, supervision, coworkers and fringe benefits,
and extrinsic work variables, i.e., task autonomy,
significance, involvement, and overall work satisfaction.
The items used to measure these variables were adapted
from several widely-used scales developed by Robinson,
Athanasiou, and Head (1969). The original index
developed by Mottaz featured 53 items on a 4-point
Likert-type scale ranging from "strongly agree" to
"strongly disagree." An overall measure of job
satisfaction for each respondent is derived by taking the
mean score for all items. The original instrument also
included items for the measurement of work values and for
the collection of demographic data. Since data on work
values were not of interest to this study and more
extensive demographic data was already being collected in
another part of the survey, both of these sets of items
were not included in the Federal Employee Survey
Questionnaire. Using Cronbach's alpha coefficient,
Mottaz has reported reliability coefficients ranging from
the high 70s to the low 90s for scales used in the index
(Kottaz, 1985).
Pre-test respondents commented on the excessive
redundancy of this index. For this reason, duplicative

117
items were eliminated and the index was shortened to
include only 30 items from the original index developed
by Mottaz (Numbers 1-16, 20-33). This also served to
reduce the total length of the survey, which reviewers
and pre-test respondents considered to be too long. For
purposes of this study, 3 items constructed by the
researcher (Numbers 17, 18, and 19) were added to measure
attitudes toward local top management. In an attempt to
reduce response set bias, 10 items (Numbers 2, 7, 11, 12,
19, 22, 24, 26, 29, 30) were negatively phrased and later
reverse scored for purposes of deriving an overall
measure of job satisfaction. In addition, a fifth mid-
range point ("neutral or have no opinion") was added to
the scale and its direction reversed to simplify data
analysis and to conform to the scale used for the other
index used in this part.
The second index in Part III, used for the
measurement of organizational commitment (Numbers 34-48),
is referred to as the Organizational Commitment
Questionnaire (OCQ). Although several indexes for the
concept of organizational commitment are available
(Mowday et al., 1982) the OCQ is the one most commonly
used. Developed by Porter, steers, Mowday, and Boulian
(1974; Mowday et al., 1979), there is substantial
evidence to support the reliability and validity of this
index (Marsh and Mannari, 1977; Mottaz, 1987). The

118
questionnaire features 15 items with responses to each
item measured on a 7-point Likert-type scale ranging from
"strongly disagree" to "strongly agree." The wording of
six items (Numbers 36, 40, 42, 44, 45, 48) is reversed in
an attempt to reduce response set bias. A measure of
overall commitment for each respondent is derived by
finding the mean score for all items. For purposes of
consistency, the scale was reduced to 5 points, using the
same labels used as the first index in this part.
Otherwise, this index was left entirely intact with no
other changes made.
Part IV contains one index which measures an
employee's intent to stay with their organization,
referred to as the staying or Leaving Index (SLI).
Several different instruments have been used by
researchers for the measurement of this concept (Angle
and Perry, 1981; Michaels and Spector, 1982; Peters et
al., 1981). The instrument selected for use in this
study was developed by Allen Bluedorn, an Associate
Professor of Management at the University of
Missouri/Columbia, in response to the lack of acceptable
instruments available for measuring an employee's intent
to stay or leave their organization (Bluedorn, 1982a).
According to Bluedorn, it . remains the only standardized
intent-to-leave index available and has been used

119
successfully by others since its initial publication
(personal letter, July 28, 1988).
The SLI is composed of two sets, with four items
in each set. Each item asks the respondent to rate their
chances of still working for (first set) or quitting
(second set) their organization over varying lengths of
time up to two years. A 7-point Likert-type scale
ranging from "excellent" to "terrible" is used by
respondents to rate each item. Since this index was
designed for use in survey instruments where other
variables would also be measured, Bluedoin suggests that
each set of questions be located in nonadjacent positions
within the instrument and separated by items measuring
other variables. The first four items would then be
reverse scored before all eight items are summed to
arrive at the respondent's intent to leave score.
Therefore, the higher a respondent's score, the greater
his intention of leaving the organization. Using
Cronbach's alpha coefficient, reliability for this index
has been reported to be in the low 90s (Bluedorn, 1982aj
Bluedorn, 1982b). Bluedorn has also reported that
shortened versions of the SLI reveal only small declines
in reliability (Bluedorn, 1982a).
Pre-test respondents also commented on the
redundancy of this index. As a result, only the first
set of four items, which rate the employee's intent to

120
stay (that is, their chances of still working for their
organization in the future) were used. Also, the number
of points used for the scale were reduced from 7 to 4
with the labeling of response categories modified
(ranging from "poor" to "excellent") to facilitate ease
of administration. In addition, the direction of the
scale was reversed in order to conform to other scales
used in the survey. These were the only modifications to
the original SLI index.
Part V, which measures worker job stress, is
composed entirely of the Index of Job-Related Tensions in
Organizations, developed by Robert L. Kahn and others
(Miller, 1983; Seamonds, 1986a; Seamonds, 1986b). It
consists of a IS-item index for measuring the amount of
tension experienced in an employee's job. It
specifically examines role conflict and ambiguity, work
overload, promotion issues, and the work/family balance.
This index is considered appropriate for all employees,
including supervisory personnel. Respondents are asked
to estimate how often they are bothered by different
types of symptoms of conflict or ambiguity on as-point
Likert-type scale, ranging from "never bothered" to
"bothered nearly all the time." Reliability based on
inter-item correlation analysis has been found to be in
the middle 70s (Miller, 1983). An adapted version of
this index (Seamonds, 1986b), which employs a slightly

121
different, but clearer phrasing of questions and response
categories, was used in this study. No other changes
were made to the original ' index.'
Items used for Part VI, which requested general
demographic information from respondents, were largely
based on related questions used in a variety of survey
instruments developed by other researchers. Items were
modified to fit the data collection requirements of this
study. Part VI requested information on respondent
gender, ethnic background, age, marital status, level of
e,ducat ion, job category, work schedule, appo intment type,
income, and job, organization, and Federal Government
tenure.
The Federal Employee Survey Questionnaires used
at each site in this study were practically identical.
They differed in two minor respect~: 1) for the SLI, the
intent to stay index used in Part IV, the name of the
respondent's employing agency was inserted at the end of
following the statement: "How do you rate your chances
of still working for [agency name]:" and 2) agency-
specific information for the return of completed surveys
was included on the last page of the survey.
Sample
Employees at three Federal agencies were used as
research populations for the Federal Employee Survey

122
Questionnaire: the u.s. Department of Commerce in
Boulder, Colorado; the Internal Revenue Service of the
u.s. Department of the Treasury in Denver, Colorado; and
the u.s. Department of Energy in Washington, D.C.
Information on each agency, descriptions of their
physical fitness facilities, and a discussion of the
procedures used for selection of the sample and the
collection of data are provided below.
u.s. Department of Commerce
The mission of the u.s. Department of Commerce
(DOC) is to encourage, serve, and promote the country's
international trade, economic growth, and technological
advancement through a wide variety of programs. The DOC
Boulder Laboratories served as one of the research sites
for this study.
The Boulder Laboratories are administered
principally by the National Institute of Standards and
Technology (NIST), formerly the National Bureau of
Standards, a subagency of DOC. The overall goal of NIST
is to strengthen and advance the Nation's science and
technology and to facilitate their use for public
benefit. It conducts research providing groundwork for
physical and technical measurement systems as well as
scientific and technological services for industry and
government. It
123
provides a range of technical services such as

measurement standards, test methods, and
technical data . . . . [which] offer a technical
basis for increasing productivity and innovation,
promoting international competitiveness in
American industry, ensuring u.s. involvement in
domestic and international product
stan,dardization activities, maintaining equity in
trade, and promoting public safety (Byrne and
Wilson, 1988, p. 153).
NIST headquarters are located in Gaithersburg,
Maryland. The Boulder Laboratories, located in Boulder,
Colorado, is NIST's principal field office. Both NIST
headquarters and the Boulder Laboratories offer worksite
physical fitness facilities for their employees. The
Boulder Laboratories, which also house non-NIST DOC
employees, were selected as the only DOC site for
distribution of the Federal Employee Survey
Questionnaire.
All DOC Federal employees in Boulder have access
to the Boulder Laboratories physical fitness facility,
although it is primarily used by those DOC employees
located onsite. The facility, which opened in March,
1987, occupies approximately 1000 square feet in the
basement of Building 1, the main building on its Broadway
Avenue campus. Equipment available in the facility
includes two stationary bicycles, a cross-country skiing
simulator, rowing machines, and free weights. Separate
men's and women's shower facilities are situated in close
proximity to the facility. Aerobics classes are offered

124
at the facility each day during the lunch period. Aside
from the equipment available, this is the only program or
service provided to members of the facility. The
facility is managed part-time by a volunteer NIST
employee. There is no cost for employees to use the
facility.
Internal Revenue Service
The Internal Revenue Service (IRS) of the u.s.

Department of the Treasury is principally responsible for
collecting tax revenues from the general public and
private businesses to support Federal Government
operations. Its primary activities include:
ensuring satisfactory resolution of taxpayer

complaints, providing taxpayer service and
education; determining, assessing, and collecting
internal revenue taxes; determining pension plan
qualifications and exempt organization status;
and preparing and issuing rulings and regulations
to supplement the provisions of the Internal
Revenue Code (Byrne and Wilson, 1988, p. 490).
The IRS is decentralized organizationally with
headquarters in Washington, D.C., seven regional offices,
and over 60 district offices. The IRS District Office in
Denver, Colorado was selected to provide the second
sample of Federal agency employees for this study.
In an effort to better recruit and retain
employees, the IRS initiated plans for the development
and agency-wide implementation of a comprehensive health

125
improvement program in 1985. The stated goal of the IRS
Health Improvement Program (HIP) is "to encourage life-
style changes to improve the health of [the entire]
workforce." The elements of this program include:
(1) health maintenance, which involves health

assessment, education, and intervention programs;
(2) physical fitness involving medical pre-
screening of exercise participants, specific and
individualized exercise prescriptions, and
periodic re-assessment and testing to determine
progress; (3) the availability of appropriate
facilities, including showers, lockers, an open
. room for exercise, and exercise equipment; and
(4) a staff trained to accomplish program goals
(Internal Revenue ~ervice, 1988).
In the Fall of 1988 the IRS Denver District
Office opened a worksite physical fitness facility as a
principal component of its HIP. The IRS Fitness Center
occupies approximately 4,000 square feet on the second
floor of its main building, the South Tower Building, on
17th Street in downtown Denver. Equipment available in
the facility includes stationary bicycles, rowing and
stair climbing machines, a Nordic ski machine, and multi-
station' weight equipment. Showers and dressing rooms are
located in the facility. Programs and services offered
at the Fitness Center include health, fitness, life style
and nutritional medical assessment; periodic fitness
evaluations; individualized exercise and nutrition
planning; and aerobics, calisthenics, stretching, and
circuit weight training classes. The facility is managed
by a full-time Director, who is a Federal employee with

126
professional training in exercise physiology, and
volunteer IRS employees. Membership in the facility is
available free to all IRS employees.
u.S. Department of Energy
The Headquarters of the u.S. Department of Energy
(DOE) in Washington, D.C. was used as the third Federal
population for this study. The mission of this agency is
to provide
the framework for a comprehensive and balanced

national energy plan through the coordination and
administration of the energy functions of the
Federal Government. [It] is responsible for
long-term, high-risk research and development of
energy technology, the marketing of Federal
power; energy conservation; the nuclear weapons
program; energy regulatory programs; and a
central energy data collection and analysis
program (Byrne and Wilson, 1988, p. 272).
In an effort to improve workforce productivity
and reduce health care costs, DOE management initiated
plans for the establishment of an agency health and
fitness program in 1984. A worksite physical fitness
facility was constructed and began operations in the Fall
of 1986. It occupies 2,900 square feet (not including
1,600 square feet of locker room space) on the basement
floor of the Forrestal Building, the main DOE building.
Equipment available in the facility includes stationary
bikes, rowing machines, cross country skiing machines,
weight machines, and free weights. Services offered

127
include aerobics, nutrition, and weight reduction
classes; diet, exercise, and stress consultations; and
health screening and assessment. The facility is
operated by the Forresta1 Occupational Health
Organization (FOHO), a volunteer DOE employee
organization created for this purpose. The facility is
managed full-time by professionally qualified contract
staff. Membership fees include a one time initiation fee
of $20 and annual dues ranging from $52 to $156 a year
depending on the employee's salary.
Procedures for Data Collection
The selection of a research sample composed of
worksite physical fitness facility members and nonmembers
from each of the Federal agencies participating in the
study was performed using the following procedures.
First, an agency representative provided a list of
worksite physical fitness facility members. All 228
facility members were selected for receipt of the survey
at DOC. However, due to the large number of IRS and DOE
fitness facility members, a smaller systematic sample of
150 members was drawn from each agency. A systematic
sample of the same size was then drawn of employees that
were not members of each agency's worksite physical
fitness facility. Therefore, the total sample of
employees selected for receipt of the survey at each

128
agency (DOC = 456, IRS = 300, DOE = 300) was equally
divided between members and nonmembers. The survey had a
total distribution to 1,056 Federal employees located at
all three agencies.
Surveys were distributed to employees using each
agency's interoffice mail system between late January and
mid-March, 1989. A cover letter signed by an agency
representative was used to transmit the survey to
employees at each agency. The cover letter used for each
agency explained the purpose of the survey, requested the
employee's participation in the study, and provided
instructions for the survey's return. The DOC cover
letter was signed by the President of the Boulder
Laborat.o ries Employees Association (Appendix C). The IRS
cover letter was signed by the Denver District Director
(Appendix D). The DOE cover letter was signed by the
Chairman of the FOHO Board of Directors (Appendix E).
Survey reCipients were requested to return their
completed surveys by mail or in person to a designated
agency representative within approximately two weeks of
its receipt.
Response Rate for Federal Employee Survey Questionnaire
Three hundred eighty-seven (387) completed
Federal Employee Survey Questionnaires were returned for
a total response rate of nearly 37 percent, which was

129
considered acceptable for purposes of the study.
Response rates varied for each of the three agencies,
with the IRS having the highest rate of return (44
percent). This may be attributed to the fact that the
cover letter which distributed the survey to IRS
employees was signed by the Director of the Denver
District, the highest level of local agency management.
Cover letters used to distribute the survey at the other
two agencies were signed by the employees' association
representative. Table 4.4 provides a breakdown of
response rates for each of th~ three agencies.
Data Analysis
The Statistical Package for the Social Sciences,
Version 2.1 (SPSS, Inc., 1986), more commonly known as
SPSS-X, was the computer software program used in the
analysis of all study data. The University of Colorado
at Denver's Prime 9950 mainframe computer, where the
SPSS-X software is resident, was used for all data
processing. 7
Summary
Three general research hypotheses for examination
in the study were developed and presented in this
chapter. The first hypothesis postulates that worksite
physical fitness facility members will have higher levels

'.. ,'
TABLE 4.4
NUMBERS AND PERCENTAGES OF RETURN BY AGENCY

FOR FEDERAL EMPLOYEE SURVEY QUESTIONNAIRE
Number of Number of Percent of Percent of

Surveys Returns Returns Total
Agency Distributed From Agency From Agency Returns
DOC 456 167 36.6 43.2
IRS 300 132 44.0 34.1
DOE 300 88 29,. 3 22.7
Total 1,056 387 36.6 100.0
.....
w
o
131
of physical activity than nonmembers . The second
hypothesis postulates that worksite physical fitness
facility members will have lower levels of job stress,
higher levels of job satisfaction, organizational
commitment, and intent to stay and will be more positive
in their attitudes toward coworkers and local top
management than nonmembers. The third hypothesis
postulates that employees with higher levels of physical
fitness will have lower levels of job stress, higher
levels of job satisfaction, organizational commitment,
and intent to stay and will be more positive in their
attitudes toward coworkers and local top management than
employees with lower levels of physical fitness.
Two separate surveys were used for the collection
of study data. The first survey was distributed to over
200 Federal managers to collect information on how they
believed Federal Government worksite physical fitness
facilities affected employee job stress, job
satisfaction, coworker relations, attitudes toward
management, organizational commitment, intent to stay,
physical fitness, and overall health.
The second survey was distributed to employees
representing members and nonmembers of worksite physical
fitness facilities at three Federal Government agencies.
Comparison groups composed of worksite physical fitness
facility members and nonmembers and employees in

132
different categories of physical fitness based on level
of physical activity from these agencies were used for
purposes of the study. This survey collected data on
employee use of worksite physical fitness facilities,
level of physical activity and job stress, and attitudes
relating to job satisfaction, coworkers, local top
management, organizational commitment, and intent to stay
with the organization. Demographic data on respondents
was also collected. The SPSS-X computer software package
was used in the analysis of data.

133
Notes
1. For a full discussion of threats to internal

validity in expe~imental designs see Campbell and Stanley
(1963), Cook and Campbell (1979), and Babble (1986).
2. Campbell and Stanley (1963), Cook and
Campbell (1979), and Babbie (1986) also provide extended
discussions of th~eats to external validity.
3. The researcher did discover a survey

conducted in mid-1988 by the Division of Federal
occupational and Beneficiary Health Services of the u.s.
Public Health Service, a subagency of the u.S. Department
of Health and Human Services. The intent of this survey
was to develop a description of the different types and
levels of Federal employee fitness programs for use in
assisting agency managers in the design, development, and
· enhancement of these kinds of programs : However, this
survey instrument was clearly different from the one
required for this study because it did n6t address the
opinions of Federal managers concerning the effects of
these kinds of facilities dn Federal employee attitudes
and behavior.
4. Since little advance information was

available on the characteristics of survey respondents
and the nature of · their facilities the existence of
response bias could not be determined for this survey.
5. In terms of respondent self-assessment of
physical fitness level, a recent study found that one's
"level of habitual physical activity or exercise is the
main component of the concept of fitness for the average
person: it is the most frequently offered reason for
perceived level of physical fitness, it is the most
favored physical fitness test, and the imagined level of
regular exercise has a higher correlation with perceived
level of fitness than imagined performance in any of the
more usual fitness tests" (Hopkins and Walker, 1988, p.
770) .
6. The inherent limitations of surveys for the
measurement of job stress have been acknowledged in the
literature (Ivancevich and Matteson, 1980; Murphy and
Hurrell, 1987).
7. SPSS-X procedures used in the study were:
(a) FREQUENCIES, which was used for the development of
frequency tables; (b) T-TEST, used for the observation of
134
differences in population means; (c) BREAKDOWN and
ONEWAY, procedures for analysis of variance; and (d)
CROSSTABS, used for its chi-square test of significance
in examining categorical variables. Finally, (e) PEARSON
CORRELATION and REGRESSION were used for the study of
relationships between a number of different variables.
CHAPTER V
RESULTS OF THE STUDY: FEDERAL MANAGER SURVEY QUESTIONNAIRE
This chapter reports the results of the study
based on responses to the Federal Manager Survey
Questionnaire, which was used to collect data on the
attitudes and perceptions of those Federal managers who
were or who would probably be responsible for the
oversight or administration of Federal Government
worksite physical fitness facilities. The chapter will
be presented in several parts: (a) background
information on the nature and use of Federal agency
worksite physical fitness facilities as provided by those
managers reporting to have them at their location, (b)
discussion and analysis of survey attitudinal responses,
and (c) a chapter summary.
Background Data
Almost 61 percent (n = 71) of all respondents to
the Federal Manager Survey Questionnaire reported having
a physical fitness facility located in their workplace
for use by employees. Thirty-nine (39) percent (n = 46)

of those responding to the survey reported that they did
not have a worksite fitness facility available at their

136
agency ,(Table 5.1). Of those managers reporting
facilities, 74 percent indicated that it was operated as
part of a single-agency arrangement as opposed to a
multi-agency arrangement (Table 5.2).
The number of years that Federal agency physical
fitness facilities had been in operation ranged from one
month to 45 years. However, nearly 65 percent of the
respondents indicated that the facility at their location
had been in operation less than 5 years (Table 5.3). The
mean for years of facility operation was 5.5. Older
facilities tended to be located at Federal agencies with
a national defense or law enforcement mission and where
there has been a historical mission-related need to
promote the physical conditioning of the workforce. This
data confirms observations that the establishment of
Federal agency physical fitness facilities for civilian
workers is a relatively recent phenomena.
Managers estimated the number of Federal employees
from their agency who were authorized users of their
agency's physical fitness facility to range from 25 to
12,000 (mean = 991). However, 54.6 percent reported that
there were less than 500 authorized users at their site.
The greatest number of authorized users at individual
locations were at Department of Defense agencies where
employee physical fitness conditioning is strongly
encouraged, if not required (Table 5.4).

137
TABLE 5.1
EXISTENCE OF EMPLOYEE PHYSICAL FITNESS FACILITY
AT RESPONDENT FEDERAL AGENCY LOCATION
Number Percent
Yes 71 60.7
No . 46 39.3
Total 117 100.0
TABLE 5.2
TYPE OF PHYSICAL FITNESS FACILITY ARRANGEMENT
Number Percent
Single-Agency 52 74.3
Multi-Agency 18 25.7
TOTAL 70 100.0
138
TABLE 5.3
FEDERAL AGENCY PHYSICAL FITNESS FACILITY

YEARS OF OPERATION
Number Percent
Less than 1 12 17.6

1 to 2.9 16 23.5
3 to 4.9 16 23.5
5 to 9.9 11 16.2
10 to 14.9 6 8.8
15 or more 7 10.3
Total 68 100.0
TABLE 5.4
FEDERAL EMPLOYEES AUTHORIZED AS USERS

OF AGENCY PHYSICAL FITNESS FACILITIES
Category Number Percent
Less than 100 14 21.2

100 to 199 10 15.2
200 to . 499 12 18.2
500 to 999 13 19.7
1000 to 1999 6 9.1
2000 or more 11 16.7
Total 66 100.0
139
Federal managers also estimated the percent of
eligible Federal employees from their agency who were
authorized users of their worksite fitness facility to
range from 1 to 100 percent of the agency's total Federal
employee population at that location. Forty-one (41)
percent was the mean for proportion of total agency
employees (Table 5.5). The percent of authorized users
who used the agency facility on a regular basis ranged
from 1 to 100 percent according to managers. The mean
response was 38.5 percent (Table 5.6).
Based on a description of worksite physical
fitness facilities provided by managers, each facility
was placed into one of three categories by the
researcher: (1) Minimum, (2) Basic, or (3) Deluxe (Table
5.7). Most (56.3 percent) of the facilities described by
the managers fell into the "Deluxe" category. Deluxe
facilities were usually those which featured a full range
of equipment, professional staff for facility management,
and offered a number of services for facility users, such
as fitness testing and exercise classes. The remaining
facilities were classified as either "Basic" facilities
(31 percent), those with a modest variety of equipment
and few services, if any, or "Minimum" facilities (12.7
percent), those with the least variety of features, such
as only showers and lockers, but enough to qualify as a
physical fitness facility.

\,
140
TABLE 5.5
PERCENT OF FEDERAL EMPLOYEES AUTHORIZED AS

USERS OF AGENCY PHYSICAL FITNESS FACILITIES
category Number Percent
Less than 10 8 11.6

10 to 19 11 15.9
20 to 49 27 39.1
50 or more 23 33.3
Total 69 100.0
TABLE 5.6
PERCENT OF FEDERAL EMPLOYEES THAT VISIT

AGENCY PHYSICAL FITNESS FACILITY ON A REGULAR BASIS
Less than 10 5 7.5

10 to 19 9 13.4
20 to 29 12 17.9
30 to 49 18 26.9
50 to 74 14 20.9
75 to 100 9 13.4
Total 67 100.0
141
TABLE 5.7
TYPE OF FACILITY BASED ON

AVAILABILITY OF EQUIPMENT AND USER SERVICES
Category* Number Percent
Minimum 9 12.7
Basic 22 31.0
Deluxe 40 56.3
Total 71 100.0
* "Minimum" facilities were those with the least variety

of features, such as only showers and lockers, but enough
to qualify them as a physical fitness facility. "Basic"
facilities were those with a modest variety of equipment
and few services. "Deluxe" facilities were usually those
which featured a full range of equipment, professional
staff for facility management, and offered a number of
services for facility users, such as fitness testing and
evaluation and exercise classes.
TABLE 5.8
ANNUAL FEES PAID BY EMPLOYEES

TO USE AGENCY PHYSICAL FITNESS FACILITY
No fee 42 59.2
Based on salary 4 5.6
$1 to $50 12 16.9
$50 to $100 6 8.5
$100 to $200 7 9.9
Total 71 100.0
142
Fees paid by physical fitness facility users
ranged from zero to $200 a year. Over 59 percent of the
managers reported that no fee was required to use the
facility (Table 5.8). This may be due at least in part
to the fact that a significant number of survey
respondents represented Department of Defense agencies,
which seek to promote physical conditioning to the
greatest extent possible for purposes of military
readiness.
The largest group of survey respondents (24.3
p~rcent) indicated that their responsibility for the
worksite physical fitness facility was unrelated to their
formal job duties (Table 5.9). That is, it was a
"collateral duty" assignment where they served in a
volunteer capacity during or after normal working hours.l
The next largest responsibility category (18.6 percent)
was composed of individuals with a relationship not
described by the categories listed for this item. Almost
83 percent of the managers with worksite facilities also
reported that they were users of their agency's facility
(Table 5.10).
Survey respondents represented a broad range of
Federal Government agencies, with the greatest proportion
(18.9 percent) from u.s. Department of Defense agencies.
The next largest group of respondents came from the U.S.
Department of the Treasury (Table 5.11).

143
TABLE 5.9
RESPONDENT RELATIONSHIP TO
FEDERAL AGENCY PHYSICAL FITNESS FACILITY
Office/Facilities Manager 7 10.0

Personnel Officer 11 15.7
Occupational Safety/Health 8 11.4
General Administration 5 7.1
Unrelated to Job Duties 17 24.3
Fitness Facility Manager 9 12.9
Other Relationship 13 18.6
Total 70 100.0
TABLE 5.10
RESPONDENT STATUS AS USER OF

FEDERAL WORKSITE PHYSICAL FITNESS FACILITY
Number Percent
Yes 58 82.9
No 12 17.1
Total 70 100.0
144
TABLE 5.11
RESPONDENT FEDERAL AGENCY
Agency Number Percent
Executive Office of the

President 1 .9
Agriculture 4 3.4
Commerce 3 2.6
Air Force 3 2.6
Army 12 10.3
Navy 1 .9
Other Defense Agency 6 5.1
Education 2 1.7
Energy 9 7.7
Health and Human Services 6 5.1
Housing & Urban Development 1 .9
Interior 4 3.4
Justice 6 5.1
Labor 2 1.7
State 1 .9
Transportation 4 3.4
Treasury 17 14.5
Environmental Protection 8 6.8
General Services Admin. 3 2.6
NASA 1 .9
Postal Service 2 1.7
Veterans Administration 5 4.3
Other Federal Agency 15 12.8
Legislative/Judicial Branches 1 .9
Total 117 100.0

145
The locations of survey respondent Federal
agencies were also geographically dispersed. Twenty-one
(21) states in the U.S. and the District of Columbia were
represented in the survey. The largest number (n = 45)
and percent (38.5) of respondents were located in
Washington, D.C. This is understandable since the
FEDERAL FIT KIT list, one of the two lists used for the
survey's distribution, included only representatives from
Federal fitness facilities and programs in the Greater
Washington, D.C. Area. ·Table 5.12 provides a breakdown
.of respondent location by state.
Federal Manager Opinions on the Effects of Federal Agency

Physical Fitness Facilities on Employees
The second part of the Federal Manager Survey
Questionnaire requested all respondents, i.e., Federal
managers with and without worksite facilities, to provide
their opinions on how Federal agency physical fitness
facilities might affect the attitudes and behavior of
employees who used and did not use such facilities.
Specifically, they were asked how it might affect the job
satisfaction, organizational commitment, intent to leave
the organization, job stress, coworker relations,
attitudes toward top management, amount of physical
exercise, level of physical fitness, and overall personal

146
TABLE 5.12
LOCATION OF SURVEY RESPONDENT FEDERAL AGENCY
Location Number Percent
District of Columbia 45 38.5

Alabama 1 .9
Arkansas 1 .9
California 6 5.1
Colorado 12 10.3
Georgia 4 3.4
Illinois 4 3.4
Indiana 1 .9
Maryland 6 5.1
Massachusetts 4 3.4
Mississippi 1 .9
Missouri 4 3.4
New Jersey 1 .9
New York 1 .9
North Carolina 3 2.6
Ohio 2 1.7
Oregon 3 2.6
Pennsylvania 2 1.7
Tennessee 2 1.7
Texas 2 1.7
Utah 2 1.7
Virginia 8 6.8
Washington 1 .9
Foreign 1 .9
Total 117 100.0

147
health of workers. The balance of this chapter will
discuss the results of this part of the survey.
Results
In general, Federal Manager Survey Questionnaire
respondents were very positive in their opinions about
how Federal agency physical fitness facilities have a
favorable influence on the job satisfaction,
organizational commitment, intent to leave the
organization, job stress, coworker relations, attitudes
toward top management~ amount of physical exercise, level
of physical fitness, and overall personal health of
Federal employees that used these facilities. Federal
managers did not believe that the existence of worksite
physical fitness facilities had a significant impact on
employees that did not use these facilities for a similar
set of variables.
Nearly 95 percent of all survey respondents (n =

117) agreed that these facilities increased the job
satisfaction of users. A large majority (8.1.2 percent)
of Federal managers agreed that these kinds of facilities
contributed to employees who used them liking and getting
along better with their coworkers. Similarly, 82 percent
of the managers agreed that these facilities had a
positive effect on the attitudes of users toward the
agency's local top management. Many survey respondents

148
(45.7 percent) also agreed that agency physical fitness
facilities decreased the likelihood that employees that
used them would seek employment elsewhere, eventually
quit their jobs, and leave the organization. Between 94
and 96 percent of all respondents also agreed that
Federal agency worksite physical fitness facilities
increased the amount of physical exercise, increased the
level of physical fitness, and improved the overall
personal health of agency employees that used such
facilities (Table 5.13).
Items on job stress and organizationa.l commitment
were reverse phrased. 2 In response to these items, a
large proportion of Federal managers disagreed with
statements that Federal agency worksite physical fitness
facilities did not contribute to the ability of employees
who used them to cope with job stress (95.7 percent) and
decreased the organizational commitment of users (90.6
percent). Detailed responses for all items in the second
part of the Federal Manager Survey Questionnaire are
provided in Appendix F.
Variations in Opinion Between Different

Categories of Respondent
Although not stated as formal research hypotheses,
the researcher theorized that there would be significant

' .f.
differences of opinion between different Federal Manager

149
TABLE 5.13
FACILITY INFLUENCE ON ATTITUDES AND BEHAVIOR
OF EMPLOYEES THAT USE THEM
(n = 117)
Influence Agree Neutral/ Disagree

(Percent) No Opinion (Percent)
Increases Job
Satisfaction 94.8 5.1
Contributes to Improved
Coworker Relations 81.2 17.1 1.8
Has Positive Effect on
Attitudes Toward Local
Top Management 82.0 15.4 2.6
Decreases Organizational
Commitment 2.6 6.8 90.6
Decreases Likelihood of
Leaving organization 45.7 34.5 19.8
Does Not Contribute
to Ability to Cope
with Job Stress 2.6 1.7 95.7
Increases Amount of
Physical Exercise 95.7 3.4 .9
Increases Level of
Physical Fitness 95.7 3.4 .9
Improves Overall
Personal Health 93.9 5.2 .9
150
Survey Questionnaire respondent groups in terms of the
effects of worksite physical fitness facilities on
employees. Specifically, it was postulated that Federal
managers who:
had physical fitness facilities in their workplace
would be generally more favorable in their opinions
than those that did not;
had facilities with a single-agency operational
arrangement would be more favorable than those having
a mUlti-agency arrangement;
had facilities with greater equipment and/or services
available would be mQre favorable than those with
less comprehensive facilities;
were users of these facilities would be more
favorable than those that did not use them.
The above propositions were based on several
assumptions. First, those Federal managers with worksite
physical fitness facilities available were in a position
to observe the attitudes and behavior of employees at
their agencies. Of perhaps greater significance, they
also were more likely to have a psychological stake in

151
the success of the facility and, therefore, were more
likely to perceive it as having beneficial effects.
Worksite physical fitness facilities sponsored by
a single agency would be more likely to have favorable
outcomes for employee attitudes and behavior because
employees would see the solitary role that their agency
had in its establishment and maintenance. The effects of
facilities sponsored by more than one. agency would
probably be "diluted" and, therefore, weaker.
It was also assumed that respondents having more
elaborate worksite physical fitness facilities in terms
of equipment and/or services offered, e.g., "Deluxe"
facilities, would be more favorable because they would
perceive these kinds of facilities as having greater
value to employees than those that were less elaborate.
In addition, it was assumed that Federal managers
that used the physical fitness facilities in their
workplace would be more positive in their opinions based
on their affinity with the facility. They also might
have been "coopted" into believing that the facility did
have positive effects as a result of their interaction
with facility management. Assuming there were actual
benefits, users would also be better able to assess the
effects of these facilities through subjective experience
and a closer proximity to other users. For the same

152
reason, Federal managers that did not use these
facilities would be less likely to be favorable.
Chi-square analysis, which tests whether two
proportions are equal in the population, was used to test
the above propositions. Cross tabulations were done for
each of the 13 attitudinal items in Part II of the survey
with those four variables associated with characteristics
of respondents and/or their facility. Those sets of
variables selected for chi-square analysis are listed in
Table 5.14. Results of this analysis are discussed
below.3
First, the assumption that respondents with
Federal agency worksite physical fitness facilities
available would more likely perceive the beneficial
effects of these kinds of facilities on employees was
confirmed. Specifically, Federal managers with
facilities available were more favorable in their
opinions toward the effects of these facilities on the
job stress, job satisfaction, amount of physical
exercise, and level of physical fitness of facility
users. Cross tabulations of distributions are presented
in Table 5.15 to Table 5.18. Using chi-square analysis,
the difference between respondents with and without
physical fitness facilities at the worksite is
statistically significant at the .10 level for these
variables.
153
TABLE 5.14
VARIABLES SELECTED FOR CHI SQUARE ANALYSIS
Variables Based on Respondent/Facility Characteristics
1. Existence of worksite physical fitness facility at

respondent location
2. Operational arrangement, i.e., single or multi-
agency
3. Level of facility equipment/services available
4. Respondent status as user
Attitudinal Variables
1. User job satisfaction

2. Nonuser job satisfaction
3. User organizational commitment
4. Nonuser organizational commitment
5. User intent to quit
6. Nonuser intent to quit
7. User job stress
8. User coworker relations
9. User attitudes toward local top management
10. Nonuser attitudes toward local top management
11. User amount of physical exercise
12. User level of physical fitness
13. User overall personal health
154
TABLE 5.15
ASSOCIATION BETWEEN RESPONDENT AVAILABILITY OF
WORKSITE PHYSICAL FITNESS FACILITY AND EFFECTS ON
THE JOB STRESS OF USERS
Availability of Facility
Count
Row Pct Yes No Row
Col Pct Total
45 21 66
Strongly Disagree 68.2 31.8 56.4
63.4 45·.7
21 25 46
Disagree 45.7 54.3 39.3
29.6 54.3
5 5
Agree 100.0 4.3
7.0
Column 71 46 117
Total 60.7 39.3 100.0
Chi-Square = 9.15103 with 2 degrees 6f freedom

Significance = .0103
Cells with expected frequency < 5 = 1 of 6
155
TABLE 5.16
USER JOB SATISFACTION
Count
Row Pct Yes No Row
Col Pct Total
28 28 56
Agree 50.0 50.0 47.9
39.4 60.9
43 18 61
strongly Agree 70.5 29.5 52.1
60.6 39.1
Column 71 46 117
Total 60.7 39.3 100.0
Chi-Square = 5.13864 with 1 degree of freedom

Cells with expected frequency < 5 = None
156
TABLE 5.17
THE AMOUNT OF PHYSICAL EXERCISE OF USERS
Count
Row Pct Yes No Row
Col Pct Total
19 28 47
Disagree 40.4 59.6 40.5
27.1 60.9
51 18 69
Agree 73.9 26.1 59.5
72 .9 39.1
Column 70 46 116
Total 60.3 39.7 100.0

157
TABLE 5.18

THE LEVEL OF PHYSICAL FITNESS OF USERS
Count
Row Pct Yes No Row
Col Pct Total
22 25 47
Disagree 46.8 53.2 40.5
31. 4 54.3
48 21 69
Agree 69.6 30.4 59.5
68.6 45.7
Column 70 46 116
Total 60.3 39.7 100.0

Significance =
.0139
Cells with expected frequency < 5 =
None
158
Similarly, respondents with single-agency as
opposed to multi-agency facilities were more likely to be
favorable toward the positive effects of worksite
physical fitness facilities on employees. Specifically,
they tended to be more favorable in their opinions toward
the effects of these facilities on job satisfaction and
attitudes toward local top management among nonusers and
the level of physical fitness of facility users. Cross
tabulations of distributions are presented in Table 5.19
to Table 5.21. Using chi-square analysis, the difference
between respondents with "Single-Agency" and "Multi-
Agency" worksite physical fitness facilities is
statistically significant at the .10 level for these
variables.
Also, respondents with more comprehensive worksite
physical fitness facilities were more likely to be
favorable toward the positive effects of worksite
physical fitness facilities on user intent to quit and
level of physical fitness. Cross tabulations of
distributions are presented in Table 5.22 and Table 5.23.
Using chi-square analysis, the difference between
respondents with "Minimum," "Basic," and "Deluxe"
worksite physical fitness facilities is statistically
significant at the .10 level for these variables.
In addition, respondents that were users of their
worksite physical fitness facility tended to be more

159
TABLE 5.19
ASSOCIATION BETWEEN RESPONDENT
WORKSITE PHYSICAL FITNESS FACILITY ARRANGEMENT
AND EFFECTS ON THE JOB SATISFACTION OF NONUSERS
Type of Facility
Count
Row Pct Single-Agency Multi-Agency Row
Col Pct Total
Disagree/ 15 10 25
28.8 55.6
Agree/ 37 8 45
Strongly Agree 82.2 17.8 64.3
71.2 44.4
Column 52 18 70
Total 74.3 25.7 100.0
Chi-Square = ~.15480 with 1 degree of freedom

160
TABLE 5.20
AND EFFECTS ON NONUSER ATTITUDES TOWARD TOP MANAGEMENT
Type of Facility
Count
Row Pct Single-Agency Multi-Agency Row
Col Pct Total
Disagree/ 8 7 15
15.4 38.9
Agree/ 44 11 55
84.6 61.1
Column 52 18 70
Total 74.3 25.7 100.0

161
TABLE 5.21
AND EFFECTS ON LEVEL OF USER PHYSICAL FITNESS
Type of Facility
Count
·Row Pct Single-Agency Multi-Agency Row
Col Pct Total
Disagreel 13 9 22
25.5 50.0
Agreel 38 9 47
74 .5 50.0
Column 51 18 69
Total 73.9 26.1 100.0
Chi-Square = 3.68003 with I degree of freedom

162
TABLE 5.22

WORKSITE PHYSICAL FITNESS FACILITY TYPE
AND EFFECTS ON USER INTENT TO QUIT
Type of Facility
Count
Row Pct Minimum Basic Deluxe Row
Col Pct Total
Disagree/ 5 16 17 38
Strongly Disagree 13.2 42.1 44.7 54.3
55.6 76.2 42.S
Agree/ 4 5 23 32
Strongly Agree 12.5 15.6 71.9 45.7
44.4 23.8 57.5
Column 9 21 40 70
Total 12.9 30.0 57.1 100.0
Chi-Square = 6.30505 with 2 degrees of freedom

163
TABLE 5.23
WORKSITE PHYSICAL FITNESS FACILITY TYPE
AND EFFECTS ON USER LEVEL OF PHYSICAL FITNESS
Type of Facility
Count
Row Pct Minimum Basic Deluxe Row
Col Pct Total
4 10 8 22
Agree 18.2 45.5 36.4 31.4
44.4 45.5 20.5
5 12 31 48
Strongly Agree 10.4 25.0 64.6 68.6
55.6 54.5 79.5
Column 9 22 39 70
Total 12.9 31.4 55.7 100.0

164
favorable toward the beneficial effects of worksite
physical fitness facilities on user attitudes toward
local top management, level of physical fitness, and
overall health. Cross tabulations of distributions are
presented in Tables 5.24 to Table 5.26. Using chi-square
analysis, the difference between respondents tha't were
users Of their worksite physical fitness facility with
those respondents that were not is statistically
significant at the .10 level for these variables.
However, explanations for differences observed
between certain categories of Federal manager survey
respondents are not readily available for several
reasons. First, it is not clear whether opinions were
based on objective assessments by respondents from the
independent observation of agency employee attitudes and
behavior or if they are were subjective in nature. For
example, it is presumed that many respondents with
worksite fitness facilities were, at the very least,
supportive of its existence and may have even served at
one time as a champion for its establishment. This is
confirmed by the fact that the relationship of many
respondents to their facility was unrelated to their
formal job duties. That is, they served in a volunteer
capacity. Also, many of those with facilities actually
served as agency contacts for information on their
facility. For these reasons, a significant number of

165
TABLE 5.24
ASSOCIATION BETWEEN RESPONDENT STATUS AS USER OF
USER ATTITUDES TOWARD TOP MANAGEMENT
Self-User of Facility
Count .
Row Pct Yes No Row
Col Pct Total
8 5 13
Disagree 61.5 38.5 18.6
13.8 41. 7
35 4 39
Agree 89.7 10.3 55.7
60.3 33.3
15 3 18
25.9 25.0
Column 58 12 70
Total 82.9 17.1 100.0

166
TABLE 5.25
.USER LEVEL OF PHYSICAL FITNESS
Count
Row Pct Yes No Row
Col Pct Total
15 7 22
Agree 68.2 31.8 31.9
26.3 58.3
42 5 47
strongly Agree 89.4 10.6 68.1
73.7 41. 7
Column 57 12 69
Total 82.6 17.4 100.0
Chi-square = 4.67908 with 1 degree of freedom

167
TABLE 5.26
USER OVERALL PERSONAL HEALTH
Count
Row Pct Yes No Row
Col Pct Total
16 8 24
Agree 66.7 33.3 34.8
i8.l 66.7
41 4 45
71.9 33.3
Column 57 12 69
Total 82.6 17.4 100.0

Signi·ficance = .0107
168
respondents may have had important psychological
investments in the success of their facility. Therefore,
they are were more likely to be biased toward the
facility and perceive it as producing beneficial
outcomes. Respondents may have also been basing their
opinions, at least in part, on the common belief that
these kinds of facilities do indeed have beneficial
effects. Similarly, it is difficult to determine if
respondents that were users of the facility themselves
based their opinions on observations of others, their own
subjective experience, or some other unknown factor.
Summary
In general, Federal Manager Survey Questionnaire
respondents were very enthusiastic in their opinions
about how Federal agency physical fitness facilities have
beneficial effects on the job satisfaction,
organizational commitment, intent to leave the
organization, job stress, coworker relations, attitudes
toward top management, amount of physical exercise, level
of physical fitness, and overall personal health of
Federal employees that used these facilities. Survey
respondents tended to be much less enthusiastic about the
effects of these facilities on those Federal employees
that did not use these facilities for a similar set of
variables.
169
Chi-square analysis suggested some differences in
the degree of opinions between different categories of
respondent. Respondents with Federal agency worksite
physical fitness facilities available were more favorable
in their opinions toward the effects of these facilities
on the job stress, job satisfaction, amount of physical
exercise, and level of physical fitness of facility
users. Similarly, respondents with single-agency as
opposed to mUlti-agency facilities tended to be more
favorable in their opinions toward the effects of these
facilities on nonuser job satisfaction, user attitudes
toward local top management, and user level of physical
fitness. Also, respondents with more comprehensive
works1te physical fitness facilities (those offering a
broader range of equipment and services) were more likely
to be favorable toward the positive effects of worksite
physical fitness facilities on user intent to quit and
level of physical fitness. In addition, respondents that
were users of their worksite physical fitness facility
tended to be more favorable toward the favorable effects
of worksite physical fitness facilities on user attitudes
toward local top management, level of physical fitness,
and overall health.
However, it remains to be seen whether Federal
manager opinions concerning the effects of Federal agency
worksite physical fitness facilities are based on

170
objective obse~vation, subjective pe~sonal expe~ience, or

othe~ related factors.
171
Notes
1. Subjects were requested to select from a

choice of categories one which best described their
responsibility for or relationship to their agency's
physical fitness facility. Response categories included
administration or oversight: 1) under office/facilities
management duties; 2) under agency personnel officer
duties; 3) under occupational health and/or safety
duties; 4) unrelated to formal job duties; 5) general
administration or oversight duties; and 6) other
relationship not described. In an attempt to validate
responses for this item, subjects were later requested to
provide their job title in a separate survey item.
Individuals responsible for the day-to-day
management of the facility or delivery of its program
were specifically requested not to complete the survey
due to the likelihoo~ of bias in response to attitudinal
items. However, based on responses to the item which
requested the respondent's job title, it was determined
that several of these individuals did complete the
survey. For this reason a seventh category for facility
responsibility, "Fitness Facility Manager," was added for
purposes of tabulating survey data. Nine respondents
were then assigned to this category.
2. Reverse phrasing was used in an attempt to

reduce "response set bias." This refers to the
likelihood that respondents, following their completion
of a series of items with the same direction of phrasing,
will continue to use the same response categories for
items even if it is inappropriate. The nature of
responses to both sets of items here confirmed that
respondents closely read each question, which indicated
that the use of reverse phrasing did serve to reduce
response set bias in this survey.
3. The relatively limited number of cases (n =

117) and the large number of cells for certain cross
tabulations sometimes provided cells with frequencies of
less than five, reducing the validity of chi-square
results. Therefore, response categories were sometimes
collapsed in an attempt to increase the number of cell
frequencies. For example, "Neutral/No Opinion" was
consolidated with the "Agree" response category for
certain cross tabulations. However, several cross
tabulations still remained with one or more cells with
less than five frequenc ies . .
CHAPTER VI
RESULTS OF THE STUDY: FEDERAL EMPLOYEE SURVEY QUESTIONNAIRE
This chapter reports the results of the study
based on analysis of responses to the Federal Employee
Survey Questionnaire, which served as the study's primary
data collection instrument and was intended to
corroborate results of the Federal Manager Survey
Questionnaire. The chapter will be presented in several
parts: (a) demographic data on survey respondents, (b)
analysis of the data, and (d) a chapter summary.
Demographic Data
This part will describe the characteristics of
survey respondents based on personal and job-related
demographic survey data.
First, survey respondents were almost evenly
divided by sex, with approximately 52 percent of
respondents being male (Table 6.1). With respect to
ethnic background, nearly 90 percent of respondents were
white, with blacks representing the next largest ethnic
category (Table 6.2). Over 36 percent of respondents
were in the 40 to 49 age group (Table 6.3) and almost 61
percent were married (Table 6.4). Almost 37 percent

173
TABLE 6.1
RESPONDENT SEX
I
category Number \percent
I
Male 199 51.7
Female 186 48.3
Total 385 100.0
TABLE 6.2
RESPONDENT ETHNIC BACKGROUND
I
I
White 341 89.5

Black 17 4.5
Hispanic 13 3.4
Native American 2 .5
Asian 3 .8
Other 5 1.3
Total 381 100.0

174
TABLE 6.3
RESPONDENT AGE CATEGORY
!
Category Number !percent
I
I
Under 20 1 .3
20 - 29 57 14.9
30 - 39 112 29.2
40 - 49 140 36.6
50 - 54 28 7.3
55 - 59 28 7.3
60 - 64 13 3.4
65 and Over 4 1.0
Total 383 100.0

I
TABLE 6.4
RESPONDENT MARITAL STATUS

!
I
Married 233 60.7
Not Married 151 39.3
Total 384 100.0

175
reported the Bachelors degree as their highest level of
education (Table 6.5). Over 42 percent classi~ied
themselves as being in the professional/admini k trative
job category (Table 6.6).

I
Ninety-three (93) percent
I
. reported being full-time employees and nearly 85 percent
I
had a career or career conditional, i.e., civil service,
job appointment (Tables 6.7 and 6.8). Respond l nt pay

I
grades were nearly evenly distributed between General
Schedule (GS) 4 and 14 (Table 6.9). Non-GS

I
em~loyees (n
= 24) reported annual salaries ranging between $3,800 and
$76,400 with a mean response of $29,127. Respondent

I
family income ranged from under $20,000 to over $80,000 a
I
year (Table 6.10). Sixty-five (65) percent had been in
their job 5 years or less, over 36 percent had been
employed with their agency 3 years or less, and about 51
percent had been with the Federal Government b J tween 10
and 29 years (Table 6.11 to Table 6.13).
Perceptions of Physical Fitness Facility Ef£ects on

Member Job-Related Attitudes and Behavilor
About 98 percent of all survey responde~ts

reported that their agency offered a worksite physical
fitness facility for employees. A relatively S~ll

number of respondents (n = 8) indicated that they were
unaware of its existence (Table 6.14). This is
interesting in light of the fact that all agencies

176
TABLE 6.5
RESPONDENT LEVEL OF EDUCATION
High School Degree 75 19.5

Trade School Degree 18 4.7
Associate's Degree 41 10.7
Bachelor's Degree 141 36.7
Master's Degree 69 18.0
Doctorate 40 10.4
Total 384 100.0
TABLE 6.6
RESPONDENT JOB CATEGORY
Managerial 43 11.3
Supervisory 31 8.1
Non-Supervisory:
Professional/Administrative 161 42.1

Technical/Para-professional 93 24.3
Skilled Labor/Craftsman 5 1.3
Clerical 47 12.3
Other 2 .5
Total 382 100.0
177
TABLE 6.7
RESPONDENT WORK SCHEDULE
Full-time 357 93.0

Part-time 23 6.0
Intermittent 4 1.0
Total 384 100.0
TABLE 6.8
RESPONDENT TYPE OF FEDERAL GOVERNMENT APPOINTMENT
Career/Career Conditional 323 84.8

Excepted Appointment 40 10.5
Schedule C 2 .5
Senior Executive Service 6 1.6
Other 10 2.6
Total 381 100.0

178
TABLE 6.9
RESPONDENT GENERAL SCHEDULE PAY GRADE CATEGORY
GS-1 to 3 2 .6
GS-4 to 6 86 23.7
GS-7 to 9 69 19.0
GS-10 to 12 83 22.9
GS-13 to 14 85 23.4
GS-15 33 9.1
Executive Schedule 4 1.1
Ungraded 1 .3
Total 363 100.0
TABLE 6.10
RESPONDENT ANNUAL FAMILY/HOUSEHOLD INCOME CATEGORY
Under $20,000 35 9.4

$20 to $29,000 60 16.1
$30 to $39,000 49 13.2
$40 to $49,000 56 15.1
$50 to $59,000 55 14.8
$60 to $69,000 38 10.2
$70 to $79,000 28 7.5
$80,000 and Over 51 13.7
Total 372 100.0

179
TABLE 6.11
RESPONDENT JOB TENURE CATEGORY
Less than 6 Months 25 6.6

6 Months to 1 Year 51 13.5
1 to 2 Years 89 23.5
3 to 5 Years 81 21.4
6 to 10 Years 58 15.3
More than 10 Years 75 19.8
Total 379 100.0
TABLE 6.12
RESPONDENT AGENCY TENURE CATEGORY
Less than 1 Year 39 10.3

1 to 3 Years 99 26.1
4 to 8 Years 91 24.0
9 to 15 Years 83 21.9
More than 15 Years 67 17.7
Total 379 100.0

180
TABLE 6.13
RESPONDENT FEDERAL GOVERNMENT TENURE CATEGORY
Less than 1 Year 30 7.9

1 to 3 Years 58 15.2
4 to 9 Years 83 21.8
10 to "29 Years 194 50.9
30 Years and Over 16 4.2
Total 381 100.0
TABLE 6.14
RESPONDENT AWARE OF FEDERAL AGENCY

WORKSITE PHYSICAL FITNESS FACILITY
Frequency Percent
Yes 377 97.9
No 8 2.1
Total 385 100.0

181
participating in the survey did have worksite physical
fitness facilities available.
Over 55 percent of the survey respondents
indicated that they were members (n = 212) of their
agency's worksite physical fitness facility (Table 6.15).
TABLE 6.15
RESPONDENT STATUS AS MEMBER OF FEDERAL

AGENCY WORKSITE PHYSICAL FITNESS FACILITY
Frequency Percent
Yes 212 55.6
No 169 44.4
Total 381 100.0
Over 39 percent of the members indicated that
they had been users of their facility between 1 and 2
years. More than 38 percent visited the facility an
average of 3 to 4 visits a week on a year-round basis.
Over 30 percent reported that 75 to 100 percent of their
regular weekly physical exercise program was performed at
the facility. Over 61 percent indicated that they paid
no annual membership dues (Tables 6.16 to 6.19).
Worksite physical fitness facility members were
generally very positive about the effects of the facility

182
TABLE 6.16
RESPONDENT TENURE AS FITNESS FACILITY MEMBER
Frequency Percent
Less than 1 month 9 4.3

1 to 6 months 58 27.5
6 months to 1 year 41 19.4
1 to 2 years 83 39.3
3 to 5 years 15 7~1
Over 6 years 5 2.4
Total 211 100.0
TABLE 6.17
AVERAGE NUMBER OF MEMBER WEEKLY VISITS TO FACILITY
Frequency Percent
Less than 1 visit 63 30.1

1 to 2 visits 58 27.8
3 to 4 visits 80 38.3
5 to 6 visits 5 2.4
More than 6 visits 3 1.4
Total 209 100.0

183
TABLE 6.18
AVERAGE PERCENT OF MEMBER'S EXERCISE AT FACILITY
Frequency Percent
Less than 10 percent 39 19.4

10 to 24 percent 29 14.4
25 to 49 percent 24 11.9
SO to 74 percent 48 23.9
75 to 100 percent 61 30.3
Total 201 100.0
TABLE 6.19
RESPONDENT ANNUAL FACILITY MEMBERSHIP DUES
Frequency Percent
Pay no dues 126 61.2

$1 to $5 3 1.5
$6 to $10 6 2.9
$11 to $20 27 13.1
$31 to $50 1 .5
$50 to $100 7 3.4
More than $100 36 17.5
Total 206 100.0

184
on their job attitudes and behavior. A much greater
percentage of member respondents reported that it had
increased their job satisfaction, organizational
commitment, intent to stay with the organization, ability
to cope with job stress, and the amount of exercise and
variety of physical activities they engaged in (Tables
6.20 to 6.29). Almost 72 percent agreed that they were
now more positive toward their agency's local top
management for making the facility available. Over 84
percent agreed that the facility was an important fringe
benefit of working for their organization. Although 66
percent of the members indicated that they enjoyed
interacting with other employees at the worksite fitness
facility, 53 percent indicated that they were neutral or
had no'opinion about how this interaction may have helped
their job performance.
Treatment of Data on Level of Physical Activity
As discussed in Chapter IV, data on respondent
level of physical activity was collected by the Stanford
7-Day Physical Activity Recall, an index adapted by the
researcher for use in the Federal Employee Survey
Questionnaire. This index, which collects data in terms
of hours in and intensity level for different types of
physical activity for a one week period, was used to
calculate respondent energy expenditure in terms of total

185
TABLE 6.20
FACILITY INCREASES RESPONDENT JOB SATISFACTION
Frequency Percent
Strongly Disagree 3 1.4

Disagree 17 8.0
Neutral/No Opinion 47 22.2
Agree 101 47.6
Strongly Agree 44 20.8
Total 212 100.0
TABLE 6.21
FACILITY INCREASES RESPONDENT ORGANIZATIONAL COMMITMENT
Frequency Percent

Disagree 29 13.7
Agree 73 34.4
Total 212 100.0

186
TABLE 6.22
FACILITY INCREASES RESPONDENT

INTENT TO STAY WITH THEIR ORGANIZATION
Frequency Percent

Disagree 36 17.0
Agree 49 23.1
Total 212 100.0
TABLE 6.23
FACILITY INCREASES RESPONDENT

ABILITY TO COPE WITH JOB STRESS
Frequency Percent

Disagree 7 3.3
Agree 87 41.4
Total 210 100.0

187
TABLE 6.24
FACILITY SIGNIFICANTLY CONTRIBUTES TO

AMOUNT OF EXERCISE RESPONDENT ENGAGES IN EACH WEEK
Frequency Percent

Disagree 26 12.3
Agree 67 31.8
Total 211 100.0
TABLE 6.25
FACILITY SIGNIFICANTLY CONTRIBUTES TO

THE VARIETY OF PHYSICAL ACTIVITIES RESPONDENT ENGAGES IN
Frequency Percent

Disagree 17 8.1
Agree 99 47.1
Total 210 100.0

188
TABLE 6.26
RESPONDENT MORE POSITIVE TOWARD
ORGANIZATION'S LOCAL TOP MANAGEMENT
Frequency Percent

Disagree 15 7.1
Agree 92 43.6
Total 211 100.0
TABLE 6.27
FACILITY IS IMPORTANT FRINGE BENEFIT
OF WORKING FOR RESPONDENT'S ORGANIZATION
Frequency Percent
Strongly Disagree 2 .9
Disagree 9 4.2
Agz:ee 86 40.6
Total 212 100.0

189
TABLE 6.28
INTERACTING WITH OTHER EMPLOYEES

AT THE FACILITY HAS BEEN EN'JOYABLE
Frequency Percent
Strongly Disagree 1 .5
Disagree 3 1.4
Agree 94 44.8
Strongly Ag~ee 44 21.0
Total 210 100~O
..
TABLE 6.29
OTHER EMPLOYEES INTERACTED WITH AT THE FACILITY

HAVE HELPED RESPONDENT IN PERFORMANCE OF JOB
Frequency Percent

Disagree 49 23.3
Agree 39 18.6
Total 210 100.0

190
kiloca-lories per kilogram of body weight and total
calor ies expended .dai ly. This information would then be
used to determine respondent level of physical activity.
A number of respondents did not successfully complete
this part of the survey (n = 78). This was due to
several factors, including the failure of respondents to
provide information on: 1) level of physical activity
(by leaving this part of the survey blank); 2) the time
duration spent in different categories of physical
activity (sometimes indicating with only a check mark
activities engaged in); and 3) their body weight, a
figure required for calculation of total calories
expended daily.
After daily caloric expenditure values were
computed for respondents based on data they provided for
the Stanford 7-Day Physical Activity Recall, each was
assigned to one of four categories of physical activity:
"Inactive," "Low-Active," "Moderately-Active," and
"Highly-Active." Value ranges for each category were set
based on suggested limits (Table 6.30). Physical
activity classifications were then reviewed and compared
with the same categories assigned to each respondent
based on participant self-report and an assessment
performed by the researcher based on an independent
review of data provided in this part of the survey.l
This cross-validation of the data and use of other

TABLE 6.30
VALUE RANGES FOR LEVEL OF PHYSICAL ACTIVITY MEASURES
Activity Total Calories

Category* Expended Daily n Kcal/kg/day n
Inactive o - 1999 32 o - 33 38
Low-Active 2000 - 2649 126 34 - 36 122
Moderately-Active 2650 - 3099 72 37 - 39 67
Highly-Act:i.ve 3100+ 79 40+ 94
Total 309 321
* "Inactive" = engages in 2 hours or less of houiehold activity, but no

recreational or sport activities. "Low-Act:j.ve" = engages in 2 hours of
household activity and average of 7 miles of fast walking each week.
"Moderately-Active" = engages in 2 hours of household activity and runs I-'
\0
approximately 18 miles a week. "Highly-Act~ve" = engages in 2 hours of I-'
household activity and runs 40 or more miles a week.
192
measures indicated that total kilocalories per kilogram
of body weight expended per day (kcal/kg/day) was a more
valid indicator of respondent physical activity than
total calories expended. 2 As a result, kcal/kg/day was
selected as the physical activity measure of choice for
the study.
Using this measure, ranges were then set for each
of the four categories of physical activity (Table 6.30).
To illustrate differences in level of physical activity
between individuals in· each category, a respondent in the
"Inactive" category during an average week might perform
two hours or less of household activity, such as
vacuuming or using a power mower to cut the lawn, but
would not engage in recreational or sport activities.
Individuals in the other activity categories would spend
the same amount of time on equivalent household
activities, but would perform additional physical
exercise activities. For example, a "Low-Active"
respondent would also engage in fast walking for about 7
miles during the same one-week period. A "Moderately-
Active" respondent might run approximately 18 miles a
week. A "Highly-Active" respondent would run 40 or more
miles a week. For purposes of comparison, examples for
the latter three categories would not include engagement
in other forms of physical activity.

193
Reliability
The Federal Employee Survey Questionnaire also
included a series of indexes for the measurement of
attitudes toward personal physical fitness and health,
and intent to stay. Except for the physical activity
index, measures of internal consistency reliability were
performed for each of the indexes used in the study.
Application of these measures demonstrated that the
indexes used in the Federal Employee Survey Questionnaire
were acceptable for purposes of this study.
These measures were . derived using the RELIABILITY
procedure in SPSS-X, the computer software program used
in the analysis of data. Cronbach's alpha, an accepted
measure for determining overall internal consistency, was
used for testing each index's degree of reliability.
This measure ranges from -1 to +1, with higher positive
values indicating a greater degree of index reliability.
Values higher than .60 generally indicate an acceptable
degree of reliability. Reliability coefficients based on
Cronbach's alpha are presented for each index in Table
6.31. Corrected item-total score correlations were also
computed for items in each of the indexes. Item-total
correlations provide a simple Pearson correlation
coefficient between each item used in an index and the

194
TABLE 6.31
RELIABILITY COEFFICIENTS FOR INDEXES USED IN THE STUDY
Con:ected
Cronbach's Item-Total
Index Alpha Correlation
Job Satisfaction (Composite) .8283

Subscale:
Working Conditions .3868 .3957
Salary .7750 .4934
Promotions .8188 .5844
Supervision .8931 .5737
Co-Workers .7795 .4636
Local Top Management .8315 .5819
Fringe Benefits* .2511
Task Autonomy .7798 .3949
Task Significance .7057 .4497
Task Involvement .8776 .6822
Overall Work Satisfaction .6474 .6513
Questionnaire .8923
staying or Leaving Index .8857

Index of Job-Related Tensions .8124
Physical Fitness and Health Scale .7472
* This subscale was composed of only one item.

195
overall index score and excludes the contribution of that
item's score to the index.3 Due to the large number of
items used for all of the indexes, corrected item-total
score correlations are only provided for subscales of the
job satisfaction index in Table 6.31.
Reliability coefficients for all 11 subscales of
the Job Satisfaction Index ranged from a low of .387
(Working Conditions) to a high of .893 (Supervision).
Cronbach's alpha yielded a reliability coefficient of
.832 for the Local Top Management subscale, which was
developed by the re"searcher for use in this study. A
reliability coefficient of .780 was found for the
Coworker subscale of the index. A coefficient of .828
was computed for the entire index, which included all 11
subscales. Corrected item-total score "correlations for
each of the subscales used in this index ranged from a
low of .251 for Fringe Benefits, a one-item subscale, to
a high of .682 for the Task Involvement subscale (Table
6.31).
A reliability coefficient of .l92 for the 1S-item
Organizational Commitment Questionnaire was produced by
Cronbach's alpha. Corrected item-total score
correlations for items used in this index ranged from a
low of .308 to a high of .715.
Cronbach's alpha yielded a reliability
coefficient of .886 for the 4-item Staying or Leaving

196
Index, the index used to measure a respondent's intent to
stay with their present organization. corrected item-
total score correlations for items used in the index
ranged from a low of .674 to a high of .873.
The reliability of the IS-item Index of Job-
Related Tensions, which was used to measure respondent
job stress, produced a Cronbach's alpha reliability
coefficie~t of .812. Corrected item-total score
correlations for items which composed this index ranged
from a low of .241 to a high of .612.4
The Physical Fitness and Health Scale, which was
composed of two items developed by the researcher,
produced a reliability coefficient of .747 using
Cronbach's alpha. Corrected item-total score
correlations for both items in the index were ,. 605.
Although this scale produced the lowest reliability
coefficient for any index used in the survey, it was
!: still relatively high and, therefore, considered

,I, acceptable for use in the study.
Methods for Data Analysis
Depending on the nature of the data collected,
different types of statistical analyses were performed.
This included the following: 1) the t-test, which is
used to test hypotheses that two population means are
equal; 2) chi-square analysis; 3) analysis of variance,

197
which is used to test hypotheses that several population
means are equal; 4) simple correlation using the Pearson
correlation coefficient, which measures the strength of
the linear relationship between variables; and 5)
multiple regression analysis, which is used to study the
relationship between a single dependent variable and
several independent variables (Norusis, 1988).
T-test, chi-square analysis, analysis of
-variance, and simple correlation statistical techniques
were applied for purposes of preliminary statistical data
analysis. However, the study's major findings were based
on the results of multiple regression analysis, a much
more powerful statistical technique.~
1
Preliminary Statistical Data Analysis
!-
Three research hypotheses for the study were
presented in Chapter IV. Each of these hypotheses may be
assigned to either of two broad categories: (1)
differences between worksite fitness facility members and
nonmembers and (2) differences between survey respondents
engaging in either lower or higher levels of physical
activity for a number of different variables of interest.
The t-test and analysis of variance (ANOVA), the
statistical procedures which can be used to test the null
hypothesis that two or more population means are equal,
and chi-square analysis were used for hypothesis testing

198
here. A full discussion of hypothesis testing procedures
and results is provided in Appendix G. A summary of
findings is provided below. '

I
I: Results of a series of t-tests found no

"ii
°
significant differences between Federal agency worksite
physical fitness facility members and nonmembers in terms
of job stress, job satisfaction, organizational
commitment, intent to stay, and attitudes toward
coworkers and local top management. However, members had
statistically significant higher levels of physical
activity than nonmembers and rated physical fitness and
overall personal health as more important personal
values. Similarly, there were no significant differences

o
o.
between employees engaging in either lower or in higher
levels of physical activity for the same set of
psychosocial variables (Appendix G).
However, demographic differences between both
members and nonmembers and those at higher and lower
levels of physical activity were found. Members tended
to be younger, have less agency and Federal Government
tenure, and not ~ave managerial or supervisory
responsibilities. More physically active respondents
tended to be younger, white, and in the middle band of GS
pay levels, i.e., GS-10 to 14 (Appendix G).
ANOVA was used to test for differences among four
categories of respondents: worksite physical fitness

199
facility members and nonmembers engaging in either of two
categories of physical activity: "(1) "Inactive-Low
Active" or (2) "Moderat"e-High Active" for each of the
psychosoci~l variables of interest. No significant
differences were found between the groups in terms of job
stress, job satisfaction, organizational commitment, and
intent to stay. However, the mean score for physical
fitness/health values increased as expected in the
following order: Inactive-Low Active Nonmembers,
Inactive-Low Active Members, Moderate-High Active
Nonmembers, and Moderate-High Active Members (Appendix
G) •
Use of Pearson simple correlations found no
significant relationships between physical fitness
facility membership, level of physical activity and
psychosocial variables of interest. However, relatively
strong statistically significant relationships were found
between psychosocial variables and a number of
demographic variables and between demographic variables
themselves. A full discussion of findings based on
simple correlation is also presented in Appendix G.
A Theoretical Model
Based on a review of the literature, a conceptual
model of the relationships between study variables was
developed. A simplified schematic representation of this

200
model is presented in Figure 6.1. This model posits
that:
1) Both level of physical activity and employee
fitness facility membership status are
antecedent to job stress, attitudes toward
coworkers and local top management, job
satisfaction, organizational commitment, and
intent to stay. Both independent variables
are posited to have positive relationships
with all variables except for job stress.
2) Certain personal (e.g, age, sex, education)
and job-related characteristics (e.g., pay,
job and organizational tenure) are antecedent
to the psychosocial variables of job stress,
job satisfaction, organizational commitment,
and intent to stay. The negative or positive
nature of the relationship depends on the
given characteristic.
3) Job satisfaction is a determinant of
organizational commitment.
4) Organizational commitment is antecedent to
employee intent to stay with an organization.

Agure6.1
Theoretical Modei.for
Relationships Between Study Variables
, - n Job Stress
Personal and
. Job Related a
Characteristics
AUitudes Toward Coworkers
Level of AUitudes Toward

Physical Activity Local Top Management
Job Satisfaction
Atness Facility
Membership
+ +
+
r- Intent to Stay
,
I
I
-
r
a tv
Age, Sex, GS level, Job tenure, etc. o
Turnover t-'
202
5) Finally, intention to stay is consid~red to
be an immediate precursor of turnover,
although the nature of this relationship was
not specifically examined in the context of
this study.
The rationale for this model has already been
provided in Chapter III. To summarize, while the
literature clearly indicates the existence of direct
linkages among personal and job-related characteristics,
job satisfaction, organizational commitment, intent to
stay, and turnover as shown in Figure 6.1, it is
relatively silent with respect to the nature of
relationships among employee worksite physical fitness
facility membership status, level of physical activity,
job stress, and the same psychosocial attitudes.
Relationships between variables as presented in the model
will be addressed in the balance of this study.
Multiple Regression Analysis
Theories of job stress, job satisfaction,
organizational commitment, and intent to stay, based on
empirical research and presented in the literature,
indicate that there are many factors which may influence
each of these job-related attitudes and behaviors.

203
Perhaps more importantly, the results of chi-square
analysis, used in the context of this study to
distinguish differences between worksite physical fitness
facility members and nonmembers and respondents at lower
and higher activity levels, suggest that a number of
intervening variables exist. For example, worksite
physical fitness facility members tended to be younger,
have less Federal agency and government tenure, and were
less likely to be supervisors or managers than
nonmembers. Similarly, employees with higher levels of
physical activity were inclined to be younger and in the
middle band of GS pay grades than those employees that
were less active. Since age and organizational tenure
have been positively associated with job satisfaction,
organizational commitment, and intent to stay, these
variables may present themselves as intervening factors
that must be controlled for. As discussed in Chapter
III, research has also indicated the existence of
positive and negative relationships between other
demographic variables, such as sex and marital status,
and psychosocial variables. Multiple regression is
capable of accommodating more than one independent
variable in a regression equation. But, its greatest
value is that it holds constant the effects of all other
independent variables in the regression equation so that
the effects of each individual independent variable can

204
be assessed. For these reasons, it was selected for
application in this study. Therefore, multiple
regression analysis was used to ' study the relationships
between independent variables of interest (i.e., level of
physical activity and worksite physical fitness
membership) and psychosocial variables of interest {i.e.,
job stress, job satisfaction, attitudes toward coworkers
and local top management, organizational commitment, and
intent to stay.
For each dependent variable, a regression
equation composed of di~ferent sets of independent
variables was formulated. A summary matrix of
independent variables used in the regression equations
for each dependent variable is . provided in Table 6.32. A
brief definition for each independent variable is also
included in Table 6.33. Summary statistics for each
dependent variable, including index means, standard
deviations, and value ranges, are provided in Table 6.34.
Although a review of the literature associated with
theories of job stress, job satisfaction, organizational
commitment, and intent to stay was used as a guide, the
entry of independent variables .into the equation for each
variable was ultimately based on the researcher's own
judgement.
Federal agency physical fitness facility
membership status, as a dichotomous nominal level

TABLE 6.32
INDEPENDENT VARIABLES USED IN MULTIPLE REGRESSION
Independent Job Job Coworker Management Organizational Intent

Variable Stress Satisfaction Attitudes Attitudes Commitment to Stay
Activity Level X X X X X X
Membership X X X X X X
Exercise Percent X X X X X
Weekly Visits X
Federal Agency X X X X X X
Sex X X X X X X
Ethnicity X X X X X X
Age X X X X X X
Marital Status X X X X X X
Job Category X X X X X X
GS Level X X X X X X
Appointment X X X X X X
Education X X X X X X
Job Tenure X X X X X X
Agency Tenure X X X X X X
Job Stress X
Job Satisfaction X
Organizational
Commitment X
I'V
o
U1
206
TABLE 6.33
DEFINITIONS OF VARIABLES USED IN MULTIPLE REGRESSION
Kcal/kg/day
Level of physical activity based on total kilocalories

per kilogram of body we.ight expended per day. Values for
this measure were derived from the Stanford 7-Day
Physical Activity Recall index. The four categories of
physical activity used were "Inactive," "Low-
Active,""Moderately-Active," and "Highly-Active."
Self-Report of Physical Activity
Respondent's self-classification into one of four

physical fitness/activity categories: "Inactive," "Low-
Active,""Moderately-Active," and "Highly"":Active."
Facility Membership Status
Federal agency physical fitness facility membership

status. Facility members were assigned a value of 1.
Nonmembers were assigned a value of O.
Percent Exercise at Worksite
Percent of exercise performed by worksite physical

fitness facility members in their workplace.
No. Weekly Facility Visits
Average number of visits to Federal agency worksite

physical fitness facility by member on a weekly basis.
Federal Agency
Each of the three participating Federal agencies: U.S.

Department of Commerce (DOC), Internal Revenue Service
(IRS), and the U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) were
established as dummy variables. DOC served as the
reference variable.
207
Males were assigned a value of O. Females were assigned

a value of 1.
Ethnicity
Each respondent was assigned to one of six ethnic

categories: "White" (reference variable), "Black,"
"Hispanic,""Asian,""Native American," and "Other Ethnic
Group."
Respondent age. Based on the average age for each

category used in the survey.
Marital status
Unmarried respondents were assigned a value of O.

Married respondents were assigned a value of 1.
Education
Level of education based on number of years in school.
Job category
Each respondent was assigned to one of six job

categories: "Managerial/Supervisory" (reference
variable), "Professional/Administrative,"
"Technical/Para-professional, ""Skilled
Labor/Craftsman,""Clerical," and "Other."
GS Level
General Schedule pay grade. Based on the seven

categories used in the survey.
208
Appointment
Federal job appointment type. Dummy categories included:

"Career/Career Conditional" (reference variable),
"Excepted Appointment," "Schedule C," "Senior Executive
Service," and "Other Appointment Type."
Job Tenure
Time spent in present job. Based on six range

categories.
Agency Tenure
Time spent working for Federal agency at present

location. Based on five range categories.
Job Stress
Level of job stress based on Index of Job-Related Tension

measure.
Job Satisfaction
Level of job satisfaction based on measure from the job

satisfaction index developed by Prof. Clifford Mottaz.
Level of organizational commitment based on measure from

the Organizational Commitment Questionnaire.
TABLE 6.34
SUMMARY STATISTICS FOR DEPENDENT VARIABLES
Standard Range
Variable Mean Deviation Minimum Maximum n
Job Stress 2.707 .529 1.250 4.857 386
Job Satisfaction 3.373 .509 1.295 4.758 379
Coworker Attitudes 3.737 .704 1.000 5.000 385
Top Management
Attitudes 2 .. 940 .888 1.000 5.000 384
Organizational
Commitment 3.258 .600 1.400 5.000 386
Intent to Stay 3.448 .703 1.000 4.000 364
N
o
U)
210
variable, required the assignment of separate values to
each category of membership for purposes of regression
analysis. Fitness facility nonmembers were assigned a
value of O. Fitness facility members were assigned a
value of 1. Similarly, sex and marital status, as
dichotomous nominal level variables, were also assigned
values of o and 1 (males = 0, females = 1; unmarried = 0,

married = 1). In addition, due to the categorical nature
of most of the demographic variables, a dummy variable
system was necessary for purposes of multiple regression
analysis. Dummy variables were used for Federal
Government agency, ethnic background, job category, and
type of Federal Government appointment. In order to
discern nonlinear relationships associated with level of
physical activity, a dummy variable system was used to
accommodate the following four categories of respondent
activity: "Inactive," "Low-Active," "Moderately-Active,"
and "Highly-Active."
Because of the high correlation between Federal
agency tenure and Federal Government tenure (.76), the
latter variable was excluded from all equations to
mitigate problems associated with multicollinearity. Job
tenure, the period of time spent in a particular position
with a specific job title, and Federal agency tenure, the
period of time employed by a particular agency, were
included in all equations due to the distinctive nature

211
of each variable. Also, for level of education, the
number of years for schooling completed were entered for
the category designated by each respondent (e.g.,
Bachelor's degree = 16 years). Similarly, an average age
in years was assigned to each age range category used in
the survey (e.g., age category 20-29 years = 25 years) to
permit measurement in years.
The balance of this chapter will examine results
of the study based on multiple regression analysis.
Results of the study using multiple regression analysis
for each of the dependent variables 6f interest: job
stress, job satisfaction, attitudes toward coworkers and
local top management, organizational commitment, and
intent to stay, are discussed below.
Job stress
Table 6.35 provides the results of multiple
regression analysis with job stress as the dependent
variable. According to the R square statistic, this
regression equation explains 21 percent of the variance
in job stress. The observed significance level for this
equation was .0457.
The results of this regression equation suggest
the existence of a negative relationship between level of
physical activity, based on kcal/kg/day, and job stress.
Small but negative values for b, the unstandardized

212
TABLE 6.35
KULTIPLE REGRESSION WITH JOB STRESS AS DEPENDENT VARIABLE

(LEVEL OF PHYSICAL ACTIVITY BASED ON KCAL/KG/DAY)
B SE B Beta
Low-Active -.115036 .100150 -.101130
Mode~ately-Active -.092936 .118152 -.066533
Highly-Active -.151745 .111061 -.124751*
Facility Hembe~ship Status .034944 .080260 .032849
No. Weekly Facility Visits -.097495 .043292 -.173188***
IRS -.013968 .092465 -.012530
DOE .044685 .114806 .035439
Sex -.066014 .093693 -.062418
Black -.332132 .193967 -.128789**
Hispanic -.459220 .210911 -.156557***
Native Ame~ican 1.324766 .521398 .179733***
Asian .516625 .446521 .085732
Othe~ Ethnic G~oup -.221715 .337523 -.047376
Age . -.006964 .004619 -.134942*
Ha~ital Status .001427 .080714 .001319
Education -.013066 .019251 -.065500
Professional/Administrative -.206920 .108414 -.192980**
Technical/Pa~ap~o£essional -.284591 .135906 -.230080***
Skilled Labor/C~aftsman -.818210 .352309 - .174834***
Clerical -.233770 .173272 -.144484*
Other Job Category -.561686 .536141 -.076205
GS Level .052054 .053155 .135052
Excepted Appointment -.068418 .125745 -.039410
Schedule C Appointment -.213734 .533887 -.028998
Senio~ Executive Se~vice -.322095 .328686 -.075295
Other Appointment Type .059372 .244944 .017824
Job Tenure -.017924 .035147 -.051299
Agency Tenure -.061154 .046362 -.145811*
(Constant) 3.625647 .301616
Multiple R =
.46007
R Squared = .21167
F = 1.56304
Significance F = .0457
Adjusted R Squared = .07625
Standa~d Error =
.50861
*p < .10
**p < .05
***p < .01
****p < .001
213
partial regression coefficient, indicate that respondents
that were in the "Low-Active," "Moderately-Active," and
"Highly-Active" groups exhibited slightly less job stress
than those in "Inactive" reference group. However,
statistical significance (t <.10) was found only for the
"Highly-Active" group. This group also exhibited the
least job stress when compared to the other three
activity groups. Those in the highest physical activity
group had a .15 unit decrease in job stress when compared
to the "Inactive" reference group using the 5-point job
stress index. Based on the mean score for this variable,
"Highly-Active" respondents exhibited a 6 percent
decrease in job stress when compared to all survey
respondents. 6 This finding confirms one of the major
research hypotheses for this study: that job stress
decreases with level of physical activity.
The above finding was confirmed when level of
physical activity, based on respondent self-report, was
substituted for level of activity based on kcal/kg/day in
a new regression equation (Table 6.36). The self-report
measure of physical activity, although considered less
valid due to subjectivity, was found to be a useful
indicator of respondent activity level based on
relatively high correlations with the kcal/kg/day measure
(Pearson's r = .58) and the researcher's own assignment
of employees into physical activity categories (Pearson's

214
TABLE 6.36
MULTIPLE REGRESSION WITH JOB STRESS AS DEPENDENT VARIABLE
(LEVEL OF PHYSICAL ACTIVITY BASED ON RESPONDENT SELF-REPORT)
B SE B Beta
Low-Active -.266028 .188015 -.218150*
Moderately-Active -.259503 .180556 -.245213*
Highly-Active -.354994 .190053 -.280404**
Facility Membership Status .031591 .080572 .029697
No. Weekly Facility Visits -.095336 .044535 -.169352**
IRS -.022613 .092176 -.020284
DOE .033088 .1,14597 .026242
Sex -.062476 .092869 -.059074
Black -.332196 .192782 -.128814**
Hispanic -.456289 .210323 -.155558***
Native American 1. 354998 .519109 .183835***
Asian .493623 .441343 .081915
Other Ethnic Group -.184888 .335659 -.039507
Age -.007154 .004585 -.138628*
Marital Status .009934 .080939 .009182
Education -.011091 .019231 -.055599, ;
Professional/Administrative -.221009 .108133 -. 206120,~* '
Technical/Paraprofessional -.286536 .135618 -.231653-*'**
Skilled Labor/Craftsman -.819221 .352620 -.175050***'
Clerical -.237069 .173802 -.146524*
GS Level .050762 .053014 .131700
Senior Executive Service -.311378 .327700 -.072790
Other Appointment Type .p86782 .243592 .026052
Job Tenure -.021579 .035005 -.061761
Agency Tenure -.049083 .046692 -.117031
(Constant) 3.625647 .301616
Multiple R = .46713
R Squared = .21821
F = 1. 62482
Standard Error = .50650
*p < .10
up < .05
***p < .01
****p < .001
215
r = .79). Although subjective, the relationship between
this measure of physical activity and job stress was
found to statistically significant for the "Low-Active"
(t <.10), "Moderately-Active" (t <'10), and "Highly-
Active" (t <.05) groups. Unstandardized partial
regression coefficients for each of the activity groups
using the self-report measure also show an even lower
level of job stress for the "Low-Active," "Moderately-
Active," and "Highly-Active" groups when compared to the
"Inactive" reference group in this equation. Again,
those in the "Highly Active" group exhibited the lowest
level of job stress, with a 13 percent decrease in job
stress when compared to all survey respondents. However,
use of either the kcal/kg/day or self-report measures of
physical activity did not demonstrate dramatic
differences in job stress between the three higher
activity groups. Interestingly, there appears to be a
threshold effect where those respondents in the "Low-
Active" group, employees engaging in relatively limited
physical activity, had the greatest decrease in job
stress when compared to the next lower _ activity group, in
this case the "Inactive" group. The "Moderately-Active"
and "Highly-Active" groups also exhibited lower job
stress than the reference group, but did not differ as
much in degree when compared to the next lower activity
group.
216
The finding of a negative association between
level of physical activity and job stress here confirms
the limited research that has already been conducted in
this area (Falls et al., 1980; Keller and Seraganian,
1984; Michael, 1957; Shephard, 1986a; Shephard, 1986b;
Sinyor et al., 1983) as well as more qualitative
observations by others .
Regarding Federal agency worksite physical
fitness facility membership, no association was found
between this independent variable, one of principal
interest to the study, and job stress. Although a very
low negative b value was computed, it was not
statistically significant. However, a highly
statistically significant negative relationship (t <.01)
was found between the average number' of weekly visits by
members to the worksite physical fitness facility and job
stress, controlling for overall level of physical
activity (since nonmembers of the facility did not
respond to this survey question, their value for this
variable was set at zero). Therefore, it appears that
the more often an employee visited their facility, the
greater the likelihood that they engaged in physical
exercise. More exercise, in turn, probably contributed
to a reduction of personal stress, including job stress.
The magnitude of the standardized regression coefficient
for this variable (-.173) also indicates that the average

217
number of weekly visits by members to their facility is a
relatively more important variable than level of physical
activity in the job stress equation.
The "average number of weekly visits" independent
variable was used only in the regression equation for job
stress. The "percent of a member's regular exercise
program performed at the worksite" was substituted for
the "average number of weekly visits" independent
variable in equations used for all the other dependent
variables of interest (i.e., job satisfaction, attitudes
toward coworkers and local top management, organizational
commitment, and intent to stay) because the former
variable was considered to be a much more important
variable than number of visits in the influence of these
variables. The "average number of weekly visits"
independent variable was substituted for the "percent of
a member's regular exercise program performed at the
worksite" variable because it was believed to be a much
more important factor in job stress. On the other hand,
the percent of an employee's exercise program performed
at the worksite was believed to have no bearing on job
stress, but might influence the other dependent variables
of interest. Similarly, there seemed to be no rationale
for the existence of a relationship between average
number of weekly visits and the other psychosocial
variables. These assumptions were confirmed when very

218
weak and statistically insignificant relationships were
found when each independent variable was substituted for
the other in each of the multiple regression equations.
The above finding related to job stress confirms
the observation by others that, aside from actual
engagement in physical activity, use of such facilities
situated in the work environment may serve to reduce work
stress because it provides a convenient escape from job-
related boredom in a socially acceptable setting (Haskell
and Blair, 1982; Shephard, 1986b).
Other independent variables found to have a
statistically significant association with job stress
were ethnic background, age, and job category.
Two ethnic groups, Blacks (n = 17) and Hispanics
(n = 13), exhibited lower job stress than respondents in
the "White" categorical reference group (t <.05 and <.01,
respectively). "Native American" respondents (n = 2) had
a much higher level of job stress when compared to the
reference group as well as all other ethnic categories
participating in the study. However, since the number of
minority group respondents was relatively small, any
major finding could not be reported based on this study.
A ~eview of the literature also does not indicate the
existence of a relationship between both ethnicity and
job stress variables.

219
All five job categories, i.e, "Professional/
Administrative," "Technical/Paraprofessional," "Skilled
Labor/Craftsman" "Clerical , " and "Other Job Category"

"
exhibited lower levels of job stress than the
"Manager/Supervisor" reference group based on
unstandardized partial regression coefficients. Values
for all job categories except for "Other Job Category"
were statistically significant at the .10 level or lower.
The "Skilled Labor/Craftsman" job category exhibited the
lowest level of job stress (t <.01) when compared to the
reference group. This is understandable considering the
greater stress often accompanying increased
responsibilities associated with employee supervision and
program accomplishment. The "Skilled Labor/Craftsman"
job category also exhibited a 30 percent decrease in job
stress when compared to all survey respondents.
The results of multiple regression analysis did
not find significant differences between Federal agencies
participating in the study with respect to job stress.
Thus, it appears that physical activity may
alleviate job stress among Federal employees. However,
an alternative finding should also be presented here:
workers under greater stress may be less inclined to find
time to work out. Conversely, those under less job
stress may be more likely to find the time for physical

220
exercise, particularly if a worksite physical fitness
facility is available.
Job Satisfaction
regression analysis with job satisfaction as the
dependent variable. Based on the R square statistic,
this regression equation explains about 35 percent of the
variance in job satisfaction. The observed significance
level (F <.0000) is also very low for the entire
equation.
The results of this equation indicate that there
is a positive relationship between level of physical
activity, based on kcal/kg/day, and job satisfaction.
Small but positive values for b, the unstandardized
partial regression coefficient, indicate that respondents
that were in the "Low-Active," "Moderately- Active," and
"Highly-Active" groups were slightly more satisfied with
their jobs than those in the "Inactive" group. The
"Highly-Active" group was also the most satisfied with
their jobs when compared to the other three activity
groups (t <.10). Those in the highest physical activity
group had a .14 unit increase in job satisfaction over
the "Inactive" reference group on the 5-point scale for
this index. "Highly-Active" employees also exhibited a 4

221
TABLE 6.37
MULTIPLE REGRESSION WITH JOB SATISFACTION AS DEPENDENT VARIABLE

B SE B Beta
Low-Active .116293 .089834 .106188*
Moderately-Active .112599 .106918 .083727
Highly-Active .143038 .101619 .120550*
Facility Membership status -.022050 .072692 -.021529
stress -.407196 .069789 -.422939****
, Exercise at Worksite .002597. .001124 .174953***
IRS -.004898 .084690 -.004564
DOE -.282636 .106125 -.232822***
Sex .087788 .084921 .086216
Black .130071 .176603 .052387
Hispanic .021524 .190983 .007622
Native American -.425165 .482655 -.059913
Asian -.156049 .404252 -.026897
Other Ethnic Gro~p -.123895 .305435 -.027497
Age -.004230 .004195 -.085128
Marital Status .077735 .073230 .074625
Education -.013511 .017380 -.070350
Professional/Administrative -.071850 .098890 -.069600
Technical/Paraprofessional -.023111 .124043 -.019407
Skilled Labor/Craftsman -.495791 .323823 -.110036*
Clerical -.081588 .157399 -.052376
Other Job Category .332641 .486116 .046875
GS Level .144469 .047949 .389313***
Excepted Appointment .122883 .113661 .073520
Schedule C Appointment .073361 .481615 .010338
Other Appointment Type .075159 .220859 .023435
Job Tenure -.037013 .031803 -.110030
Agency Tenure .056647 .041638 .140286*
(Constant) 4.098037 .435838
Multiple R = .58825
R Squared = .34604
F = 2.80997
*p < .10
up < .05
***p < .01
****p < .001
222
percent increase in job satisfaction over all survey
respondents based on mean scores for this variable.
The above finding confirms the major research
hypothesis for this study: job satisfaction increases
with level of physical activity. This finding was
conf.irmed when level of physical activity based on
respondent self-report was substituted for level of
activity based on kcal/kg/day in the regression equation
(Table 6.38). Statistically significant b values for
each of the activity groups (t <.05) using the self-
report measure also show an even greater effect of
physical activity on job satisfaction when the "Low-
Active," "Moderately-Active," and "Highly-Active" groups
are compared to the "Iriactlve" reference group. Again,
those in the "Highly Active" group exhibited the greatest
level of job satisfaction (t <.001) and had an 11 percent
increase over all survey respondents based on the mean
score for this variable. However, using either the
kcal/kg/day or self-report measures of physical activity,
differences in job satisfaction between the three higher
activity groups were not great. Interestingly, as with
job stress, there appears to be a threshold effect where
those respondents in the "Low-Active" group, those
employees engaging in relatively limited physical
activity, had the greatest increase in job satisfaction
over any other group, in this case the "Inactive" group.

223
TABLE 6.38
MULTIPLE REGRESSION WITH JOB SATISFACTION AS DEPENDENT VARIABLE

B SE B Beta
Low-Active .378080 .167817 .322023***
Moderately-Active .309891 .163020 .304148**
Highly-Active .381354 .172678 .312872***
Facility Membership status -.014767 .072446 -.014418
stress ' -.399392 .069463 -.414834****
% Exercise at Worksite .002841 .001118 .191356***
IRS 1.14622E-04 .084137 1. 068E-04
DOE -.282580 .105419 -.232775***
Sex .077115 . .083483 .075735
Black .137025 .174220 .055188
Hispanic .022895 .189630 .008107
Native American -.481327 .478351 -.067827
Asian -.114997 •.397398 -.019821
Age -.004062 .004142 . -.081742
Marital status .063047 .072950 .060524
Education -.014290 .017244 -.074403
Skilled Labor/Craftsman -.482970 '.321870 -.107190*
Clerical -.066295 .157246 -.042559
GS Level .149113 .047578 .401828****
Other ApPOintment Type .039065 .218456 .012181
Job Tenure -.033917 .031488 -.100828
Agency Tenure .047365 .041450 .117301
(Constant) 3.832297 .457892
Multiple R = .59926
R Squared = .35911
F = 2.97554
Signif F = .0000
*p < .10
up < .05
***p < .01
****p < .001
224
The next two higher activity groups, "Moderately-Active"
and "Highly-Active," also had greater job satisfaction
than the reference group, but to a smaller degree than
the "Low-Active" group.
The finding of a positive association between
level of physical activity and job satisfaction here
confirms existing findings from limited research that has
already been conducted on these two variables (Cox et
al., 1981). The specific nature of this association is
unclear, but one interpretation may be presented.
Individuals t~at engage in higher levels of physical
activity may have a greater self-concept which in turn
enhances . their perspective on other parts of their lives,
resulting in greater · satisfaction with their jobs. There
may be other, less obvious reasons for the relationship
between both variables. However, additional research is
necessary before the specific nature of these
relationships can be determined.
Regarding Federal agency worksite physical
fitness facility membership, no association was found
between this independent variable and job satisfaction.
Although a very low negative b value was computed, no
statistical significance was found. Therefore, it
appears that facility membership status is not a factor
in Federal employee job satisfaction.

225
However, a very weak but highly statistically
significant positive relationship (t <.001) was found
between the percent of a member's regular exercise
program performed at the worksite and job satisfaction
(since fitness facility nonmembers did not respond to
this survey question, their value for this variable was
set at zero). This finding suggests that employees that
use their worksite physical fitness facility as the
location for a greater proportion of their exercise
program were more satisfied with their jobs. In fact,
the equation in Table 6.37 suggests that members that
performed 100 percent of their exercise program in the
workplace would have a higher level of job satisfaction,
i.e., an increase of 0.26 units or 8 percent, than would
an otherwise similar employee who performed their entire
exercise program elsewhere or did not use the facility at
all. Therefore, for employees who performed all their
exercise at work, this variable had a more powerful
influence on job satisfaction than employee level of
physical activity. A possible explanation for this
finding is that workers who take more advantage of their
agency's worksite fitness facility have also integrated
their work and personal lives to a greater extent,
leading to increased satisfaction on~the-job. That is,
the existence of a physical fitness facility in the

226
workplace provides employees with a means to satisfy
individual needs.
A strong statistically significant association
was found between job stress (t <.001) and job
satisfaction. The b value for this independent variable
indicates that for everyone unit decrease in job stress,
based on the 5-point job stress index scale, job
satisfaction increased by .40 units on the 5-point job
satisfaction scale. The inverse relationship between
both variables is not unexpected, although little other
empirical research is available to support its existence.
The results of multiple regression analysis also
found significant differences between Federal agencies
participating in the study. DOE respondents exhibited a
lower level of job satisfaction than employees from the
other agencies. DOE employees had a -.283 unstandardized
regression coefficient for this variable, equivalent to
over an 8 percent decrease in job satisfaction when
compared to the other Federal employees participating in
the study (t < .01). No significant differences were
found between IRS employees and DOC employees. Lower job
satisfaction among DOE employees may be attributed to a
number of factors, including a less desirable
organizational culture and more negative public opinion
from the agency's involvement in controversial defense
and environmental issues. An investigation of

227
differences in Federal agency job satisfaction is beyond
the scope of this study, but it does not appear to be
associated with differences in the nature of worksite
physical fitness facilities.
Although four of the five job categories used in
the study demonstrated lower levels of job satisfaction
than those in the "Manager/Supervisor" reference group,
statistical significance was found for only one, the
"Skilled Labor/Craftsman" job category (t < .10). This
is consistent with the findings of prior studies which
have found that job satisfaction has a tendency to
increase as one ascends the organizational hierarchy of
jobs based on social prestige and is lower among blue-
collar workers (Rambo, 1982).
Statistically significant positive relationships
were found between only two other demographic variables
and job satisfaction. A relatively weak (beta
coefficient of .144), but statistically significant
positive relationship (t <.01) was indicated between
General Schedule (GS) level and the dependent variable.
This finding may be attributed to the fact that a rise in
GS level accompanies an increase in pay and a higher
status in the organization, both factors confirmed by
previous research to have a positive association with job
satisfaction. Similarly, Federal agency tenure was found
to have a very weak positive relationship with job

228
satisfaction, but a lower statistical significance (t
<.10). No other job or personal demographic variables
used in the study appeared to be associated with job
satisfaction.
A review of the regression equation's
standardized partial regression coefficients, i.e, Beta
values, which provide a measure of the importance of each
independent variable relative to the other independent
variables in explaining the variation in the dependent
variable, indicate that job stress is the most important
independent variable associated with job satisfaction.
Job stress had the highest Beta value (.423) of any
independent variable in the equation.
Based on the standardized partial regression
coefficient, GS level follows job stress as the most
important independent variable in terms of job
satisfaction (Beta value of .389). All other independent
variables, including those for physical activity, were of
lesser importance in explaining job satisfaction
variance.
Attitudes Toward Coworkers and Local Top Management
Multiple regression was used to study the
association between the study's major independent
variables and attitudes toward coworkers and local agency
top management. Values for both dependent variables were

229
based on responses to two separate subscales of the index
used to measure job satisfaction in the study. According
to the R square statistic, the regression equation used
explains over 24 percent of the variance in attitudes
toward coworkers and 21 percent of the variance in
attitudes toward local top management (Table 6.39 and
Table 6.40. The observed significance levels for both
equations were relatively high (F <.0208 and F <.0866,
respecti ve ly) .
Based on the kcal/kg/day measure, there appears
to be a positive and seemingly linear relationship
between level of physical activity and attitudes toward
coworkers. But, statistical significance was found for
only the "Highly-Active" group (t <.10). However, using
the respondent self-report measure of physical activity a
stronger and more highly significant association was
found for each of the three assigned categories: "Low-
Active" (t <'01), "Moderately-Active" (t <'05), and
"Highly-Active" (t <'05) (Table 6.41). Using either
measure, the most active group was the most positive
toward coworkers. Although the reason for this is not
clear, the same mechanism at work in job satisfaction may
also be operating here. That is, self-concept may
improve as level of physical activity increases. As
self-concept is enhanced so is an individual's overall
life outlook. General perceptions then become more

230
TABLE 6.39
MULTIPLE REGRESSION WITH

ATTITUDES TOWARD COWORKERS AS DEPENDENT VARIABLE
B SE B Beta
Low-Active .025783 .133525 .017040

Highly-Active .224279 .151042 .136809*
stress -.408087 .103731 -.306787****
\ Exercise at Worksite .002182 .001671 .106387*
IRS .010168 .125879 .006857
DOE -.321486 .157740 -.191676**
Sex .076349 .126223 .054271
Black .122181 .262495 .035617
Hispanic -.227358 .283868 -.058270
Native American -.250778 .717397 -.025578
Asian -.631674 .600861 -.078804
Other Ethnic Group . -.757400 .453985 -.121666**
Age -.001275 .006235 -.018578
Marital Status .211306 .108845 .146822**
Education .014698 .025833 .055392
Professional/Administrative -.193610 .146986 -.135745*
Technical/Paraprofessional - •.123701 .184371 -.075182
Skilled Labor/Craftsman -1.429028 .481316 .229554 u **
Clerical -.227397 .233950 -.105658
Other Job category .243308 .722541 .024816
GS Level .053761 .071269 .104858
Senior Executive Service .219196 .441824 .038521
other Appointment Type -.083216 .328274 -.018780
Job Tenure -~016400 .047270 -.035288
Agency Tenure .012355 .061888 .022145
(Constant) 4.315657 .647810
Multiple R = .49310
R Squared = .24314
F = 1. 70599
Slgnif F = .0208
*p < .10
up < .05
***p < .01
****p < .001
231
TABLE 6.40
ATTITUDES TOWARD LOCAL TOP MANAGEMENT AS DEPENDENT VARIABLE
B SE B Beta
Low-Active .040722 .171850 .021334
Highly-Active .117907 .194396 .057013
stress -.575219 .133505 -.342790****
% Exercise at Worksite .004426 .002150 .171071**
IRS .060308 .162011 .032238
DOE -.410567 .203016 -.194044**
Sex .020474 .162453 .011537
Black .347793 .337840 .080368 -
Hispanic -.160312 .365348 -.032570
Native American -- .132384 .923313 -.010703
Asian -.198088 .773328 -.019 -5 89
Age -.005740 .008025 -.066285
Marital Status -.009358 .140087 -.005154
Education -.012168 .033248 -.036352
Professional/Administrative -.356138 .189176 -.197936**
Technical/Paraprofessional -.-232747 .237292 -.112134
Skilled Labor/Cra-ftsman -1.173498 .619469 - .149430**
Clerical . -.198539 .301101 -.073126
Othe_r Job Category .029985 .929933 .002424
GS Level .054546 .091725 .084335
other Appointment Type -.036850 .422499 -.006593
Job Tenure -.050711 .060838 -.086493
Agency Tenure .018388 .079652 .026127
(Constant) 4.895946 .833752
Multiple R = .46066
R Squared = .21220
F = 1. 43042
Signif F = .0866
*p < .10
**p < .05
***p < .01
****p < .001
232
TABLE 6.41

ATTITUDES TOWARD COWORKERS AS DEPENDENT VARIABLE
B SE B Beta
Low-Active .522597 .250306 .322166***
Moderately-ActIve .440416 .243152 .312858**
Highly-Active .524935 .257557 .311712**
stress -.399054 .103607 -.299996****
, Exercise at Worksite .002192 .001668 .106863*
IRS .014602 .125494 .009847
DOE -.330099 .157237 -.196811***
Sex .035362 .124519 .025136
Black .143093 .259857 .041713
Hispanic -.220964 .282841 -.056631
Native American -.338041 .713481 -.034478
Asian -.510577 .592736 -.063696
Other Ethnic Group -.782619 .450406 -.125717**
Age -.001849 .006178 -.026928
Marital Status .187604 .108808 .130353**
Education .013834 .025720 .052136
Technical/Paraprofessional - •.103061 .183520 -.062638
Skilled Labor/Craftsman -1.406775 .480084 -.225979***
Clerical -.191115 .234539 -.088799
GS Level .060282 .070965 .117576
Other Appointment Type -.143313 .325837 -.032343
Job Tenure -.010123 .046966 -.021780
Agency Tenure -.002314 .061824 -.004148
(Constant) 3.958188 .682967
Multiple R = .50307
R Squared = .25308
F = 1. 79930
Signif F = .0124
*p < .10
up < .05
***p < .01
**up < .001
233
positive, including those toward coworkers. Additional
research would need to be conducted to confirm this
observation based on the study finding here.
Although no relationship was found between level
of physical activity based on kcal/kg/day and attitudes
toward local top management, low statistical significance
(t <.10) was found between the "Low-Active" group based
on the self-report measure and this variable (Table
6.42). However, since positive b values were found for
each of the three higher physical activity groups using
both activity measures, the existence of a positive
relationship between variables is suggested. As in
attitudes toward coworkers, the nature of this
relationship needs to be explored.
The finding of positive relationships between
level of physical fitness and attitudes toward coworkers
and local top management would partially confirm the
outcome of research conducted by Cox and others (1981)
who found that subjects in an company-sponsored exercise
class reported having "a better rapport with their
supervisors and coworkers" (p. 799) as a result of their
participation.
No statistically significant relationship was
found between Federal agency worksite physi-cal fitness
facility membership and attitudes toward coworkers and
local top management, although positive, but low b values

234
TABLE 6.42

ATTITUDES TOWARD LOCAL TOP MANAGEMENT AS DEPENDENT VARIABLE
B SE B Beta
Low-Active .412947 .322637 .201799*
Highly-Active .386052 .331984 .181721
stress -.565961 .133546 -.337273****
\ Exercise at Worksite .004734 .002150 .182951***
IRS .060987 .161758 .032601
DOE -.415931 .202674 -.196579**
Sex -.001322 .160502 -7.448E-04
Black .371204 .334948 .085778
Hispanic -.159977 .364574 -.032502
Native American -.173885 .919657 -.014059
Asian -.140220 .764020 -.013867
Age -.005418 .007963 -.062567
Marital Status -.024773 .140250 -.013645
Education -.012746 .033153 -.038077
Professional/Administrative -.333384 .188706 -.185290** ·
Sk illed Labor/Craftsman -1.163403 .618815 - .148145**
Clerical -.181285 .302314 -.066771
GS Level .057555 .091471 .088987
Other Appointment Type -.073436 .419995 -.013138
Job Tenure -.048819 .060537 -.083267
Agency Tenure .010776 .079689 .015311
(Constant) 4.585243 .880325
Multiple R = .46925
R Squared = .22020
F = 1. 49953
Signif F = .0617
*p < .10
**p < .05
.**p < .01
****p < .001
235
were computed (.105 and .029, respectively). Similarly,
although statistical significance was found for member
percent of exercise program performed at the worksite and
both dependent variables (t <.10 and t <.05,
respectively), very low positive b values were present
(.002 and .004, found in Tables 6.39 and 6.40). As with
job satisfaction, this finding suggests that employees
that use their worksite physical fitness facility as the
location for a greater proportion of their exercise
program were more inclined to be positive toward
coworkers and management. For example, ~embers that
performed 100 percent of their exercise program in the
workplace had relatively high beta coefficients, .22 and
.44 respectively, for coworker and local top management
attitudes when compared to otherwise similar employees
who performed their entire exercise program elsewhere or
did not use the facility at all. The coefficients for
this independent variable were also higher than
coefficients for any category of physical activity for
both variables (the "Highly-Active" group had the largest
beta coefficients, .224 and .118, respectively).
Therefore, for employees who performed all their exercise
at work, this variable had a more powerful influence on
attitudes toward coworkers and local top management than
their level of physical activity. These findings suggest
that employees that engage in a greater proportion of

236
exercise at the worksite are more disposed toward agency
top managementi perhaps due to the perceived role they
play in making the facility available to employees.
As with job satisfaction, a strong statistically
significant negative association was found between job
stress (t <.001) and attitudes toward coworkers and top
management. Beta coefficients for both variables were
relatively high, -.41 and -.58, respectively. Therefore,
as level of job stress increased, employee attitudes
toward coworkers and top managers became noticeably less
favorable. This finding suggests that job stress may be
an important antecedent of these work attitudes.
However, the specific nature of this relationship is not
clear.
When compared to the other two participating
Federal agencies, DOE respondents were relatively less
positive toward coworkers and top management (t<.05).
The reasons for this are not apparent and a further
investigation of this relationship is beyond the scope of
this study.
Several personal and job demographic variables
were also found to be associated with attitudes toward
coworkers and local top management. The "Other Ethnic
Category" group (n = 5) were less positive toward
coworkers (t <.05). Although negative b values were
present for all ethnic groups except for the "Black"

237
respondent category when compared to the "White"
reference group, statistical significance was not found
for any of these groups.
Married respondents (n = 233) were also somewhat
more positive toward coworkers (t <.05) than unmarried
respondents, although it is not clear why. Job category
was the only other independent variable that appeared to
be a factor in respondent attitudes toward coworkers and
top management. Except for the "Other Job Category" (n =

2) all job categories were less positive toward coworkers
and top management than the "Manager/Supervisor"
reference group, although statistical significance was
only found for the "Professional/Administrative" (n =

161) and the "Skilled Labor/Craftsman" (n = 5)
categories. The observed levels of significance for both
categories were t <.10 and t <.001, respectively.
regression analysis with organizational commitment as the
dependent variable. According to the R square statistic,
this regression equation explains 57 percent of the
variance in organizational commitment. The observed
significance level, i.e., F <.0000, is also very low for
this equation.
238
TABLE 6.43

ORGANIZATIONAL COMMITMENT AS DEPENDENT VARIABLE
B SE B Beta
Low-Active .042796 .086452 .033190
Moderately-Active .0'47929 .102681 .030269
Highly-Active .047827 .097740 .034235
Facility Membership status .026314 .069599 .021822
Job Satisfaction .863078 .069805 .733041*-**
\ Exercise at Worksite -.001920 .001095 -.1098 .4 0**
IRS .045741 .081059 .036196
DOE .028275 .103662 .019783
Sex -.074346 .081565 -.062014
Black .032943 .168683 .011269
Hispanic -.113610 .181305 -.034168
Native American .114993 .458644 .013763
Asian .462713 .386357 .067738
Age .006525 .003982 .111529**
Marital Status .047591 .070315 .038804
Education -.026546 .016629 -.117397**
Technical/Paraprofessional - •. 030796 .117467 -.021964
Skilled Labor/Craftsman .174914 .304806 .032971
Clerical .- .128537 .149645 -.070083
Other Job category .430348 .465346 .051507
GS Level -.087612 .046659 -.200523**
other Appointment Type .079434 .211365 .021037
Job Tenure -.056156 .030484 -.141788**
Agency Tenure -.001306 .040080 -.002748
(Constant) 1.125649 .383649
Multiple R =
.75349
R Squared = .56775
F = 6.97499
Significance F =
.0000
Standard Error =
.42992
*p < .10
up < .05
***p < .01
****p < .001
239
This regression equation found no relationship
between level of physical activity, based on either
measures of kcal/kg/day or respondent self-report, and
organizational commitment. Although very low positive b
values (ranging from .043 to .048) were computed for each
level of physical activity category, none were
statistically significant. An association was also not
found between Federal agency worksite physical fitness
facility membership and the dependent variable.
A statistically significant negative relationship
(t <.05) was found between the percent of a member's
regular exercise program performed at the worksite and
organizational commitment. Members that performed 100
percent of their exercise program in the vorkplace had a
relatively high beta coefficient (-.192) for this
variable when compared to otherwise similar employees who
performed their entire exercise program elsewhere or did
not use the facility at all. This finding indicates that
employees that use their worksite physical fitness
facility as the location for a greater proportion of
their exercise program are less committed to their
organization. As found in Table 6.43, physical fitness
facility members that performed all of their exercise in
the workplace had a lower level of organizational
commitment, i.e., a decrease of 0.19 units or 6 percent.
This finding suggests that engagement in exercise at the

240
worksite may have negative effects, such as a decrease in
job involvement. Several have already observed a
negative relationship between "addiction" to exercise and
job involvement (Baun et al., 1987; Hughes, 1984; Taylor
et al., ~985). However, in the context of this study, it
appears that workers who are less committed to their
organization may prefer to use the worksite facility over
an offsite location for exercise, perhaps because it
provides an opportunity to fulfill a nonwork need as well
as a convenient escape from their agency's normal work
environment. Therefore, this variable is potentially
important in the organizational commitment equation.
No significant differences were found between the
three Federal agencies participating in the study.
However, statistically significant 'relationships were
found between several personal and job demographic
variables. A very weak (beta coefficient of .006), but
positive association (t <.05) was found between age and
organizational commitment. Therefore, as age increased
so did organizational commitment to a small degree. This
confirms the findings of past research, which has
consistently found a positive relationship between both
variables (Alutto et al., 1973; Angle and Perry, 1981;
Angle and Perry, 1983; Brush et al., 1987; Hrebiniak and
Alutto, 1972; Mowday et al., 1982; Shoemaker et al.,
1977; Steers, 1977; Welsch and LaVan, 1981).

241
Weak, but negative associations (t <.05) were
also found between organizational commitment and three
other demographic variables: level of education, GS
level, job tenure. This finding also confirms the
negative association between education and organizational
commitment that has been found by previous researchers
(Angle and Perry, 1981; Angle and Perry, 1983; Bateman
and S~rasser, 1986; Mottaz, 1987; Mowday et al., 1982;
steers, 1977; Welsch and LaVan, 1981). As some observers
note, this may be due to
the fact that more highly educated individuals have

higher expectations that the organization may be
unable to meet. Moreover, more educated individuals
may also be more committed to a profession or trade.
Hence, it would become more difficult for the
organization to compete successfully for the
psychological involvement of such members (Mowday et
al., 1982).
Although organizational tenure is considered to
be one of the most important predictors of commitment,
this was not confirmed by this study. Also, no prior
research could be found on the relationship between job
tenure and commitment. One possible explanation for the
association between job tenure and commitment and in this
study is that workers who have been in the same position
for an extended period would tend to become less
committed to their organization as they tire with their
present job and begin to consider other job
opportunities. In addition, existing research on the

242
relationship between GS level, pay, or job status and
commitment could not be found.
A very strong positive (.863 beta coefficient)
and highly statistically significant relationship (t
<.001) was found between job satisfaction and
organizational commitment. This finding confirms the
work of other researchers who have emphasized the
important linkage between these two psychosocial
variables (Bateman and strasser, 1984; Hopkins, 1983;
Mottaz, 1987). A review of the regression equation's
standardized partial regression coefficients for this
variable also indicates that job satisfaction is the most
important predictor of organizational commitment in the
context of this study. It had the highest coefficient
(.733) in the equation.
As with job . satisfaction, GS level was also found
to be an important independent variable associated with
organizational commitment, although to a much lesser
extent (standardized partial regression coefficient of
-.200). All other variables, including those based on
level of physical activity, appeared to be of lesser
importance as factors in the variance of this dependent
variable.
243
Intent to stay
Tab~e 6.44 provides the results of multiple
regression analysis with intent to stay as the dependent
variable. Based on the R square statistic, this
regression equation explains nearly 35 percent of the
variance for intent to stay. The observed significance
level (F <.0000) was also very low for ~his equation.
Although a relatively weak, but positive
relationship was found between each level of physical
activity and intent to stay (beta values ranged between
.099 and .213), statistical significance (t <.10) was
found only for the "Moderately-Active" group based on the
kcal/kg/day measure. Statistically significant
relationships between level of physical activity based on
respondent self-report and intent to stay were not found.
Relatively small «.21), but positive b values
for each level of physical activity based on kcal/kg/day
suggest that physically active employees may tend to be
more committed to staying with their organization. One
possible explanation may be that individuals that are
more physically active out of choice must possess a
certain degree of personal commitment to begin and
continue with an exercise program despite possible
physical discomfort and the time required for this
activity. This "stick with it" attitude may be a

244
TABLE 6.44
MULTIPLE REGRESSION WITH INTENT TO STAY AS DEPENDENT VARIABLE

B SE B Beta
Low-Active .121621 .124362 .080431
Moderately-Active .212736 .147765 .114568*
Highly-Active .098803 .140383 .060308
\ Exercise at Facility -8.18441E-05 .001546 -.003993
IRS .149942 .116766 .101179*
DOE -.043204 .147414 -.025776
OEganizational Commitment .507010 .082185 .432346****
Sex -.037838 .116894 -.026914
Black .153006 .242370 .044632
Hispanic .• 077311 .260391 .019827
Native American -.019147 .655899 -.001954
Asian .464648 .555223 .058004
Other Ethnic Group. -.381262 .420648 -.061285
Age .001255 .005751 .018292
Marital Status .079476 .101368 .055258
Education -.037955 .024087 -.143130**
Professional/Administrative .022025 .134928 .015452
Technical/Paraprofessional . -.059053 .168923 -.035915
Skilled Labor/Craftsman .267671 .438600 .043026
Clerical -.113111 .215605 -.05259.0
GS Level .078151 .065975 .152528
Schedule C Appointment -1.351935 .663946 -.137979**
Other Appointment Type -.431178 .304422 -.097373*
Job Tenure .018946 .044296 .040792
Agency Tenure .038465 .057434 .068991
(Constant) 1.696363 .559841
Multiple R = .59035
R Squared = .34851
F = 2.84072
StandaEd Error = .61896
*p < .10
up < .05
***p < .01
****p < .001
245
.
character trait that has application to other parts of
their life, manifesting itself in greater intent to
continue employment with their present organization.
An association was also not found between Federal
agency worksite physical fitness facility membership and
intent to stay. As with job satisfaction and
organizational commitment, a very low negative b value
was computed (.033), but it was not statistically
significant. Similarly, no relationship was found
between the percent of a member's regular exercise
program performed at the worksite and intent to stay.
These findings suggest that the availability of a
worksite physical fitness facility is of no importance
when an employee is considering a move out of the
organization.
A very strong positive and highly statistically
significant relationship (t <.001) was found between
organizational commitment and intent to stay (beta value
of .507). Prior research has also supported the
existence of a consistently powerful and positive
relationship between both of these psychosocial variables
(Bannister and Griffeth, 1986; Farrell and Rusbult, 1981;
Mobley, 1982; Peters et al., 1981; Porter et al., 1974;
Porter et a1., 1976; Williams and Hazer, 1986).
The results of multiple regression analysis also
found significant differences between Federal agencies

246
participating in the study. IRS respondents exhibited
the highest level of intent to stay of all the Federal
agencies. Although small, the difference in level of
intent to stay was found to be statistically significant
(t <.10). IRS employees indicated that they were 4
percent more likely to stay than other Federal employees.
It is not understood why IRS employees exhibited a
greater intent to stay.
A statistically significant relationship (t <.05)
was found between only one personal demographic variable,
education, and intent to stay. The existence of this
negative, but very weak relat~onship has not been
supported by other researchers. However, this finding is
consistent with the negative relationship found between
education and organizational commitment, attributed to
more educated employees having higher expectations that
cannot usually be fulfilled by the organization.
In addition, significant differences were found
between types of Federal job appointment and intent to
stay. "Schedule C" category employees had much lower
intentions of staying than those in the "Career/Career
Conditional" reference group (t <.05). This is
understandable since Schedule C employees are typically
political appointments with job tenure usually not much
longer than the duration of the current presidential
administration. Since the Federal Employee Survey

247
Questionnaire was distributed to all participating
agencies within several months of a new presidential
administration coming to office, it could be understood
that Schedule C employees would not be expecting to hold
their current positions much longer. Although to a
lesser extent, respondents in the "Other Job Appointment"
category also had lower expectations of staying with
their Federal agency than those in the reference group (t
<.10). It is not clear what the nature of their job
appointment was and why they exhibited less intent to
stay. However, the relatively small samples for both
"Schedule C" (n = 2) and "Other Job Appointment" (n = 10)

categories tend to weaken the importance of any findings
here. Larger sample sizes would be necessary to confirm
any observations made. Statistically significant
relationships were not found between any other personal
or job-related demographic variables entered into the
regression equation and intent to stay.
A review of the regression equation's
standardized partial regression coefficients indicate
that organizational commitment was the most important
predictor of intent to stay in the context of this study.
This independent variable had the highest standardized
partial regression coefficient of any in the equation,
.43. As noted earlier, researchers have consistently
reported this independent variable to be one of the most

248
important antecedents of intent to stay (Bannister and
Griffeth, 1986; Farrell and Rusbult, 1981; Mobley, 1982;
Peters et al., 1981; Porter et al., 1974; Porter et al.,
1976; Williams and Hazer, 1986).
As with job satisfaction and organizational
commitment as dependent variables, GS level was also
found to be the next most important independent variable
associated with intent to stay, but to a much lesser
extent (standardized partial regression coefficient of
.15). Previous research has not addressed the
relationship . between GS level and intent to stay.
However, earlier studies have indicated a negative
relationship between level of pay and turnover (Mobley,
1982), the latter being an outcome of stay intentions.
Summary
In response to statements relating to the effects
of the facility on their job attitudes and behavior, a
majority of Federal agency worksite physical fitness
facility members indicated that it had increased their
job satisfaction, organizational commitment, intent to
stay, ability to cope with job stress, and the amount and
variety of physical activities they engaged in. Most
members also agreed with statements that they were more
positive toward their agency's local top management for
making the facility available, the facility was an

249
important fringe benefit of working for their
organization, and that they enjoyed interacting with
other employees at the worksite fitness facility.
However, a majority of member respondents indicated that
they were neutral or had no opinion about how this
interaction may have helped their job performance.
Analysis of the data using multiple regression
found a positive relationship between an increase in
level of physical activity and several dependent
variables of interest: job stress, job satisfaction,
attitudes toward coworkers and local top management, and
intent to stay. A statistically significant association
was not found between level of physical activity and
Worksite physical fitness facility membership
status does not appear to be associated with job stress,
top management, organizational commitment, or intent to
stay. That is, members of these kinds of facilities did
not exhibit lower job stress, higher job satisfaction,
organizational commitment, and intent to stay, or more
positive attitudes toward coworkers and local top
management.
However, a highly statistically significant
negative relationship was found between the average
number of weekly visits by members to the worksite

250
physical fitness facility and job stress. Similarly,
statistically significant positive relationships were
found between the percent of a member's regular exercise
program performed at the worksite, job satisfaction, and
attitudes toward coworkers and local top management. A
statistically significant negative relationship was also
found between the latter independent variable and
organizational commitment. For each of the these
dependent variables the influence of either the "average
number of weekly visits" or "percent of a member's
regular exercise program perf?rme~ at the worksite"
independent variables were more important than employee
level of physical activity.
The results of multiple regression also found
statistically significant differences between each of the
three Federal agencies participating in the study. DOE
respondents appeared to be less satisfied with their jobs
and less positive toward coworkers and local top
management than the other two agencies. IRS respondents
exhibited a greater intent to stay with their agency than
employees at the other agencies.
Statistically significant relationships were also
found between certain demographic variables and the
psychosocial dependent variables. GS level and Federal
agency tenure were found to have weak put positive
relationships with job satisfaction. That is, job

251
satisfaction increased with GS level and agency tenure.
Respondents in the "Skilled Labor/Craftsman" job category
also appeared to be relatively less satisfied with their
jobs when compared to those in all other job categories.
With respect to attitudes toward coworkers,
respondents in the "Other Ethnic Category" and those that
were "Unmarried" were less positive. In terms of both
attitudes toward coworkers and top management, most job
categories were less positive than the
"Manager/Supervisor" reference group. In terms of
organizational commitment, a positive association was
found with age, but level of education, GS level, and job
tenure were negatively associated with this variable.
Education was found to be negatively associated with
intent to stay. "Schedule C" political appointments also
indicated a lower intent to stay. In terms of job
stress, significant differences were found between
respondent categories based on ethnic background and job
type. Age was also found to be negatively associated
with job stress.
However, the results of multiple regression found
that the strongest associations were between psychosocial
variables themselves. That is, job stress was the most
powerful indicator of job satisfaction. Job
satisfaction, in turn, had a strong effect on
organizational commitment. Organizational commitment

252
then had the greatest influence on intent to stay. These
latter study findings confirm the outcome of previous
work conducted by other researchers in the field.
Conclusions and recommendations based on research
findings are presented in the next chapter.

253
Notes
1. Statistically significant differences (p

<.0001) were found between level of physical activity
categories based on the kcal/kg/day measure and
respondent self-report. In particular, a majority of
respondents that indicated they were "Moderately-Active"
were found to be "Low-Active" using the kcal/kg/day
measure (Appendix G, Table G-l).
2. The assignment of respondents to one of four

categories of physical activity was initially based on
daily caloric expenditure values computed through use of
the Stanford 7-Day Physical Activity Recall index.
However, physical activity categorical assignments for
each respondent were frequently inconsistent with
assignments based on respondent self-report or the
subjective evaluation of the researcher. That is,
respondents with low caloric expenditure values as
computed by the index were often considered by themselves
and the researcher to be in a higher physical activity
category than that assigned by the index. Conversely,
those with higher caloric expenditure values were
frequently assigned to a lower level of physical activity
category. A closer inspection of calculations performed
using the worksheet accompanying the index found that the
incorporation of body weight into the prescribed index
formula had the effect of skewing final values for
caloric expenditure. Therefore, individuals with lower
levels of caloric expenditure but heavier body weights
were placed in higher physical activity categories.
Similarly, individuals with higher levels of caloric
expenditure but lighter body weights were placed in lower
physical activity categories. The index seemed to be
particularly biased' against females, who typically have
lower body weights than males. Therefore, the value
calculated just prior to entry of body weight into the
index formula, kilocalories per kilogram of body weight
expended per day, was considered to be a more valid
measure of respondent level of physical activity.
This finding was later confirmed by the
researcher's use of correlation measures. Correlations
were performed between the categorical assignments based
measures of 1) the total daily caloric expenditure,
respondent self-report, and researcher independent
assessment and 2) kcal/kg/day, respondent self-report,
and researcher independent assessment. Pearson
correlation coefficients, which measure the strength of
linear relationships, were computed for each set of
variables. Much higher correlations were found between
254
the kcal/kg/day measure, and self-report (.58) and

researcher classifications (.70), than with the total
daily caloric expendituie measure (.19 and .27, .
respecti vely) at the .001 level of sig.nificance. Value
ranges were then set for the kcal/kg/day measure (Blair,
1984) using the same four level of physical activity
categories employed earlier by survey respondents and the
researcher (Table ~.30).
3. Item-total correlations provide a measure of

how much the response to each item in an index agrees
with the sum of responses to the other items in the index
and indicates "whether the instrument taps the same
variable with each additional item" (Kidder and Judd,
1986, p. 48).
4. This index originally produced a Cronbach's

alpha reliability coefficient of .772. Initial corrected
item-total score correlations for items which composed
this index also ranged from a low of -.211 to a high of
.608. A review of the Federal Employee Survey
Questionnaire revealed a problem with Item No.7, the
item with the lowest corrected item-total score
correlation of -.211. The proper phrasing for this item
was: "How often do you not know. what your supervisor
thinks of you, how he or she might evaluate your
performance?" The word "not" had been inadvertently left
out of the item used in the actual survey, having the
effect of reverse phrasing this item. To adjust for this
oversight, Item No.7 was deleted, leaving 14 items in
the Index of Job-R~lated Tensions. A second reliability
test was then performed producing a new index reliability
coefficient of .812 using Cronbach's alpha and corrected
item-total score correlations ranging from .241 to .612
for this index.
5. For example, although a useful statistical

technique in the analysis of data, simple correlation
only indicates whether two variables move in the same or
opposite directions and the measure of strength of their
linear association. The use of correlation also has
other disadvantages. According to Welch and Comer
(1983), "Different data configurations can give rise to
. similar correlations. The magnitude of the correlation
coefficient can also be influenced by one or two extreme
values as well as restricted range in either the
dependent or independent variable" (p. 199). However,
linear regression analysis exists as a more powerful
statistical tool than correlation in the analysis of data
because it provides information on how the dependent
variable changes as one or more independent variables
change, holding values of the other variables constant,
255
and enables the researcher to more carefully consider the

direction of influence between variables (Welch and
Corner, 1983). Multiple regression, a form of
multivariate analysis which examines the relationship
between one dependent and two or more independent
variables, was the statistical technique selected for
purposes of data analysis in this study.
6. The percent change in level of job stress, as

well the percent of change in levels of other
psychosocial variables, was calculated by dividing the
unstandardized partial regression coefficient for the
given independent variable by the mean value for the
dependent variable.
CHAPTER VII
CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS
Based on results of the study, this final chapter

includes a discussion of: (a) conclusions based on
findings, (b) the implications of findings, (c)
recommendations for additional research, and (d)
limitations of the study.
Conclusions Based on Findings
The important conclusions based on the results of

this study are summarized below:
1) Federal managers who were or who would probably oe

responsible for the oversight or administration of
Federal Government agency worksite physical fitness
facilities are very positive about the beneficial
effects of these kinds of facilities on job stress,
job satisfaction, attitudes toward coworkers and top
management, organizational commitment, intent to
leave the organization, amount of physical exercise,
level of physical fitness, and overall personal
health of Federal employees that used these
facilities. Federal managers that tended to be more
257
positive about the effects of these facilities on
certain job-related attitudes and behavior: 1) had
worksite physical fitness facilities available; 2)
had facilities that were sponsored by only their own
agency; 3) had facilities that were more
comprehensive in nature; and 4) were users of these
facilities themselves. However, it is not clearly
understood if the opinion of Federal managers were
based on objective observation or subjective
experience.
2) A majority of Federal agency worksite physical
fitness facility members agreed with statements that
the facillty had lncreased their job satisfaction,
organizational commitment, intent to stay, ability to
cope with job stress, and the amount and variety of
physical activities they engaged in; that they were
more positive toward their agency's local top
management for making the facility available; the
facility was an important fringe benefit of working
for their organization; and that they enjoyed
interacting with other employees at the worksite
fitness facility. However, the use of . objective
measures found no statistically significant
differences between members and nonmembers in terms
of job stress, job satisfaction, attitudes toward

258
coworkers and local top management, organizational
commitment, and intent to stay. Physical fitness
facility members did have significantly higher levels
of physical activity and rated physical fitness and
overall personal health as more important personal
values when compared to nonmembers. Therefore, not.
surprisingly, those who value personal fitness and
health to a greater extent are more likely to be
members of worksite facilities. Also, the
availability of these facilities appears to be an
important factor in increasing employee levels of
physical activity and exercise.
3) Federal agency worksite physical fitness facility
members tended to be younger, have less agency and
Federal Government tenure, and be less likely to have
managerial or supervisory responsibilities than
nonmembers. More physically active Federal employees
were more likely to be younger, white, and in the
middle band of GS pay levels. These findings tend to
support some of the existing research on the
demographics of physical activity. However, age may
be the most important variable here, with tenure,
supervisory responsibility and GS level being
covarying variables.
259
4) There appears to be a positive relationship between
an increase in level of physical activity and several
dependent variables of interest: job stress, job
satisfaction, intent to stay, and attitudes toward
coworkers and local top management. These findings
confirm the study's major research hypotheses. Prior
research in these areas has been very limited, if
available at all. Existing studies have also failed
to ' separate the effects of physical activity and the
existence of worksite physical fitness facilities on
employee attitudes and behavior. ~evel of physical
activity was found to be of principal importance
here. This finding also confirms commonly accepted
anecdotal observations concerning the benefits of
higher levels of physical activity.
5) Federal agency worksite physical fitness facility
membership status does not appear to be associated
with job stress, job satisfaction, attitudes toward
coworkers and management, organizational commitment,
or intent to stay.
6) The number of weekly visits made to the facility by
members and the percent of their exercise program
performed at the worksite appear to be important
factors that may influence psychosocial variables of

260
interest to organizations. That is, employees that
visited their facility more often exhibited lower
levels of job stress. Also, employees that engaged
in most of their exercise at the worksite had higher
levels of job satisfaction and were more positive
toward coworkers and local top management. This
variable also sometimes had a more powerful influence
than level of physical activity. This latter finding
suggests that where an employee exercises may be as
or more important than how much they exercise. In
addition, workers that performed all of their
exercise program at the worksite had lower levels of
7) The strongest relationships between study variables
were among the psychosocial variables themselves.
That is, job stress had a much stronger, but negative
relationship with job satisfaction than any other
variable. Job satisfaction, in turn, had the
strongest positive relationship with organizational
commitment. Organizational commitment then had the
most powerful positive relationship with intent to
stay. Although the relationship between job stress
and job satisfaction has not been adequately examined
in the literature, the finding of relationships
between job satisfaction and organizational

261
commitment and between organizational commitment and
intent to stay confirms the work of previous
researchers in these areas.
Implications of Findings
The study's research findings have important
implications for organizational policies that relate to
employee physical fitness promotion and the dev~lopment
of worksite physical fitness facilities for workers.
study results found that level of employee physical
activity, as a component of job stress, job satisfaction,
intent to stay, and attitudes toward coworkers and
management, should not be ignored by any organization.
Although the nature of these associations are not very
clear, they may be due the "burn-off" of psychological
tension through physiological means and, for those that
use worksite physical fitness facilities, an opportunity
for greater integration of their personal and work lives.
An association was not found between physical
activity and organizational commitment. However,
relatively small increases in level of physical activity
seem to significantly reduce job stress and increases job
satisfaction. Since job stress appears to be negatively
associated with job satisfaction and the latter is an
important factor in organizational commitment, physical
activity also appears to have indirect relationships with

262
commitment, intent to stay, and turnover. other
important psychosocial linkages with employee physical
activity not examined in the context of this study may
also exist for organizational benefit. Therefore, an
organization's promotion of worker physical fitness, by
whatever means available, appears to be a desirable
course of action.
Federal employee worksite physical fitness
facility membership status did not appear to have a
bearing on job-related attitudes and behavior. However,
members of these facilities exhibited significantly
higher levels of physical activity than employees that
were not members. Also, members that visited these
facilities more often and used them for a greater
proportion of their exercise program had less job stress,
higher levels of job satisfaction, and were more disposed
toward other employees and management. Therefore, by
making these kinds of facilities conveniently available
by situating them in the workplace, the likelihood that
employees will engage in higher levels of physical
exercise and have improved work-related attitudes seems
to be enhanced. But, the most important consideration
for Federal agencies remains the promotion of employee
physical exercise, regardless of where it is performed.
Regarding general public and private sector
organizational policy, the benefits of worksite phYSical

263
fitness facilities are most often seen as those related
to the improvement of cardiovascular functioning and
overall physical health. But, as stated above, the side
benefits of establishing these facilities must not be
ignored. Federal managers, as well as their counterparts
in the public and private sectors, should see the
benefits of these facilities beyond just those of
improving employee physical health, but also in terms of
their possibly causal relationship with less apparent,
but still important worker attitudes and behavior.
RecommendatIons for Additional Research
The findings presented in this study address the
relationships between level of physical ~ctivity,
worksite physical fitness facility membership, and
selected psychosocial variables for three Federal
Government agencies. The study should be replicated with
a larger, random sample of Federal agencies, as well as
other public and private sector organizations.
Methodological approaches for future studies of
this kind should also more closely conform to accepted
experimental or quasi-experimental designs. That is, a
before-and-after design should be used. Also, comparable
organizations without worksite physical fitness
facilities should be incorporated into the design to
serve as comparison groups. Then more powerful causal

264
inferences could be made based on findings.
Although this study examined a number of
dependent variables of importance to organizations, it
did not investigate how the existence of worksite
physical fitness facilities may influence the attitudes
of prospective employees and their de~ision to accept
employment with an organization. Also, although the
relationship between these kinds of facilities and
employee intent to stay attitudes were studied, the
relationship with .actual turnover was not examined.
Evidence suggests that recruitment and retention issues
will continue to be of particular concern to Federal
managers in the future. Therefore, future research
should investigate the association between worksite
fitness facilities and employee re·cruitment and turnover.
As noted in Chapter VI, actual field use of the
Stanford 7-Day Physical Activity Recall raised some
questions about the validity of the index's final output
measures. Future research using this index should seek
to confirm its validity in its current form as well as
its application in an adapted self-report checklist
format, the latter being used in the context of this
study.
Differences in demographic characteristics
between worksite physical fitness facility members and
nonmembers and respondents at lower and higher levels of

265
physical activity were found. Future research efforts
should be directed toward identification of means to
attract those that are .less physically active, such as
older workers and managerial/supervisory personnel, to
join these kinds of facilities and to exercise. Often
individuals with the lowest levels of physical activity
are also those with the most to benefit from some level
of participation.
This study confirmed the findings of the rather
limited research available on the relationship between
physical activity and stress and physical activity and
job satisfaction. Additional research needs to be
conducted on the specific nature of relationships between
these variables. The association between physical
activity and attitudes toward coworkers and local top
management also needs to be confirmed and subjected to
further investigation.'
Although beyond the scope of this study, the
relationship between level of physical activity and
employee productivity warrants further examination.
Increased organizational productivi~y, perhaps through
·the physical activity/job satisfaction linkage, may be
another outcome of worksite fitness promotion and related
facilities.
Undoubtedly, there are other topics ripe for
research in related areas. For example, additional

266
research on worksite physical fitness facilities may
reveal improvements in both horizontal and vertical forms
of organizational communication because workers have an
additional opport~nity to "rub elbows" with other workers
in the organization (Goldhaber, 1986). However, these
and other research endeavors should be left for others to
pursue following their own careful examination of the
growing body of research in this area.
Limitations of the study
The findings of the study were limited by a
number of factors. First, considering the lower response
rate for the Federal Employee Survey Questionnaire, some
degree of response bias was likely. That is, those
responding to the survey may not have been representative
of the sample population in terms of their job-related
attitudes and behavior. However, the nature and degree
of response bias cannot be ascertained without further
investigation.
Second, the demographic characteristics of the
survey population used for the study appear to be
different from the "average" Federal population.
~lthough similar in terms of age, gender, and Federal
Government tenure, the research population here had a
smaller minority representation and was better educated. 2
Therefore, the application of study findings to other

267
Federal Government employee populations must be made with
caution. Similarly, since only Federal populations were
used for s~udy purposes, the gene~alizability of findings
to other public sector and private sector organizations
should also be made with caution.
Third, the research design used for this study
places limitations on conclusions that may be drawn from
the Federal Employee Survey Questionnaire. That is,
since observations were "ex post facto," the existence of
causal relationships between level of physical activity
and job stress, job satisfaction, and attitudes toward
coworkers and management can only be inferred. Absolute
empirical evidence that associations exist between other
variables also cannot be provided here. A true
experimental design, one that would have permitted causal
inferences to be made, would have necessitated the use of
randomization procedures and pre-tests. In the context
of this study, this would have required the random
assignment of Federal employees as either worksite
physical fitness facility members or nonmembers.
Randomization would have also necessitated that employees
engage in certain levels of physical activity, probably
different than their normal pattern of behavior. Pre-
tests would have taken the form of the same survey being
distributed prior to establishment of the worksite
fitness facility at each location. This would have

268
required identification of a Federal agency that was in
the process of planning for such a facility, the conduct
of pre-tests, and the subsequent conduct of post-tests at
least six months following implementation. Due to time
considerations, this was not considered feasible for this
study.
other weaknesses inherent in the study's
methodological design might also limit conclusions that
can be made based on results. For - example, although
employees that were not members of their agency's
worksite physical fitness facility served as a comparison
group for the study, certain attitudes, such as job
stay, could have also been affected, if only indirectly,
by the treatment, i.e., the worksite fitness facility.
That is, even though they were not members of the
facility, their job-related attitudes could have been
affected just by their knowledge of and proximity to it.

269
Notes
1. Although only of peripheral interest here,

another outcome of the study was the finding of an
apparent relationship between the independent variables
of ethnic background 'and job category and the dependent
variable of job stress. For this reason, future job
stress-related research should examine differences
between ethnic and job categorical groupings and, if
dissimilarities are found, seek an explanation for this
phenomena. The association between job stress and job
satisfaction, found to be strong in the context of this
study, should also be addressed by future research in
these areas.
2. The "typical" Federal Government civilian

non-postal employee is 42 years old with a government
tenure of 13.2 years. Thirty-three (33) percent of
Federal worke~s have a Bachelor's degree or higher.
Fifty-seven (57) percent of the work force are male and
27.2 percent are minority (16.8 percent black; 5.3
percent Hispanic; 3.4 percent Asian/Pacific Islander; and
1.7 percent Native American). The average General
Schedule pay grade is GS-8.5 with an annual salary of
$30,008. With respect to job type, .4 percent are
executives, 2 percent are managers, and 10 percent are
supervisors. Eighty-two (82) percent are white collar
workers (20 percent professional; 24 percent
administrative; 17 percent technical; 19 percent
clerical; and 2 percent other). Ninety-six (96) percent
are employed in the United states, with 14 percent
working in the Washington, D.C. vicinity (Steele, 1990).
BIBLIOGRAPHY
Adams, Gi lbert T., Jr. 1987. "Prevent i ve Law Trends and

Compensation Payments for stress-Disabled Workers."
In Quick, James C., Bhagat, Rabi S., Dalton, James
E., and Quick, Jonathan D., eds. Work stress:
Health Care Systems in the Workplace. New York:
Praeger, 235-245.
Adams, J. Stacy. 1975. "Inequity in Social Exchange."

In Steers, Richard M. ., and Porter, Lyman W.
Motivation and Work Behavior. New York: McGraw-
Hill.
Alaniz, Richard D. 1989. "Wellness Programs Boost

Bottom-Line Performances." Electric Light ' and Power,
vol. 67, no. 8 (August), 14.
Alexander, Francine. 1988. . "Stress Relief in the

Workplace." Corporate Fitness, vol. 7, no. 2
(FebruarY/March),10-14.
Almirall, Sharon. 1986. "Area Firms Strengthen Health,

Fitness Programs." The Denver Business Journal
(November 24), 15-16.
Alutto, Joseph, Hrebiniak, Lawrence G., and Alonso, Ramon

C. 1973. "On Operationalizing the Concept of
Commi tment. " Soc ial Forces, vol. 51 (June), 448-454.
Anderson, Jackson M. 1951. "A Survey of Recent Research

Findings in Industrial Recreation." The Research
Quarterly, vol. 22, no. 3 (October), 273-285.
Andresky, Jill H. 1982. "Corporate Sweat." The Runner

(December), 40-44.
Angle, Harold L., and Perry, James L. 1981. "An

Empirical Assessment of Organizational Commitment and
Organizational Effectiveness." Administrative
Science Quarterly, vol. 26 (March), 1-14.
Angle, Harold L., and Perry, James L. 1983.

"Organizational Commitment: Individual and
Organizational Influences." Work and Occupations,
vol. 10, no. 2, 123-146.
271
Arminana, Ruben. 1985. Job Satisfaction in Municipal

Government: The Incentives Model. Ann Arbor:
University Microfilms International.
Babbie, Earl. 1986. The Practice of Social Research.

Belmont, California: Wadsworth.
Bannister, Brendan D., ~nd Griffeth, Rodger W. 1986.

"Applying a Causal Analytic Framework to the Mobley,
Horner, and Hollingsworth (1978) Turnover Model: A
U~efu1 Reexamination." .Journa1 of Management, vol.
12, no. 3, 433~443.
Barnard, James R., and Anthony, Donald F. 1980. "Effect

of Health Maintenance Programs on Los Angeles City
Firefighters." Journal of Occupational Medicine,
vol. 22, no. 10 (October), 667-669.
Barnes, Lesley. 1988. "The Work Force of the Future."

Government Executive; vol. 20, no. 11 (November), 56-
57.
Bateman, Thomas S., and Strasser, Stephen. 1984. "A

Longitudinal Analysis of the Antecedents of
Organizational Commitment." Academy of Management
Journal, vol. 21, no. 1, 95-112.
Baun, W. B., Bernacki, E. J., and Herd, J. Alan. 1987.

"Corporate Health and Fitness Programs and the
Prevention of Work stress." In Quick, James C.,
Bhagat, Rabi S., Dalton, James E., and Quick,
Jonathan D., eds. Work stress: Health Care Systems
in the Workplace. New York: Praeger, 217-234.
Baun, William B., Bernacki, Edward J., and Tsai, Shan.

1986. "A Preliminary Investigation: Effect of a
Corporate Fitness Program on Absenteeism and Health
Care Cost." Journal of Occupational Medicine, vol.
28, no. 1 (January), 18-22.
Baun, William, and Williams, Kelly. 1985. "Tenneco:

Building on Corporate Quality Through Good Health."
Management Review (June), 51-53.
Beck, Robert N. 1982. "IBM's Plan for Life: Toward a
Comprehensive Health Care strategy." Health
Education Quarterly, vol. 9, Special Supplement, 55-
60.
Becker, Howard S. 1960. "Notes on the Concept of

Commitment." The American Journal of Sociology, vol.
66 (July), 32-40.
272
Behrens, Ruth, and Weiss, Joanne. 1988. Worksite

Wellness Media Report Research Update 1987.
Washington, D.C.: Prevention Leadership Forum.
Benner, Patricia E. 1984. Stress and Satisfaction on
the Job: Work Meanings and Coping of Mid-Career Men.
New York: Praeger.
Benson, Herbert, and Allen, Robert L . 1980. "How Much

stress Is Too Much?" Harvard Business Review, vol.
58 (September/October), 86-92.
Bernacki, Edward J., and Baun, William B. 1984. "The

Relationship of Job Performance to Exercise Adherence
in a Corporate Fitness Program." Journal of
Occupational MediCine, vol. 26 (July), 529-531.
Bezold, Clement, Carlson, Rick J., and Peck, Jonathan C.

1986. The Future of Work and Health. Dover,
Massachusetts: Auburn House.
Bjurstrom, Larry A., and Alexiou, Nicholas G. 1978. "A

Program of Heart Disease Intervention for Public
Employees." Journal of Occupational Medicine, vol.
20, no. 8 (August), 521-531.
Blair, Steven N. ·1984. "How to Assess Exercise Habits

and Physical Fitness." In Matarazzo, Joseph D.,
Weiss, Sharlene M., Herd, J. Alan, Miller, Neal E.,
and Weiss, Stephen M., eds., Behavioral Health: A
Handbook of Health Enhancement and Disease
Prevention. New York: John Wiley, 424-447.
Blair, Steven N., Blair, Aaron, Howe, Henry G., Pate,

Russell, Rosenberg, Morton, and Parker, Gwynne M.
1980. "Leisure Time Physical Activity and Job
Performance." Research Quarterly for Exercise and
Sport, vol. 51, no. 4, 718-723.
Blair, Steven N., Haskell, William L., Ho, Ping,

Paffenbarger, Ralph S., Vranizan, Karen M., Farquhar,
John W., and Wood, Peter D. 1985. "Assessment of
Habitual Physical Activity by a Seven-Day Recall in a
Community Survey and Controlled Experiments."
American Journal of Epidemiology, vol. 122, no. 5,
794-804.
273
Blair, steven N., Kohl, Harold W., Paffenberger, Jr.,

Ralph S., Clark, Debra G., Cooper,Kenneth H., and
Gibbons, Larry W. 1989. "Physical Fitness and AlI-
Cause Mortality: A Prospective study of Healthy Men
and Women." JAMA: The Journal of the American
Medical Association, vol. 262, no. 17 (November 3),
2395-2401.
Blau, Gary, and Boal, Kimberly. 1989. "Using Job

Involvement and Organizational Commitment
Interactively to Predict Turnover." Journal of
Management, vol. 15, no. 1 (March), 115-127.
Bluedorn, Allen C. 1982a. "The Theories of Turnover:

Causes, Effects, and Meaning." Research in the
Sociology of Organizations, vol. 1, 75-128.
Bluedorn, Allen C. 1982b. "A Unified Model of Turnover

from Organizations." Human Relations, vol. 35, no.
2, 135-153.
Bly, Janet L., Jones, Robert C., and Richardson, Jean E.

1986. "Impact of Worksite Health Promotion on Health
Care Costs and Utilization: Evaluation of Johnson &
Johnson's Live for Life Program." JAMA: The Journal
of the American Medical Association, vol. 256, no. 23
(December 19), 3235-3240.
Bok, Derek. 1989. "Why the Civil Service Has Lost Its
Appeal." Government Executive, vol. 21, no. 8
(August), 64.
Bonilla, Carlos E. 1989. Determinants of Employee

Absenteeism. Washington, D.C.: National Chamber
Foundation.
Brennan, Andrew J. J. 1982. "Health Promotion: What's

in It for Business and Industry?" Health Education
Quarterly, Special Supplement, vol. 9, 9-17.
Brush, Donald H., Moch, Michael K., and Pooyan, Abdullah.
1987. "Individual Demographic Differences and Job
Satisfaction." Journal of Occupational Behavior, vol.
8, 139-156.
Buchanan, Bruce. 1974. "Building Organizational

Commitment: The Socialization of Managers in Work
Organizations." Administrative Science Quarterly,
vol. 19, 533-546.
274
Byrne, John E., and Wilson, Don W. 1988. The United

states Government Manual 1988/89. Washington, D.C.:
U.S. Government Printing Office.
Caldwell, Frances. 1976. "Business Invests in Employee
Fitness." The Physician and Sportsmedicine
(December), 81-88.
Campbell, Donald T., and Stanley, Julian C. 1963.

Experimental and Quasi-Experimental Designs for
Research. Boston: Houghton Mifflin.
Carsten, Jeanne M., and Spector, Paul E. 1987.

"Unemployment, Job Satisfaction, and Employee
Turnover: A Meta-Analytic Test of the Muchinsky
Model." Journal of Applied Psychology, vol. 72, no.
3, 374-381.
Carter, Reginald. 1975. "Measuring Recreation's Effect

on Productivity." Recreation Management (August),
42-47.
Caspersen, Carl J.~ Powell, Kenneth E., and Christenson,

Gregciry M. 1985. "Physical Activity, Exercise, and
Physical Fitness: Definitions and Distinctions for
Health-Related Research." Public Health Reports,
vol. 100, no. 2 (March/April), 126-131.
Cherniss, Cary, and Kane, Jeffrey S. 1987. "Public

Sector Professionals: Job Characteristics,
Satisfaction, and Aspirations for Intrinsic
Fulf i llment through Work." . Human Relations, vol. 40,
no. 3, 125-136.
Clark, Timothy B. 1989a. "A Blast From Business."

Government Executive, vol. 21, no. 3 (March), 7.
Clark, Timothy B. 1989b. "The Sound of One Hand

Clapping." Government Executive, vol. 21, no. 5
(May), 72.
Clark, Timothy B., and Wachte I, Mar j or ie . 1988. "The
Quiet Crisis Goes Public." Government Executive,
vol. 20, no. 6 (June), 78.
Clarke, H. Harrison. 1958. "Physical Fitness Benefits:

A Summary of Research." Education (April), 460-466.
Collings, Gilbeart H. 1982. "Managing the Health of the

Employee." Journal of Occupational Medicine, vol.
24, no. 1 (January), 15-17.
275
Collingwood, Thomas R., and Willett, Leonard. 1971.

"The Effects of Physical Training Upon Self-Concept
and Body Attitude." Journal of Clinical Psychology,
vol. 27, 411-412.
Conrad, C. Carson. 1979. "Why Your Organization Should

Consider Starting a Physical Fitness Program."
Training (February), 30-31.
Conrad, Peter. 1987. "Wellness in the Work Place:

Potentials and Pitfalls of Work-site Health
Promotion." Milbank Quarterly, vol. 65, no. 2, 255-
275.
Constantine, Lynne M., and Scott, Suzanne. 1989.

"Workplace Workouts." Government Executive, vol. 21,
no. 1 (January), 34-36.
Cook, Thomas D., and Campbell, Donald T. 1979. Quasi-

Experimentation: Design & AnalYsis Issues for Field
Settings. Boston: Houghton Mifflin.
Cooper, Kenneth H., Pollock, Michael L., Martin, Randolph

P., White, steven R., Linnerud, Ardell C., and
Jackson, Andrew. 1976. "Physical Fitness Levels vs.
Selected Coronary Risk Factors: A Cross Sectional
Study." Journal of the Amer ican Medical
Association, vol. 236, no. 2 (July 12), 166-169.
Cox, M., Shephard, Roy J., and Corey, P. 1981.

"Influence of an Employee Fitness Programme Upon
Fitness, Productivity and Absenteeism." Ergonomics,
vol. 24, no. 10, 795-806.
Coy, Peter. 1989. "Employer's Cost for Health Care Up

18.6%." USA Today (February 6).
Cratty, Bryant J. 1981. Social Psychology in Athletics.

Englewood Cliffs, New Jersey: Prentice-Hall.
Creed, C. Edwin. 1946. "The Relationship of

Recreational Participation To Industrial Efficiency."
The Research Quarterly of the American Association
for Health, Physical Education, and Recreation, vol.
17, no. 3 (October), 193-203.
Cunningham, Robert M. 1982. Wellness at Work: A Report

on Health and Fitness Programs for Employees of
Business and Industry. Chicago: Blue Cross
Association.
276
Cureton, T. K. 1969. The Physiological Effects of

Exercise Programs Upon Adults. Springfield,
Illinois: Thomas.
Curry, James P., Wakefield, Douglas S., Price, James L.,

and Mueller, Charles W. 1986. "On the Causal
Ordering of Job Satisfaction and Organizational
Commitment." Academy of Management Journal, vol. 29,
no. 4, 847-B57.
Dalessio, Anthony, Silverman, William H., and Schuck,

John R. 19B6. "Paths to Turnover: ARe-analysis
and Review of Existing Data on the Mobley, Horner,
and Hollingsworth Turnover Model." Human Relations,
vol. 39, no. 3, 245-263.
Dannenberg, Andrew L., Keller, Jacob B., Wilson, Peter W.

F., and Castelli, William P. 19B9. "Leisure Time
Physical Activity in the Framingham Offspring Study:
Description, Seasonal Variation, and Risk Factor
Correlates." American Journal of Epidemiology, vol.
129, no. 1 (January), 76-88.
Dansereau, Fred, Cashman, James, and Graen, George.

1974. "Expectancy as a . Moderator of the Relationship
Between Job Attitudes and Turnover." Journal of
Applied Psychology, vol. 59, no. 2, 22B-229.
Davis, Flora. 1981. "How to Help Your Body Heal

Itself." Woman's Day (May 19), 35-40.
Dawber, Thomas R. 19BO. The Framingham Study: The

Epidemiology of Arteriosclerotic Disease. Cambridge:
Harvard University Press.
De Backer, G., Kornitzer, M., Sobolski, J., Dramaix, M.

Degre, S. de Marneffe, M., and Denolin, H. 19B1.
"Physical Activity and Physical Fitness Levels of
Belgian Males Aged 40-55 Years." Cardiology, vol.
67, 110-128.
DeCotiis, Thomas A., and Summers, Timothy P. 19B7. "A

Path Analysis of a Model of the Antecedents and
Consequences of Organizational Commitment." Human
Relations, vol. 40, no. 7, 445-470.
Dedmon, R. E., Gander, J. W., O'Connor, M. P., and

Paschke, A. C. 1979. "An Industry Health Management
Program." The Physician and Sportsmedicine, vol. 7,
no. 11 (November), 57-67.
277
Derbyshire, Betty Beuck. 1988. Federal Child Care and

Physical Fitness Facilities in the Washington, D.C.
Area. Washington D.C.: Small Agency Council.
Dineen, Carol J. 1985. "Productivity Improvement: It's

Our Turn." The Bureaucrat, vol. 14, no. 4 (Winter),
13.
Division of Federal Occupational and Beneficiary Health
Services, Bureau of Health Care Delivery and
Assistance, Health Resources and Services
Administration, U.S. Public Health Service. U.S.
Department of Health and Human Services. 1989.
Evaluation of Federal Employee Physical Fitness
Programs. Washington, D.C.: U.S. Department of
Health and Human Services.
Donoghue, Shauney. 1977. "The Correlation Between

Physical Fitness, Absenteeism and Work Performance."
Canadian Journal of Public Health, vol. 68
(May/June), 201-203.
Douglas, Roscoe L. 1976. "Differences in Anxiety

Levels, Neuroticism, and Extraversion Associated with
Three Levels of Physical Fitness in Females."
Dissertation Abstracts International, vol. 36(8-B)
(February), 4150-4151.
Driver, R. W., and Ratliff, R. A. 1982. "Employer's

Perceptions of Benefits Accrued From Physical Fitness
Programs." Personnel Administrator, vol. 27, no. 8,
21-26.
Edwards, Sandra E., and Gettman, Larry R. 1980. "The

Effect of Employee Physical Fitness on Job
Performance." Personnel Administrator (November),
41-61.
Eisenberger, Robert, Fasolo, Peter, and Davis-LaMastro,

Valerie. 1990. "Perceived Organizational Support
and Employee Diligence, Commitment, and Innovation."
Journal ~f Applied Psychology, vol. 75, no. 1,
(February), 51-59.
Ekelund, Lars-Goran, Haskell, William L., Johnson,

Jeffrey L., Whaley, Fredrick S., Criqui, Michael H.,
and Sheps, David S. 1988. "Physical Fitness as a
Predictor of Cardiovascular Mortality in Asymptomatic
North American Men: The Lipid Research Clinics
Mortality Follow-up Study." The New England Journal
of Medicine, vol. 319, no. 21 (November 24), 1379-
1384.
278
Erwin, Jacqueline. 1978. "People's Jewelry Company:

Where a New Personnel Director Introduced Re.c reation
and Employee Services and Watched Absenteeism Fall
Dramatically." Recreation Management (April), 18-19.
Ewing, Blair G., Burstein, Carolyn, and Wickman, Colette.

1986. "Meeting the Productivity Challenge in the
Federal Government." National Productivity Review
(Summer), 252-261.
Executive Order 12345, February 2, 1982, 47 F.R. 5189.
Falkenberg, Loren E. 1987. "Employee Fitness Programs:

Their Impact on the Employee and the Organization."
Academy of Management Review, vol. 12, no. 3, 511-
522.
Falls, Harold B., Baylor, Ann M., and Dishman, Rod K.

1980. Essentials of Fitness. Philadelphia:
Saunders College/Holt, Rinehart, and Winston.
Farrell, Daniel, and Rusbult, Caryl. 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, vol.
27, no. 28, 78-95.
Felts, W. Michael, and Vaccaro, Paul. 1988 .. "The Effect

of Aerobic Exercise on Post-Exercise state Anxiety
and Psychophysiological Arousal as a Function of
Fitness Level." Clinical KineSiology, vol. 42, no. 4
(October/November/December), 89-96.
Feuer, Dale. 1985. "Wellness Programs: How Do They

Shape Up?" Training (April), 25-34.
Fielding, Jonathan E. 1979. "Preventive Medicine and

the Bottom Line." Journal of Occupational Medicine,
vol. 21, no. 2 (February), 79-85.
Fielding, Jonathan E. 1982. "Effectiveness of Employee

Health Improvement Programs . " Journal of
Occupational Medicine, vol. 24, no. 11 (November),
907-916.
Finney, Craig. 1979. ' "Recreation: Its Effects on

Productivity." Recreation Management
(December/January), 14-20.
279
Fogle, R. Keith, and Verdesca, Arthur S. 1975. "The

Cardiovascular Conditioning Effects of a Supervised
Exercise Program." Journal of Occupational Medicine,
vol. 17, no. 4 (April), 240-246.
Folkins, Carlyle H. 1976. "Effects of Physical Training

on Mood." Journal of Clinical Psychology, vol. 32
(April), 385-388.
Folkins, Carlyle H., and Sime, Wesley E. 1981.

"Physical Fitness Training and Mental Health."
American Psychologist, vol. 36, no. 4 (April), 373-
389 .
Folsom, Aaron R., Caspersen, Carl J., Taylor, Henry L.,

Jacobs, David R., Luepker, Russell V., Gomez-Marin,
Orlando, Gillum, Richard F., and Blackburn, Henry.
1985. "Leisure Time Physical Activity and Its
Relationship To Coronary Risk Factors in a
Population-Based Sample: The Minnesota Heart
Survey." American Journal of Epidemiology, vol. 121,
no. 4, 570-579.
Fraser, T. M. 1983. Human Stress, Work and Job

Satisfaction: A Critical Approach. Geneva,
Switzerland: International Labour Office.
Frerking, Beth. 1987. "Federal Workers Get Trim in

Bustling Tax-Supported Fitness Centers~" Denver Post
( Ma r c h 29), 4 A .
Freudenheim, Milt. 1990. "Assessing the Corporate

Fitness Craze." The New York Times (March 18), IF.
Frew, David R., and Bruning, Nealia S. 1987. "The

Fitness/Work Connection." Corporate Fitness, vol. 6,
no. 4 (June/July), 16-18.
Friedewald, William T. 1985. "Physical Activity

Research and Coronary Heart Disease." Public Health
Reports, vol. 100, no. 2 (March/April), 115-117.
Gelb, Betsy D. 1985. "Preventive Medicine and Employee

Productivity." Harvard Business Review
(March/April), 12-16.
Gelman, David, Polk, Karen, Sandza, Richard, King,

Patricia, and Manning, Richard. 1984. "Fitness,
Corporate Style." Newsweek (November 5), 96-97.
Goldhaber, Gerald M. 1986. Organizational

Communication. Dubuque, Iowa: W.C. Brown.
280
Gordon, George J. 1982. Public Administration in

America. New York: st. Martin's Press.
Green, Colleen. 1989. "Healthy, Wealthy, and Wise: The

Corporate Pay-Off for Employee Wellness/Fitness
Programs." Small Business Reports, vol. 14, no. 11
(November 1), 29-38.
Green, Harvey. 1986. Fit for America: Health, Fitness,

Sport and American Society. New York: Pantheon.
Greene, Charles N. 1975. "The Satisfaction-Performance

Controversy." In Steers, Richard M., and Porter,
Lyman W., eds. Motivation and Work Behavior. New
York: McGraw-Hill, 242-254.
Gr imm, Vanessa Jo. 1988. "ADP, IRM Lose Feds to Greener

Pastures." Government Computer News (February 5), 1.
Gruneberg, Michael M., ed. 1976. Job Satisfaction: A

Reader. New York: John Wiley.
Gruneberg, Michael M. 1979. Understanding Job

Satisfaction. New York: John Wiley.
Hanlon, Martin D. 1986. "Age and Commitment to Work: A

Literature Review and Multivariate Analysis."
Research on Aging, vol. 8, no. 2 (June), 289-315.
Hartman, Stephen W., and Cozzetto, Janet. 1984.

"Wellness in the Workplace." Personnel Administrator
(August), 108-116.
Hartung, G. Harley, and Farge, Emilie J. 1977.

"Personality and Physiological Traits in Middle-Aged
Runners and Joggers." Journal of Gerontology, vol.
32, no. 5 (September), 541-548.
Haskell, WilliamL. 1984. "Overview: Health Benefits

of Exercise." In Matarazzo, Joseph D., Weiss,
Sharlene M., Herd, J. Alan, Miller, Neal E., and
Weiss, Stephen M., eds. Behavioral Health: A
Handbook of Health Enhancement and Disease
Prevention. New York: John Wiley, 409-423.
Haskell, William L., and Blair, Steven N. 1982. "The

Physical Activity Component of Health Promotion in
Occupational Settings." In Parkinson, Rebecca S.
Managing Health Promotion in the Workplace:
Guidelines for Implementation and Evaluation. Palo
Alto, California: Mayfield Publishing, 252-271.
281
Haskell, William L., Montoye, Henry J., and Orenstein,

Diane. 1985~ "Physical Activity and Exercise To
Achieve Health-Related Physical Fitness Components."
Public Health Reports, vol. 100, no. 2 (March/April),
202-212.
Heaps, Richard A. 1978. "Relating Physical and

Psychological Fitness: A Psychological Point of
View." Journal of Sports Medicine, vol. 18, 399-408.
Henderson, Jerry M. 1974. "The Effect of Physical

Conditioning on Self-Concept in College Females."
Dissertation Abstracts International. Ann Arbor,
Michigan, vol. 35, 3063-B.
Herzberg, Frederick. 1966. Work and the Nature of Man.

New York: New American Library.
Herzberg, Frederick. 1976. "One More Time: How Do You

Motivate Employees?" In Gruneberg, Michael M., ed.
Job Satisfaction: A Reader. New York: John Wiley.
Herzlinger, Regina E., and Calkins, David. 1986. "Ho~

Companies Tackle Health Care Costs: Part III."
Harvard Business Review (January/February), 70-80.
Hickey, Noel, Mulcahy, Risteard, Bourke, Geoffrey J.,

Graham, Ian, and Wilson-Davis, Keith. 1975. "study
of Coronary Risk Factors Related to Physicai Activity
in 15,171 Men." British Medical Journal, vol. 3
(August 30), 507-509.
Hinkle, J. Scott, and Tuckman, Bruce W. 1988. "Chasing

the Muse." Runner's World, vol. 23, no. 11
(November), 77-82.
Hoffman, John J., Jr., and Hobson, Charles J. 1984.

"Physical Fitness and Employee Effectiveness."
Employee Services Management (September), 28-34.
Hogan, Joyce. 1989. "Personality Correlates of Physical
Fitness." Journal of Personality and Social
Psychology, vol. 56, no. 2 (February), 284-288.
Holmes, David S., and Roth, David L. 1988. "Effects of
Aerobic Exercise Training and Relaxation Training on
Cardiovascular Activity During Psychological Stress."
Journal of Psychosomatic Research, vol. 32, nos. 4
and 5, 469-474.
282
Holzer, Marc, and Rabin, Jack. 1987. "Public Service:
Problems, Professionalism, and Policy
Recommendations." Public Productivity Review, no. 43
(Fall), 3-13.
Hopkins, Anne H. 1983. Work and Job Satisfaction in the

Public Sector. Totowa, New Jersey: Rowman and
Allanheld.
Hopkins, William G., and Walker, Nicholas P. 1988. "The

Meaning of Physical Fitness." Preventive Medicine,
vol. 17, no. 6 (November), 764-773.
Hopper, Linda. 1988. "Unstressing Work: What Smart

Organizations Do." Public Management, vol. 70, no.
11 (November), 2-4.
Horne, William M. 1975. "Effects of a Physical Activity

Program on Middle-aged Sedentary Corporation
Executives." American Industrial Hygiene Association
Journal, vol. 36 (March), 141-245.
Howard, John, and Mikalachki, Alexander. 1979. "Fitness

and Employee Productivity." Canadian Journal of
Applied Sport Sciences, vol. 4, no. 3, 191-198.
Howe, Christine Z. 1983. "Establishing Employee

Recreation Programs." Journal of Physical Education,
Recreation, and Dance, vol. 34 (October), 34.
Howell, Jerry W. 1986. Comparison of Seven-Day Physical

Activity Recall By Survey and Interview (Master's
Thesis). Boulder: University of Colorado.
Hrebiniak, Lawrence G., and Alutto, Joseph A. 1972.

"Personal and Role-Related Factors in the Development
of Organizational Commitment." Administrative
Science Quarterly, vol. 17, 555-573.
Hughes, John R. 1984. "Psychological Effects of

Habitual Aerobic Exercise: A Critical Review."
Preventive Medicine, vol. 13, 66-78.
Hulin, Charles L. 1976. "Job Satisfaction and Turnover
in a Female Clerical Population." In Gruneberg,
Michael M., ed . Job Satisfaction: A Reader. New
York : John Wiley, 218-228.
Hulin, Charles L., and Smith, Patricia Cain. 1976. "Sex

Differences in Job Satisfaction." In Gruneberg,
Michael M., ed. Job Satisfaction: A Reader. New
York: John Wiley, 175-183.
283
Internal Revenue Service. 1988. A Health Improvement

Program for the Internal Revenue Service: Findings
and Recommendations of the Physical Fitness Task
Force. Washington, D.C.: U.S. Government Printing
Office.
Ivancevich, John M., Donnelly, James H., Jr., and James

L. Gibson. 1983. Managing for Performance: An
Introduction to the Process of Managing. Plano,
Texas: Business Publications.
Ivancevich, John M., and Matteson, Michael T. 1980.

Stress and Work: A Managerial Perspective.
Glenview, Illinois: Scott, Foresman and Company.
Jacobs, Don T. 1981. Getting Your Executives Fit.

Mountain View, California: Anderson World, Inc ..
Jasnoski, Mary L., .Holmes, David S., and Banks, David L.

1988. "Changes in Personality Associated with
Changes in Aerobic and Anaerobic F.itness in Women and
Men." Journal of Psychosomatic Research, vol. 32,
no. 3, 273-276.
Johnston, William B. 1987. Workforce 2000: Work and

Workers for the 21st century. Indianapolis: Hudson
Institute.
Johnston, William B. 1988. Civil Service 2000.

Washington, D.C.: U.S. Office of Personnel
Management.
Jowett, B., translator. 1937. The Dialogues of Plato:

Volume Two. New York: Random House.
Kahn, Harold A. 1963. "The Relationship of Reported

Coronary Heart Disease Mortality to Physical Activity
of Work." American Journal of Public Health, vol.
53, no. 7 (July), 1058-1067.
Kahn, Robert L. 1987. "Work stress in the 1980s:

Research and Practice." In Quick, James C., Bhagat,
Rabi S., Dalton, James E., and Quick, Jonathan D.,
eds. Work Stress: Health Care Systems in the
Workplace. New York: Praeger, 311-320.
Kaman, Robert L. 1988. "Just i f icat ion of Employee

Fitness Programs: Cost Versus Benefit." Fitness In
Business (December), 90-95.
284
Katz, Daniel, and Kahn, Robert L. 1978. The Social

Psychology of Organizations. New York: John Wiley
and Sons.
Katzell, Raymond A., and Yankelovich, Daniel. 1975.

Work, Productivity, and Job Satisfaction. New York:
Harcourt, Brace, Jovanovich.
Kaufman, Jane E. 1983. "State of the Art: Physical

Fitness in Corporations." Employee Services
Management, vol. 26, no. 1 (February), 8.
Keller, Sandra, and Seraganian, Peter. 1984. "Physical

Fitness Level and Autonomic Reactivity to
Psychosocial stress." Journal of Psychosomatic
Research, vol. 28, no. 4, 279-287.
Kenney, W. Larry. 1984. "Corporate Fitness and the

Hypertensive Employee." Corporate Fitness &
Recreation, vol. 3, no. 2 (February/March), 23-26.
Kerlinger, Fred N., and Pedhazur, Elazar J. 1973.

Multiple Regression in Behavioral Research. New
York: Holt, Rinehart, and Winston.
Kets de Vries~ Manfred F. R. 1979. "Organizational

stress: A Call for Management Action." Sloan
Management Review, vol. 21 (Fall), 3-14.
Kidder, Louise H., and Judd, Charles M. 1986. Research

Methods in Soc~al Relations. &ew York: Holt,
Rinehart, and Winston.
King, Abby C., Taylor, C. Barr, Haskell, William L., and

DeBusk, Robert F. 1989. "Influence of Regular
Aerobic Exercise on Psychological Health: A
Randomized, Controlled Trial of Healthy Middle-Aged
Adults." Health Psychology, vol. 8, no. 3, 305-324.
Klein, S. M., and Maher, J. R. 1976. "Education Level

and Satisfaction with Pay." In Grunebergj Michael M.,
ed. Job Satisfaction: A Reader. New York: John
Wiley, 184-195.
Knadler, Gary F., Rogers, Todd, Mitchell, Brenda S., and
Blair, steven N. 1989. Physical Fitness Programs in
the Workplace. Washington, D.C.: Washington
Business Group on Health.
285
Koch, James L., and steers, Richard M. 1978. "Job

Attachment, Satisfaction, and Turnover Among Public
Sector Employees." Journal of Vocational Behavior,
vol. 12, 119-128.
Kohl, Harold W., LaPorte, Ronald E., and Blair, Steven N.

1988. "Physical Activity and Cancer: An
Epidemiological Perspective." Sports Medicine, vol.
6, no. 4 (October), 222-237.
Kohout, Martin D. 1988. "Commission Hears Calls for

Public Pay Raises." Public Administration Times,
vol. 11, no. 7 (May 20), 1.
Kondrasuk, John. 1980. "Company Physical Fitness

Programs: Salvation or Fad?" Personnel
Administrator (November), 47-50.
Kovach, Kenneth A. 1977. Organization Size, Job

Satisfaction, Absenteeism, and Turnover. Washington,
D.C.: University Press.
Kraut, Allen I. 1975. "Predicting Turnover of Employees
from· Measured Job Attitudes." Organizational
Behavior and Human Performance, vol. 13, 233-243.
Labbe, Elise E., Welsh, M. Cay, and Delaney, Deena.

1988. "Effects of Consistent Aerobic Exercise on the
Psychological Functioning of Women." Perceptual and
Motor Skills, vol. 67, no. 3 (December), 919-925.
LaPorte, Ronald E., Adams, Lucile L., Savage, Daniel D.,

Brenes, Gilbert, Dearwater, Stephen, and Cook,
Timothy. 1984. "The Spectrum of Physical Activity,
Cardiovascular Disease and Health: An Epidemiologic
Perspective." American Journal of Epidemiology, vol.
120, no. 4 (October), 507-517.
LaPorte, Ronald E., Montoye, Henry J., and Caspersen,

Carl J. 1985. "Assessment of Physical Activity in
Epidemiologic Research: Problems and Prospects."
Public Health Reports, vol. 100, no. 2 (March/April),
131-146.
Lawler, Edward E., and Porter, Lyman W. 1976. "The
Effect of Performance on Job Satisfaction." In
Gruneberg, Michael M., ed. Job Satisfaction: A
Reader. New York: John Wiley, 207-217.
286
Ledwidge, Barry. 1980. "Run for Your Mind: Aerobic
Exercise as a Means of Alleviating Anxiety and
Depression." Canadian Journal of Behavioral Science,
vol. 12, no. 2, 126-140.
Lee, Sang M. 1971. "An Empirical Analysis of
Organizational Identification." Academy of
Management Journal, vol. 14 (June), 213-226.
Lemonias, Peter J., and Brian L. Usilaner. 1984.
"Productivity Management: A Neglected Approach for
Reducing Federal Government Costs." National
Productivity Review, vol. 3, no. 2 (Spring), 147.
Leon, Arthur S., and Blackburn, Henry. 1977. "The
Relationship of Physical Activity to Coronary Heart
Dis e a sea nd L i feE x p e c t an c y . " A=n""n:.,;;:a;..:l:.--:N:.;. e:.w.:.:.-.=.Y. .;::o;.::r:.. ;.k:.--:A:,:.c:;,.a=d.=.ec.:.:m.:. .c. . Y
of Sciences, vol. 301, 561-578.
Leonardson, Gary R. 1977. "Relationship Between Self-
Concept and Perceived Physical Fitness." Perceptual
and Motor Skills, vol. 44, 62.
Lewis, Gregory B., and Ha, Meesung. 1988. "Impact of
the Baby Boom on Career Success in Federal Civil
Service." Public Administration Review, vol. 48, no.
6 (November/December), 951-956.
Lichtman, Sharla, and Poser, Ernest G. 1983. "The

Effects of Exercise on Mood and Cognitive
Functioning." Journal of Psychosomatic Research,
vol. 27, no. 1, 43-52.
Linsley, Clyde. 1988. "Playing the Recruitment Game."
Government Executive, vol. 20, no. 9 (September), 42-
45.
Lion, Lionel S. 1978. "Psychological Effects of
Jogging: A Preliminary Study." Perceptual and Motor
Skills, vol. 47, 1215-1218.
Locke, Edwin A. 1969. "What is Job Satisfaction?"
4, 309-336.
Locke, Edwin A. 1970. "Job Satisfaction and Job

Performance: A Theoretical Analysis."
5, 484-500.
287
Lutrin, Carl E., and Settle, Allen K. 1976. American

Public Administration: Concepts and Cases. Palo
Alto, California: Mayfield.
MacMahon, James R., and Gross, Ruth T. 1988. "Physical

and Psychological Effects of Aerobic Exercise in
Delinquent Adolescent Males." American Journal of
Diseases of Children, vol. 142, no. 12 (December),
1361-1366.
Marsh, Robert M., and Mannari, Hiroshi. 1977.

"Organizational Commitment and Turnover: A
Prediction Study." Administrative Science Quarterly,
vol. 22 (March), 57-75.
Martens, Rainer. 1975. Social Psychology and Physical

Activity. New York: Harper & Row. .
Marti, Bernard, Pekkanen, Juha, Nissinen, Aulikki,

Ketola, Arto, Kivela; Sirkka-Liisa, Punsar, Sven, and
Karvonen, Martti J. 1989. "Association of Physical
Activity with C'oronary Risk Factors and Physical
Ability: Twenty-Year Follow-up of a Cohort of
Finnish Men." Age and Ageing, vol. 18, 103-109.
Massie, J. F., and Shephard, Roy J. 1971.

"Physiological and Psychological Effects of Training
- A Comparison of Individual and Gymnasium Programs."
Medicine and Science in Sports, vol. 3, no. 3 (Fall),
110-117.
Mathieu, John E. 1989. "A Causal Model of the

Antecedents of Organizational Commitment Among
Professionals and Nonprofessionals." Journal of
Vocational Behavior, vol. 34, no. 3 (June), 299-317.
Meredith, Marilu D. 1988. "Activity or Fitness: Is the

Process or the Product More Important for Public
Health?" Quest, vol. 40, no. 3 (December), 180-186.
Merwin, Donald J. 1982. "Health Action in the

Workplace: Complex Issues - No Simple Answers."
Health Education Quarterly, Special Supplement, 73-
82.
Metzner, Helen, and Mann, Floyd. 1976. "Employee

Attitudes and Absences." In Gruneberg, Michael M.,
ed. Job Satisfaction~ A Reader. New York: John
Wiley, 229-243.
288
Meyer, John P., Paunonen, Sampo V., Gellatly, Ian R.,

Goffin, Richard D., and Jackson, Douglas N. 1989.
"Organizational Commitment and Job Performance: It's
the Nature of the Commitment That Counts." Journal
of Applied Psychology, Vol. 74, no. 1, 152-156.
Michael, Ernest D., Jr. 1957. "stress Adaptation

Through Exercise." Research Quarterly, vol. 28, no.
I, 50-54.
Michaels, Charles E., and Spector, Paul E. 1982.

"Causes of Employee Turnover: A Test of the Mobley,
Griffeth, Hand, and Meglino Model." Journal of
Applied Psychology, vol. 67, no. 1, 53-59.
Miller, Annetta, Bradburn, Elizabeth, Hager, Mary,

Robins, Kate, Roberts, Betsy, and Howard, Judy.
1989. "Can You Afford to Get Sick?" Newsweek,
(January 30), 44-51.
Miller, Delbert C. 1983. Handbook of Research Design

and Social Measurement. New York: Longman.
Mindell, Mark G., and Gorden, William I. 1981. Employee

Values in a Changing Society. New York: AMACOM.
Mobley, W. H., Griffeth, R. W., Hand, H. H., and Meglino,

B. M. 1979. "Review and Conceptual Analysis of the
Employee Turnover Process." 'Psychological Bulletin,
vol. 86, no. 3, 493-522.
Mobley, William H. 1982. Employee Turnover: Causes,

Consequences, and Control. Reading, Massachusetts:
Addison-Wesley.
Montoye, Henry J. 1969. "Physical Activity and Risk

Factors Associated with Coronary Heart Disease." In
Franks, B. Don, ed., Exercise and Fitness - 1969:
Proceedings of a Symposium. Chicago: The Athletic
Institute, 43-52.
Montoye, Henry J. 1975. Physical Activity and Health:

An Epidemiologic Study of an Entire Community.
Englewood Cliffs, N.J.: Prentice Hall.
Montoye, Henry J., and Taylor, Henry L. 1984.

"Measurement of Physical Activity in Population
Studies: A Review." Human Biology, vol. 56, no. 2
(May), 195-216.
289
M0 r 9 an, W. P., and H0 r s t rna n , D. H. 19 7 6 . " An xi e t y

Reduction Following Acute Physical Activity."
Medicine and Science in Sports, vol. 8, no. 62, 62.
Morgan, William P., Roberts, John A., Brand, Frank R.,

and Feinerman, Adrian D. 1970. "Psychological
Effect of Chronic Physical Activity." Medicine and
.; Science in Sports, vol. 2, no . 4, 213-217 .
• "0'
, ,
~9:~;t:~'ls; J. N. , Heady, J. A., Roberts, C. G., and Parks,

;:~;.A:');ii/,:: J. w. 1953. "Coronary Heart-Disease and Physical
.".,» :';:' Activity of Work." The Lancet, vol. 2 (November),
1053-1057.
Morris, J. N., Chave, S. P. W., Adam, C., Sirey, C.,

' Epstein, L., and Sheehan, D. J. 1973. "Vigorous
Exercise in Leisure-time and the Incidence of
Coronary Heart Disease." The Lancet, vol. 1
(February 17), 333-339.
Morrison, J. F., Van Malsen, S., Noakes, T. D. 1984.

"Leisure-Time Physical Activity Level~,
Cardiovascular Fitness and Coronary Risk Factors in
1,015 White Zimbabweans." South African Medical
Journal, vol. 65 (February), 250-256.
Mottaz, Clifford J. 1981. "Some Determinants of Work

Alienation." The Sociological ~uarterly, vol. 22
(Autumn), 515-529.
Mottaz, Clifford J. 1985. "The Relative Importance of

Intrinsic and Extrinsic Rewards as Determinants of
Work Satisfaction." The Sociological Quarterly, vol.
26, no. 3, 365-385.
Mottaz, Clifford J. 1986. "Gender Differences in Work

satisfaction, Work-Related Rewards and Values, and
the Determinants of Work Satisfaction." Human
Relations, vol. 39, no. 4, 359-378.
Mottaz, Clifford J. 1987. "An Analysis of the

Relationship Between Work Satisfaction and
Organizational Commitment." The Sociological
Quarterly, vol. 28, no. 4, 541-558.
Mowday, Richard T., Porter, Lyman W., and Steers, Richard

M. 1982. Employee-Organization Linkages: The
Psychology of Commitment, Absenteeism, and Turnover.
New York: Academic Press.
290
Mowday, Richard T., steers, Richard M., and Porter, Lyman

W. 1979. "The Measurement of Organizational
Commitment." Journal of Vocational Behavior, vol.
14, 224-247.
Murphy, Lawrence R., and Hurrell, Joseph J. 1987.

"stress Measuremebt and Management in Organizations:
Development and Current status." In Riley, Anne W,
and Zaccaro, Stephen J., eds. Occupational stress
and Organizational Effectiveness. New York:
Praeger, 29-51.
Nash, Michael. 1985. Making People Productive: What

Really Works in Raising Managerial and Employee
Performance. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
National Commission on the Public Service. 1989.

Leadership for America: Rebuilding the Public
Service. Washington, D.C ..
Newman, J. E., and Beehr, T. A. 1979. "Personal and

Organizational Strategies for Handling Job Stress: A
Review of Research and Opinion." Personnel
Psychology, vol. 32, 1-44.
Nieman, David C. 1989. "Exerc ise and the Mind."

Women's Sports and Fitness, vol. 11, no. 7,
(September), 54-57.
Norusis, Marija J. 1983. SPSS-X Introductory Statistics

Guide. Chicago: SPSS, Inc ..
Norusis, Marija J. 1988. The SPSS Guide to Data

Analysis for SPSS-X. Chicago: SPSS, Inc ..
Novelli, William D., and Ziska, Deborah. 1982. "Health

Promotion in the Workplace: An Overview." Health
Education Quarterly, Special Supplement, vol. 9, 20-
26.
Nykodym, Nick, and George, Katie. 1989. "Stress Busting

on the Job." Personnel, vol. 66, no. 7 (July), 56-
59.
Oden, Gary, Crouse, Stephen F., and Reynolds, Carol.
1989. "Worker Productivity, Job Satisfaction, and
Work Related stress: The Influence of an Employee
Fitness Program." Fitness in Business, vol. 3, no. 6
(June), 198-204.
291
Ohlsson, Monica, Sjoberg, Hans, and Dornic, Stanislav.

1975. "Effects of Physical Fitness on Mental
Performance After Physical Work." Reports from the
Institute of Applied Psychology, University of
Stockholm, no. 62, Abstract.
Ostrow, Andrew C. 1984. Physical Activity and the Older

Adult: Psychological Perspectives. Princeton, New
Jersey: Princeton Book Company.
Paffenbarger, R. S. Jr., Wing, and A. L. Hyde, R. T.

1978. "Physical Activity as an Index of Heart Attack
Risk in College Alumni." American Journal of
Epidemiology, vol. 108 (September), 161-175.
Paolone, Albert M., Lewis, Richard R., Lanigan, William

T., and Goldstein, Michael J. 1976. "Results of Two
Years of Exercise Training in Middle-Aged Men . " The
Physician and Sportsmedicine (December), 72-77.
Parkinson, Rebecca S. 1982. Managing Health Promotion

in the Workplace: Guidelines for Implementation and
Evaluation. Palo Alto, California: Mayfield
Publishing.
Pate, Russell R. 1988. "The Evolving Definition of

Physical Fitness." Quest, vol. 40, no. 3 (December),
174-179.
Pate, Russell R., and Blair, steven N. 1983. "Physical

Fitness Programming for Health Promotion at the
Worksite." Preventive Medicine, vol. 12, 632-643.
Pauly, Janice T., Palmer, Jacqueline A., Wright, C.

Craig., and Pfeiffer, George J. 1982. "The Effects
of a 14-Week Employee Fitness Program on Selected
Physiological and Psychological Parameters." Journal
of Occupational Medicine, vol. 24, no. 6 (June), 457-
463.
Pellegrino, Edmund D. 1981. "Health Promotion as Public

Policy: The Need for Moral Groundings." Preventive
Medicine, vol. 108, 371-378.
Pelletier, Kenneth R. 1984. Healthy People in Unhealthy

Places: stress and Fitness at Work. New York:
Delacorte Press.
Penley, Larry E., and Gould, Sam. 1988. "Etzioni's

Model of Organizational Involvement: A Perspective
for Understanding Commitment to Organizations."
Journal of Organizational Behavior, vol. 9, 43-59.
292
Peters, Lawrence H., Bhagat, Rabi S., and O'Connor,

Edward J. 1981. "An Examination of the Independent
and Joint Contributions of Organizational Commitment
and Job Satisfaction on Employee Intentions to Quit."
Group & Organization Studies, vol. 6, no. 1, 73-82.
Pollock, Michael L., Wilmore, Jack H., and Fox, Samuel M.

1978. Health and Fitness Through Physical Activity.
New York: John Wiley and Sons.
Porter, Lyman W., Crampon, William J., and Smith, Frank.

J. 1976. "Organizational Commitment and Manager ial
Turnover: A Longitudinal Study." Organizational
Behavior and Human Performance, vol. 15, 87-98.
Porter, Lyman W., and Lawler, Edward E. 1968.

Managerial Attitudes and Performance. Homewood,
Illinois: Irwin/Dorsey-Press.
Porter, Lyman W., and Steers, Richard M. 1973.

"Organizational, Work, and Personal Factors in
Employee Turnover and Absenteeism." Psychological
Bulletin, vol. 80, no. 2, 151-176.
Porter, Lyman W., Steers, Richard M., Mowday, Richard T.,

and Boulian, Pa~l v. 1974. "Organizatiorta1
Commitment, Job Satisfaction, and Turnover Among
Psychiatric Technicians." Journal of Applied
Psychology, vol. 59, no. 5, 603-609.
Powell, R. R. 1975. "Effects of Exercise on Mental

Functioning." Journal of Sports Medicine and
Physical Fitness, vol. 15, 125-131.
Price, Douglas S. 1989. "Government is Warned of

Shrinking Labor Pool." Government Computer News
(March 6), 135.
Pyle, Richard L. 1979. "Performance Measures for a

Corporate Fitness Program." Human Resource
Management (Fall), 27-30.
Quick, James C., and Quick, Jonathan D. 1984.

Organizational Stress and Preventive Management. New
York: McGraw-Hill.
Quick, Jonathan D., Kertesz, Joseph W., Nelson, Debra L.,
and Quick, James C. 1985. "Preventive Management of
stress." In Myers, Donald W., ed. Employee Problem
Preve~tion and Counseling: A Guide for
Professionals. Westport, Connecticut: Quorum Books,
125-157.
293
Rambo, William W. 1982. Work and Organizational

Behavior. New York: Holt, Rinehart, and Winston.
Reichers, Arnon E. 1985. "A Review and

Reconceptualization of Organizational Commitment."
Academy of Management Review, vol. 10, no. 3, 465-
476.
Rhodes, Edward C., and Dunwoody, Douglas. 1980.

"Physiological and Attitudinal Changes in Those
Involved in an Employee Fitness Program." Canadian
Journal of Public Health, vol. 71 (October), 331-336.
Rhodes, Susan R. 1983 . "Age-Related Di fferences in Work

Attitudes and Behavior: A Review and Conceptual
Analysis." Psychological Bulletin, vol. 93, no. 2,
328-367.
Rippe, James M. 1989. "CEO Fitness: The Performance

Plus." Psychology Today, vol. 23, no. 5 (May), 54-
58.
Rippe, James M. 1989. "Keeping Fit for Success."

Industry Week, vol; 238, no. 11 (June 5), 22-27.
Robbins, Stephen P. 1978. "Safety and Health." In

Personnel: The Management of Human Resources,
Englewood Cliffs, N.J., Prentice Hall, 321-341.
Roberts, Marjory, and Harris, George T. 1989. "Wellness

at Work: How Corporations Help Employees Fight
Stress and Stay Healthy." Psychology Today, vol. 23,
no. 5 (May), 54-58.
Robinson, John P., Athanasiou, Robert, and Head, Kendra

B. 1969. Measures of Occupational Attitudes and
Occupational Characteristics. Ann Arbor: Survey
Research Center, Institute for Social Research,
University of Michigan.
Roda1e, Robert, Beldon, Sanford T., Dybdahl, Thomas, and

Schwartz, Mark. 1988. The Prevention Index '88: A
Report Card on the Nation's Health (Summary Report).
Emmaus, Pennsylvania: Rodale Press.
Rogers, Peggy Jean, Eaton, Elizabeth K., and Bruhn, John

G. 1981. "Is Health Promotion Cost Effective?"
Preventive Medicine, vol. 10, 324-339.
Romzek, Barbara S. 1989. "Personal Consequences of

Employee Commitment." Academy of Management Journal,
vol. 32, no. 3 (September), 649-66.
294
Roseman, Edward. 1981. Managing Employee Turnover: A
Positive Approach. New York: AMACOM.
Salancik, Gerald R. 1977. "Commitment and the Control

of Organizational Behavior and Belief." In Staw,
Barry M., and Salancik, Gerald R., eds. New
Directions in Organizational Behavior. Chicago: st.
Clair.
Saleh, Shoukry D., and Otis, Jay L. 1976. "Age and

Level of Job Satisfaction." In Gruneberg, Michael M.,
ed. Job Satisfaction: A Reader. New York: John
Wiley, 169-174.
Sallis, James F., Haskell, William L., Wood, Peter D.,

Fortmann, Stephen P., Rogers, Todd, Blair, Steven N.,
and Paffenbarger, Ralph S. 1985. "Physical Activity
Assessment Methodology in the Five-City Project."
91-106. .
Scherr Trenk, Barbara. 1989. "Corporate Fitness

Programs Become Hearty Investments." Management
Review, vol. 78, no. 8 (August), 33-37.
Schuler, Randall S. 1980. "Definition and

Conceptualization of stress in Organizations."
25, 184-215.
Schwab, Donald P., and Cummings, Larry L. 1973.

"Theories of Performance and Satisfaction: A
Review." In Scott, W.E., and Cummings, L.L., eds.
Readings in Organizational Behavior and Human
Performance. Homewood, Illinois: Irwin, 130-141.
Schwartz, Gary E. 1982. "Stress Management in

Occupational Settings." In Parkinson, Rebecca S.,
Managing Health Promotion in the Workplace:
Guidelines for Implementation and Evaluation. Palo
Alto, California: Mayfield Publishing, 233-251.
Seamonds, Bonnie C. 1986a. "The Concept and Practice of

Stress Management." In Wolf, Stewart G., and
Finestone, Albert J., eds. Occupational Stress:
Health and Performance at Work. Littleton,
Massachusetts: PSG Publishing.
295
Seamonds, Bonnie C. 1986b. "The Control of

Absenteeism." In Wolf, stewart G., and Finestone,
Albert J., eds. Occupational stress: Health and
Performance at Work. Littleton, Massachusetts: PSG
Publishing.
Selye, Hans. 1974. stress Without Distress. New York:

Harper & Row.
Severson, Richard K., Nomura, Abraham M. Y., Grove, John

S., and Stemmermann, Grant N. 1989. "A Prospective
Analysis of Physical Activity and Cancer." American
Journal of Epidemiology, vol. 130, no. 3, 522-529.
Sharkey, Brian J. 1984. Physiology of Fitness.

Champaign, Illinois: Human Kinetics.
Shephard, Roy J. 1977. Endurance Fitness (2nd ed.).

Toronto: University of Toronto Press.
Shephard, Roy J. 1983. "Physical Activity and the

Healthy Mind." Canadian Medical Association Journal,
vol. 128 (March I), 525-530.
Shephard, Roy J. 1986a. Economic Benefits of Enhanced

Fitness. Champaign, Illinois: Human Kinetics.
Shephard, Roy J. 1986b. Fitness and Health in Industry.

New York: Karger.
Shephard, Roy J. 1987. Physical Activity and Aging.

Rockville, Maryland: Aspen.
Shephard, Roy J. 1989. "Current Perspectives on the

Economics of Fitness and Sport with Particular
Reference to Worksite Programmes." Sports Medicine:
An International Journal of Applied Medicine and
Science in Sport and Exercise, vol. 7, no. 5 (May),
286-309.
Shephard, Roy J., Corey, Paul, Renzland, Peter, and Cox,

Michael. 1982. "The Influence of an Employee
Fitness and Lifestyle Modification Program Upon
Medical Care Costs." Canadian Journal of Public
Health, vol. 73 (July/August), 259-263.
Shephard R. J., Cox, M. and Corey, P. 1980a. "Fitness

Program Participation: Its Effect on Worker
Performance." Journal of Occupational Medicine, vol.
22, 359-363.
296
Shepha~d, R. J., Mo~gan, P., Finucane, R., and

Schimmilfing, L. 1980b. "Factors Influencing
Recruitment to an Indust~ial Fitness Programme."
Journal of Occupational Medicine, vol. 22, 389-398.
Shoemaker, Donald J., Snizek, William E., and Bryant,

Clifton D. 1977 . "Toward a Further Ciarification of
Becker's Side-Bet Hypothesis as Applied to
Organ i zat ional Commitment." Soc ial Forces, vol. 56,
no. 2 (December), 598-603.
Shore, Lynn MCFa~lane, and Martin, Harry J. 1989. "Job

Satisfaction and Organizational Commitment in
Relation to Work Performance and Turnover
Intentions." Human Relations, vol. 42, no. 7 (July),
625-638.
Sime, Wesley E. 1984. "Psychological Benefits of

Exercise Training in the Healthy Individual." In
Matarazzo, Joseph D., Weiss, Sharlene M., Herd, J.
Alan, ~iller, Neal E., and Weiss, Stephen M., eds.,
Behavioral Health: A Handbook of Health Enhancement
and Disease P~evention. New York: John Wiley, 488-
508.
Sinyor, David, Schwa~tz, Sandra, Personnet, Francois,

Brisson, GUYi and Seraganian, Peter. 1983. "Aerobic
Fitness Level and Reactivity to Psychosocial stress:
Physiological, Biochemical, and Subjective Measures."
Psychosomatic Medicine, vol. 45, no. 3 (June), 205-
217.
Siscovick, David S., Ekelund, Lars G., Hyde, John S.,

Johnson, Jeffrey L., Gordon, David J., and LaRosa,
John C. 1988. "Physical Activity and Coronary Heart
Disease Among Asymptomatic Hypercholesterolemic Men:
The Lipid Research Clinics Coronary Primary
P~evention Trial." American Journal of Public
Health, vol. 78, no. 11 (November), 1428-1431.
Siscovick, David S., LaPorte, Ronald E., and Newman,

Jeffrey M. 1985. "The Disease-Specific Benefits and
Risks of Physical Activity and Exercise." Public
Health Reports, vol. 100, no. 2 (March/April), 180-
195.
Sjoberg, H., Ohlsson, M., and Dornic, S. 1975.

"Physical Fitness, Work Load, ~nd Mental
Performance." Reports from the Department of
Psychology, University of stockholm, no. 444 (April),
Abstract.
297
Slattery, Martha L., Jacobs, David R., and Nichaman,

Milton Z. 1989. "Leisure Time Physical Activity and
Coronary Heart Disease Death: The u.S. Railroad
Study." Circulation, vol. 79, no. 2 (February), 304-
311.
Smith, Dollie L. 1985. "Federal Fitness Programs Said

to Be Out of Shape." Federal Times, vol. 21, no. 2
( Ma r c h 4), 2 4 •
Smith, Kenneth J., Haight, Timothy G., and Everly, George

S., Jr. 1986. "Evaluating Corporate Wellness
Investments." The Internal Auditor (February), 28-
34.
Song, T. K., Shephard, Roy J., and Cox, M. 1982.

"Absenteeism, Employee Turnover and Sustained
Exercise Participation." Journal of Sp6rts Medicine,
vol. 22, 392-399.
Spilman, Mary Ann, Goetz, Axel, Schultz, James,

Bellingham, Richard, and Johnson, Dorothea. 1986.
"Effects of a Corporate Health Promotion Program."
Journal of Occupational Medicine, vol. 28, no. 4
(April), 285-290.
SPSS, Inc. 1986. The Statistical Package for the Social

Sciences, Version 2.1 Chicago: SPSS, Inc.
SPSS, Inc. 1986. SPSS-X Users Guide (2nd ed.).

Chicago: SPSS, Inc.
Stallings, William M., O'Rourke, Thomas W., and Gross,

Donald. 1975. "Professorial Correlates of Physical
Exercise." Journal of Sports Medicine, vol. 15, 333-
336.
Stamler, J. 1978. "Lifestyles, Major Risk Factors,

Proof, and Public Policy." Circulation, vol. 58
(July), 3-19.
steele, Christine E. 1990. "Profile of the 'Typical'

Federal Civilian Non-Postal Employee as of March 31,
1989." In Mace, Don, and Young, Joseph, eds. Federal
Employees' Almanac 1990 (37th Edition). Falls
Church, Virginia: Federal Employees' News Digest,
Inc.
Steers, Richard M. 1977. "Antecedents and Outcomes of

Organizational Commitment." Administrative Science
Quarterly, vol. 22 (March), 46-56.
298
steers, Richard M., and Porter, Lyman W. 1975.

Motivation and Work Behavior. New York: McGraw-
Hill.
steers, Richard M., and Rhodes, S. R. 1978. "Major

Influences of Employee Attendance: A Process Model."
Journal of Applied Psychology, vol. 63, 391-407.
steiner, Dirk D., and Truxillo, Donald M. 1989. "An

Improved Test of the Disaggregation Hypothesis of Job
and Life Satisfaction." Journal of Occup~tional
Psychology, vol. 62, no. 1 (March), 33-39.
Stephens, Thomas, Jacobs, David R., and White, Craig C.

1985. "A Descriptive Epid~miology of Leisure-Time
Physical Activit~." Public Health Reports, vol. 100,
- no. 2 (March/April), 147-158.
Summers, Timothy P., and DeCotiis, Thomas A. 1988. "An

Investigation of Sex - Differences in Job
Satisfaction." Sex Roles, vol. 18, nos. 11/12
(June), 679-689.
Taylor, C. Barr, Sallis, James F., and Needle, Richard.

1985. "The Relation of Physical Activity and
Exercise to Mental Health." Public Health Reports,
vol. 100, no. 2 (March/April), 195-202.
Taylor, C. B., Coffey, T., Berra, K., Iaffaldano, R.,

Casey, K., and Haskell, W. L. 1984. "Seven-Day
Activity and Self-Report Compared to a Direct Measure
of Physical Activity." American Journal of
Epidemiology, vol. 120, no. 6, 818-824.
Thomas, Gregory S. 1979. "Physical Activity and Health:

Epidemiologic and Clinical Evidence and Policy
Implications." Preventive Medicine, vol. 8, 89-103.
Timmons, William M. 1981. "Public Employee Physical

Fitness Programs." Public Personnel Management
Journal, vol. 10, no. 2 (Summer), 217-222.
Timmons, William M., and Middleton, Brent J. 1986.

"Utah Power and Light Company." Corporate Fitness &
Recreation, vol. 5, no. 3 (April/May), 17.
Tsai, Shan P., Baun, William B., and Bernacki, Edward J.

1987. "Relationship of Employee Turnover to Exercise
Adherence in a Corporate Fitness Program." Journal
of Occupational Medicine, vol. 29, no. 7 (July), 572-
575.
299
Turek-Brezina, Joan, Pettibone, Craig, and Tanner,

Lucretia Dewey. 1989. "The Federal Executive
Di lemma: 'I Like My Job, But . . .'" Government
Executive, vol. 21, no. 6 (June), 58-59.
U.S. Department of Health and Human Services. 1988.

Standards and Criteria for the Development and
Evaluation of Comprehensive Federal Physical Fitness
Programs. Washington: U.S. Department of Health and
Human Services.
U.S. General Accounting Office. 1988. Transition

Series: The Public Service. Washington, D.C.: u.s.
General Accounting Office.
U.S. General Services Administration. 1987.

"Establishment of Physical Fitness Facilities in GSA-
Controlled Space." Federal Register, vol. 52
(January 23), 2528-2529.
U.S. General Services Administration. 1987. "Physical

Fitness Facilities." Federal Register, vol. 52 (June
4), 26150.
U.S. General Services Administration. 1989. "Physical

Fitness Facilities." Federal Register, vol. 54
(March 24), 12197-12198.
U.S. Merit Systems Protection Board. 1987. Federal

Personnel Policies and Practices: Perspectives from
the Workplace. Washington: U.S. Merit Systems
Protection Board.
U.S. Office of Personnel Management. 1986.

"Clarification of FPM Chapter 792, Federal Employees
Health and Counseling Programs" (FPM Bulletin No.
792-15). Federal Personnel Manual System (April),
14.
U.S. Office of Personnel Management. 1987. "The

Director's Award for Outstanding Health/Fitness
Programs" (FPM Bulletin No. 792-39). Federal
Personnel Manual System (March 31).
U.S. Office of Personnel Management. 1988. The FEDERAL
FITKIT: Step-by-Step Guidelines for Employee Health
and Fitness Programs. U.S. Grivernment Printing
Office.
300
Vena, John E., Graham, Saxon, Zielezny, Maria, Swanson,

Mya K., Barnes, Robert, and Nolan, James. 1985.
"Lifetime Occupational Exercise ahd Colon Cancer."
(September), 357-365 . .
Vines, Gail. 1989. "Exercise Your Mind." New

Scientist, vol. 18, no. 1656 (March), 60-63.
Vogel, Marta. 1986. "Fit for Work: Do On-the-Job

Wellness Programs Really Pay Off?" Washington Post
(July 23), 10-13.
Voluck, Philip R., and Abramson, Herbert. 1987. "How to

Avoid Stress-Related Disability Claims." Personnel
Journal (May), 95-98.
Vroom, Victor. 1964. Work and Motivation. Malabar,

Florida: Krieger.
Wanous, John P., and Lawler, Edward E. 1972.

"Measurement and Meaning of Job Satisfaction."
Journal of Applied Psychology, vol. 56, no. 2, 95-
105.
Washburn, Richard A.,. and Montoye, Henry J. 1986. "The

Assessment of Physical Activity by Questionnaire."
563-576.
Welch, Susan, and Comer, John C. 1983. Quantitative

Methods for Public Administration: Techniques and
Applications. Homewood, Illinois: Dorsey.
Wells, Sharon J. 1986~ "OPM Encourages Employee

Fitness." Office of Personnel Management News (press
release), April 4.
Welsch, Harold P., and LaVan, Helen. 1981. "Inter-

Relationships Between Organizational Commitment and
Job Characteristics, Job Satisfaction, Professional
Behavior, and Organizational Climate." Human
Relations, vol. 34, no. 12, 1079-1089.
west, Jonathan P., and West, Colleen M. 1989. "Job

Stress and Public Sector Occupations: Implications
for Personnel Managers." Review of Public Personnel
Administration, vol. 9, no. 3 (Summer), 46-65.
301
White, Alan J. 1973. "The Interrelationships Between

Measures of Physical Fitness and Measures of Self
Concept of Selected Mississippi State University Male
Students." Dissertation Abstracts International,
vo 1. 34 ( 8a ), 4849.
Williams, Larry J., and Hazer, John T. 1986.

"Antecedents and Consequences of Satisfaction and
Commitment in Turnover Models: A Reanalysis Using
Latent Variable Structural Equation Methods."
Journal of Applied Psychology, vol. 71, no. 2, 219-
231.
Wilmore, Jack H. 1977. Athletic Training and Physical

Fitness: Physiological Principles and Practices of
the Conditioning , Process. Boston: Allyn and Bacon.
Wolf, Stewart G., and Finestone, Albert J., eds. 1986.

Occupational Stress: Health and Performance at Work.
Littleton~ Massachusetts: PSG Publishing.
Work, Janis A. 1989. "How Healthy Are Corporate Fitness

Programs?" The PhYsician and Sportsmedicine, vol.
17, no. 3 (March), 226-237.
Wright, C. Craig. 1982. "Cost Containment Through

Health Promotion Programs." Journal of Occupational
Medicine, vol. 24, no. 12 (December), 965-968.
Yankelovich, Daniel, and Gurin, Joel. 1989. "The New

American Dream." American Health, vol. 8, no. 2
(March), 63-67.
Yavaprabhas, Supachai. 1984. A Causal Model of the

Determinants of Job Satisfaction in the Public
Sector. Ann Arbor: University Microfilms.
Young, R. John, and Ismail, A. H. 1976a. "Personality
Differences of Adult Men Before and After a Physical
Fitness Program." The Research Quarterly, vol. 47,
no. 3, 513-519.
Young, R. John, and Ismail, A. H. 1976b. "Relationships

Between Anthropometric, Physiological, Biochemical,
and Personality Variables Before and After a Four
Month Conditioning Program for Middle-Aged Men."
Journal of Sports Medicine, vol. 16, 267-276.
Young, R. John, and Ismail, A. H. 1977. "Comparison of

Selected Physiological and Personality Variables in
Regular and Nonregular Adult Male Exercisers." The
Research Quarterly, vol. 48, no. 3, 617-622.
302
Zaccaro, stephen J., and Riley, Anne " W. 1987. "stress,

Coping, and Organizational Effectiveness." In Riley,
Anne W, and Zaccaro, Stephen J., eds. Occupational
stress and Organizational Effectiveness. New York:
Praeger, 1-28.
Zaleznik, Abraham, Kets de Vries, Manfred F. R., and

Howard, John. 1977. "Stress Reactions in
Organizations: Symptoms, Causes and Consequences."
Behavioral Science, vol. 22, 151-162.
APPENDIX A
FEDERAL MANAGER SURVEY QUESTIONNAIRE

304
~ University of Colorado at Denver
Graduate School or Public Mall's
1200 Wmer Slrel!l

Campus 80, 142
Denver. Color.do 802()4.S300
(303) 55f>.2H2.~
October 28, 1988
Dear Federal Government Representative,

The University of Colorado is conducting a research project on
how worksite physical fitness facilities may affect the
attitudes of Federal Government employees. Your assistance in
completing this survey is important to the success of this
project.
Whether or not your agency has a worksite physical fitness
facility, this survey should be completed by the Federal
employee who is or who would probably be responsible for its
administration or oversight (for example, an agency manager such
as the Personnel Director, Office Services Manager, or Director-
of Administration), Although it should !l2.t. be completed by the
person responsible for the day-to-day. management or delivery of
an agency fitness facility program (for example, its Fitness
Director, Health Program Coordinator, Recreation or Facility
Manager), this individual may need to provide input for certain
questions asked in the survey.
Please return the completed survey to me as soon as possible
using the pre-addressed and postage-paid envelope provided. The
analysis of survey results would be assisted greatly if you
could mail your completed survey no later than November 10.
Also, each survey is numbered on the back to allow us to check
your name off a mailing list when your survey is received.
However, any information you provide will remain confidential.
If you would like a summary of the project's findings, provide
your name and address where requested at the end of the survey.
If you have any questions, you may call me at (303) 231-1564.
I thank you in advance for your assistance in this research
project and look forward to your completed survey.
Sincerely'-
Bruce H. Kirschner
Project Director
305
Federal Hanager Survey
Directions: The purpose of this survey is to obtain information about

Federal Government worksite physical fitness facilities and how they may
affect employee attitudes. The survey has two parts. The first part asks
you to describe the nature of physical fitness facilities that may be located
at your worksite and your relationship to them. The second part asks your
opinion on how these facilities may affect employee attitudes. All responses
to questions are considered confidential. Please answer each question to the
best of your ability.
PART I
1. Has your agency established a physical fitness facility at your location
for use by Federal employees?
Yes
No
If ~ answer questions 2 - 11 below. If ~ skip to question 13.
2. Is the facil1ty operated as part of a single-agency or multi-agency
arrangement? (check one)
Single-agency
Multi-agency
3. How long (in years) has this facility been operating?
4. Estimate the number of Federal employees from your agency who are
authorized users (e.g., members) of the facility.
5. Estimate the percent of eligible Federal employees from your agency who
are authorized users of the fac1lity.
6. Estimate the percent of authorized users from your agency who visit the
facility on a regular basis.
7. Describe the equipment/services available at this facility (check all
that apply).
Showers strength training machines
Lockers (e.g., Nautilus)
Stationary bicycle(s) Hulti-station weight training machine
Treadm1ll (s ) (e.g., Universal Gym)
Rowing machine(s) Full or part-time professional staff
Free weights Fitness testing and evaluation
Exercise prescriptions
Open exercise area with mats
Group classes (e.g., aerobics)
List other equipment/services/classes b'eTow:
306
8. What is the fee that users must pay annually to belong to the facility?
(check one)
No fee ___ $21 to $30
Based on salary___ $31 to $50
$1 to $5 $50 to $100
$6 to $10 $100 to $200
$11 to $20 Hore than $200
9. How would you best describe your responsibility for this fitness facility?
Administration/oversight under my office/facilities management duties
Administration/oversight under my agency personnel officer duties
Administration/oversight under my occupational health and/or safety duties ___
All of the above (i.e., general administration/oversight duties)
Administration/oversight unrelated to my formal job responsibilities
Other relationship not described above
10. Are you a user of this facility yourself?
Yes
No
11. What is the name of your agency (do not abbreviate)?
12. In what city and state is it located?
13. What is your job title?
PART II
Directions: Listed below are a series of statements that represent the

possible effects of worksite physical fitness facilities on Federal
employees. Beside each of the statements below, please indicate whether you
[trongly agree (1), agree (2), are ~eutral or Have ~o Opinion (3), ~isagree
(4), or [trongly ~isagree (5) by circling the one response which ~
describes your attitude toward that statement. Each statement below begins
with the following phrase:
"Worksite physical fitness facilities •• "

SA A N D SD
1. increase the job satisfaction of employees who
use the facility. 1 2 3 4 5
307
"worksite phYsical fitness facilities • "

SA A N o SD
2. increase the job satisfaction of employees who do
n2t use the facility. 1 2 3 4 5
3. decrease the organizational commitment of

employees who use the facility. 1 2 3 4 5
4. aecrease the organizational commitment of

employees who do not use the facility. 1 2 3 4 5
5. decrease the likelihood that employees that use

the facility will seek employment elsewhere,
eventually quit their jobs and leave the
organization. 1 2 3 4 5
6. decrease the likelihood that employees that do

not use the facility will seek employment elsewhere,
eventually quit their jobs and leave the
7. do not contribute to the ability of employees who

use the facility to cope with job stress. 1 2 3 4 5
8. contribute to employees who use the facility

lilting and getting along better with their cowo.rkers. 1 2 3 4 5
9. have a positlve effect on the attitudes of

employees that use the facility toward the agency's
local top management. 1 2 3 4 5
10. have a positive effect on the attitudes of

employees that do not use the facility toward the
agency's local top management. 1 2 3 4 5
11. increases the amount of physical exercise that

employees who use the facility receive. 1 2 3 4 5
12. increase the level of physical fitness among

employees that use the facillty. 1 2 3 4 5
13. improve the overall personal health of agency

employees who use the facility. 1 2 3 4 5
We appreciate your cooperation in taking the time to complete this survey.

Please return your completed survey in the pre-addressed postage-paid
envelope provided. If you are interested in receiving a summary of the
project's findings. provide your name and mailing address below. THANK YOUI
APPENDIX B

309
Employee Survey
The University of Colorado is conducting research on the effects of

worksite physical fitness facilities on the attitudes of Federal
Government employees. The results will be used to determine the
importance of these kinds of facilities. Your assistance in filling out
this survey is critical to the success of this project. All responses
will be held in strict confidence. Please answer each question to the
best of your ability. Note that there are separate directions for
responding to different sets of questions.
PART I
Directions: The following questions request information on your
experience with and attitudes toward your agency's worksite physical
fitness facility.
1. Does your agency offer a worksite physical fitness facility for its
employees?
Yes No
2. Are you a member (i.e., authorized user) of your agency's worksite
physical fitness facility?
Yes No
If No to question 2 above then skip the questions below and qo directly
to PART lIon paqe 3.
3. How long have you been a member of this facility?
Less than 1 month 1 to 2 years
1 month to 6 months 3 to 5 years
6 months to 1 year Over 6 years
4. On an average year-round baSiS, how many times during the week do you
visit and use this facility?
Less than 1 visit
1 to 2 visits
3 to 4 visits
5 to 6 visits
Hore than 6 visits
s. On an average year-round baSiS, what percentage of your regular weekly
physical exercise program do you perform at this facility?
___ (percent)
310
6. What dues do you pay to use this facility on an annual (12 month)
basis?
I pay no dues $21 to $30
$1 to $5 $31 to $50
$6 to $10 $50 to $100
$11 to $20 Hore than $100
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
pirections: Beside each of the statements below, please indicate whether
you ~trongly ~isagree (1), ~isa9ree (2), are ~eutral or have ~o Opinion
(3), Agree (4), or ~trongly Agree (5) by circling the one response which
best describes your attitude toward that statement.
~ ~ r! A SA
1. Hy exercise activity at the worksite physical
fitness facility has increased my ability to cope
with job stress. 1 2 3 4 5
2. Interacting with other employees at the worksite
physical fitness facility has been enjoyable. 1 2 3 4 5
3. Other employees I have interacted with at the
worksite physical fitness facility have helped me in
the performance of my job. 1 2 3 4 5
4. I feel more positive toward my organization's
local top management because they have made the
worksite physical fitness facility available for my
use. 1 2 3 4 5
5. I consider the workslte physical fitness facUity
an important fringe benefit of working for this
6. Having the worksite physical f1tness facUity
available has increased my job satisfaction. 1 2 3 4 5
7. Having the worksite physical fitness facility
avaUable has increased my commitment to this
8. The existence of a worksite physical fitness
facility has increased the likelihood that I will
stay with this organization. 1 2 3 4 5
311
SD ~ ti ~ SA
facility has significantly contributed to the amount
of exercise I engage in each week. 1 2 3 4 5

facility has increased the variety of physical
activities I engage in. 1 2 3 4 5
PART II
Directions: This section asks you about your attitudes toward and
participation in physical fitness activities.
Beside the first two statements below, please indicate whether you
~trongly ~isagree (1), ~isagree (2), are tieutral or have tio Opinion (3),
~gree (4), or ~trongly ~gree (5) by circling the one response which best
describes your attitude toward that statement.
~ ~ ti ~ SA
1. Maintaining a high level of personal physical

fitness is of importance to me. 1 2 3 4 5
2. I believe it is important to live an overall

healthy lifestyle, including eating the right foods. 1 2 3 4 5
J. How would you characterize your present level of physical fitness?

Highly active (at least 5 hours/week of fitness activity)
Moderately active (3 - 5 hours/week of fitness activity)
Low-active (occasional activity 1 - 2 hours/week)
Non-active (no activity - sedentary lifestyle)
4. What is your present weight in pounds?
The balance of this section. found on the following page. asks you to
recall the amount of time you engaged in different types and levels of
phYsical activity during the last 7 consecutive days, including the
weekend and evenings.
312
Directions: Record the amount of time you spent on each activity below
during the last 7 consecutive days to the nearest half (.5) hour.
Provide this number in the appropriate space next to activities you
engaged in. Do not count time on breaks, rest periods, meals, etc. If
last week was not at all typical (due to illness, family crisis, travel~
etc.), you may use your activities from the previous week or an average
week for your responses.
If applicable. circle those activities you engaged in at your agency's
worksite physical fitness facility.
RECREATIONAL/SPORT ACTIVITIES:
Walking: Brisk (20 min/mile) ___ Fast (12 min/mile)
Jogging/Running: (faster than 12 min/mile) ___
Bicycling: 6 mph ___ 10 mph ___ greater than 12 mph
Hiking (hilly terrain): light _ vigorous
Swimming: light ____ vigorous
Calisthenic exercises:' light ___ vigorous
Weight Tr.aining: light ___ vigorous
Aerobic dancing: light ___ vigorous
Downhill skiing: light ___ vigorous
X-Country skiing: light ___ vigorous
Rowing/canoeing: light ___ vigorous
Tennis: Singles __'_ Doubles ___
Rope skipping Ice or roller skating
Squash/Racquetball Ice hockey
Soccer Ping Pong
volleyball Horseshoe pitching
Basketball Salling
Softball/Baseball water sk ling
Touch football Mountain climbing
Golf--walking and pulling or carrying clubs
Square, Folk, or Disco dancing ___
Horseback riding: trotting ___ gallop ___
HOUSEHOLD ACTIVITIES:
Sweeping and mopping House painting
Scrubbing floors Raking the lawn
Vacuuming Masonry
Cleaning windows splitting wood
- Continued on Top of Next Page -

313
HOUSEHOLD. ACTIVITIES (continued):

Lawn mowing: By hand ___ With a power mower ___
Shoveling dirt or snow: light ___ vigorous ___
carpentry: light ___ vigorous ___
Construction work: light ___ heavy ___
carrying heavy loads (e.g., bricks or lumber) ___
OTHER ACTIVITIES (Not Listed Above):

Name of Activity Total hours for last 7 days
to nearest .5 hours
PART III
Directions: Listed below are a series. of statements that represent

possible feelings that individuals might have about their job and their
organization. Beside each of the statements below, please indicate
whether you !trongly ~isagree (1), ~isagree (2), are Reutral or have Ro
Opinion (3), Agree (4), or !trongly Agree (5) by circling the one response
which ~ describes your attitude toward that statement.
1. The working hours 1n th1s organ1zat1on are good. 1 2 3 4 5
2. The work load here is definitely too heavy. 1 2 3 4 5
3. I am sat1sf1ed with the eqUipment and fac1l1ties

ava1lable in the work env1ronment. 1 2 3 4 5
4. I am completely sat1sf1ed w1th my present salary. 1 2 3 4 5
5. My salary is very adequate for the amount of work

I do and my level of tra1n1ng. 1 2 3 4 5
6. My salary is comparable to the salary of fellow

workers. 1 2 3 4 5
7. The promotion policies here are unfair. 1 2 3 4 5
8. There are good opportunities for promotions here. 1 2 3 4 5

314
9. I am completely satisfied with the promotion

opportunities here. 1 2 3 4 5
10. My co-workers are cooperative and helpful. 1 2 3 4 5
11. Few workers here are willing to go out of their
way to assist others. 1 2 3 4 5
12. My co-workers are not easy to get along with. 1 2 3 4 5
13. The people I work with are stimulating and
competent in their jobs. 1 2 3 4 5
14. I respect the competence and judgment of my
superiors. 1 2 3 4 5
15. My superiors have been generally fair in their
dealings with me. 1 2 3 4 5
16. My superiors are friendly and helpful. 1 2 3 4 5
17. Top management considers employees to be the
organization's most important resource and treats
them accordingly. 1 2 3 4 5
18. Top management is open-minded and willing to try
new ideas that are in the best interest of employees. 1 2 3 4 5
19. Top management is not very lnterested in
providing for the needs or interests of employees. 1 2 3 4 5
20. I am completely satisfied with our present
benefit program. 1 2 3 4 5
21. I have a good deal of freedom In the performance
of my daily tasks. 1 2 3 4 5
22. I have little control over how I carry out my
daily tasks. 1 2 3 4 5
23. I make most work deciSions without first
consulting my superior. 1 2 3 4 5
24. My daily activities are largely determined by
others. 1 2 3 4 5
25. My work is a signifIcant contribution to the
successful operatIon of the organization. 1 2 3 4 5
315
26. Sometimes I am not sure I completely understand

the purpose of what I'm doing. 1 2 3 4 5
27. I understand how my work role fits into the
overall operation of this organization. 1 2 3 .. 5
28. My work provides me with a sense of personal
fulfillment. 1 2 3 4 5
29. I have little opportunity to use my real
abilities and skills in the type o·f work I do. 1 2 3 4 5
30. My work is often routine and dull, providing
little opportunity for creativity. 1 2 3 4 5
31. My work is interesting and challenging. 1 2 3 4 5
32. Generally speaking, I am satisfied with this job. 1 2 3 4 5
33. If I had the opportunity to start over again, I
would choose the same type of work I presently do. 1 2 3 .. 5
34. I am willing to put in a great deal of effort
beyond that · normally expected in order to help this
organization be successful. 1 2 3 4 5
35. I talk up this organization to my friends as a
great organization to work for. 1 2 3 4 5
36. I feel very little loyalty to this organization. 1 2 3 4 5
37. I would accept almost any type of job assignment
in order to keep working for this organization. 1 2 3 4 5
38. I find that my values and the or9anization's
values are very similar. 1 2 3 4 5
39. I am proud to tell others that I am part of this
or9anization. 1 2 3 .. 5
40. I could just as well be working for a different
organization as long as the type of work was similar. 1 2 3 4 5
41. This organization really inspires the very best
In me in the way of job performance. 1 2 3 4 5
42. It would take very little change in my present
circumstances to cause me to leave this organization. 1 2 3 4 5
316
SD Q. H. A SA
43. I am extremely qlad that I chose· this
orqanization to work for over others I was
considerinq at the time I jOined. 1 2 3 4 5
44. There's not too much to be qained by stickinq
with thls orqanlzatlon Indefinitely. 1 2 3 4 5
45. Often, I find it difficult to aqree with t~1s
orqanization's policies on important matters relatinq
to its employees. 1 2 3 4 5
46. I really care about the fate of this

orqanlzatlon. 1 2 3 4 5
47. For me this is the best of all possible

orqaniz~tions for which to work. 1 2 3 4 5
48. Decidinq to work for this orqanization was a

definite mistake on my part. 1 2 3 4 5
PART IV
Directions: For the next four questions, please circle the response which
~ describes your attitude toward . the statement below.
How do YOU rate your chances of still working for the Internal Revenue
Service:
Poor Hot So Good Good Excellent

1. Three months from now 1 2 3 4
2. Six months from now 1 2 3 4
3. One year from now 1 2 3 4
4. Two years from now 1 2 3 4

317
PMTV
Directions: All of us occasionally feel bothered by certain kinds of

things in our work. Beside each of the statements below, please indicate
how frequently you feel bothered by each of them by circling the one
response which best describes your attitude toward that statement: ~ever
(1), Rarely (2), !ometimes (3), Rather ~ften (4), Nearly All the Time (5)
1. How often do you feel that you have too little

authority to carry out your responsibilities? 1 2 3 4 5
2. How often do you feel unclear on just what the

scope and responsibilities of your job are? 1 2 34 5
3. How often do you not know what opportunities for

advancement or p~omotion exist for you in your agency
at your duty station? 1 2 3 4 5
4. How often do you feel that you have too heavy a
work load, one that you could not possibly finish
during an ordinary workday? 1 2 3 4 5
5. How often do you think that you will not be able

to satisfy the conflicting demands of various people
around you? 1 2 3 4 5
6. How often do you feel that you are not fully

qualified to handle your job? 1 2 3 4 5
7. How often do you know what your superior thinks of

you, how he or she might evaluate your performance? 1 2 3 4 5
8. How often do you find yourself unable to get

information needed to carry out your job? 1 2 3 4 5
9. How often do you worry about decisions that affect

the lives of people that you know? 1 2 3 4 5
10. How often do you feel that you may not be liked
and accepted by people at work? 1 2 3 4 5
11. How often do you feel unable to influence your
immediate supervisor's decisions and actions that
affect you? 1 2 3 4 5
12. How often do you not know just what the people
you work with expect of you? 1 2 3 4 5
318
H. B. §. ~ ~
13. How often do you think that the amount of work
you have to do may interfere with how well it is
done? I 2 3 .. 5
14. How often do you feel that you have to do things
on the job that are against your better judgment? 1 2 3 .. 5
15. How often do you feel that your job interferes
with your family life? 1 .2 3 4 5
PART VI
Directions: Finally, we would like to know more about you as an
individual so we can see how dif.ferent types of people may have different
attitudes about the topics we have addressed. Please check or provide the
appropriate response to the fo11owin9 questions which describe yourself.
1. Are you:
Hale
Female
2. What is your ethnic background?
White
Black
Hispanic
Native American
Asian
Other
3. What is your age category?
Under 20 50 - 54
20 - 29 55 - 59
30 - 39 60 - 64
40 - 49 65 and over
4. What is your current marital status?
Harried
Single, separated, divorced, or widowed
319
5. What is your educational level? (Indicate highest completed)

Grade school
High school degree
Trade school de'g ree
Associate's degree
Bachelor's degree
Haster's degree
Doctorate
6. What one category best describes your job?
Hanagerial Technical/Para-professional
Supervisory Skilled Labor/Craftsman
Non-Supervisory: Clerical
Professional/Administrative Other
7. What is your work schedule?
. Full-time
Part-time
Intermittent
8. What type of appointment are you serving under?
Career or career conditional ·
Excepted ApPointment (Permanent)
Schedule C
Senior Executive Service
Other
9. If you are General Schedule and Similar, what Is your current pay
grade (for example, GS-7)?
1 to 3 13 to 14
4 to 6 15 _
7 to 9 Executive Schedule (ES-1 to 6)
10 to 12 Ungraded __
10. If you are not General Schedule and similar, what 1s your current
annual salary from this job before taxes?
11. What is your annual family or household income category?

Under $20,000 $50,000- $59,999
$20,000 - $29,999 $60,000 - $69,999
$30,000 - $39,999 $70,000 - $79,000
$40,000 - $49,999 $80,000 and over
320
12. How long have you been performing your present job for this agency at
this location (even though your payor grade may have been changed)?
Less than 6 months
6 months to 1 year
1 to 2 years
3 to 5 years
6 to 10 years
More than 10 years
13. How many- years have you worked for this agency at this location?
Less than 1 year
1 to 3 years
4 to 8 years
9 to 15 years
Hore than 15 years
14. How many years have you been a Pederal Government employee (excluding
Military service)?
Less than 1 year
1 to 3 years
4 to 9 years
10 to 29 years
30 years and over
We appreciate your cooperation in taking the time to complete this

survey. Please return your completed survey to Employee Survey. Hail
Code 1415 DEN. You may also drop it off to Paula Smith in the IRS Health
Improvement Program Fitness Center on the 2nd floor of the South Tower
Building. If you have any questions about the survey. you may call Paula
on extension 4410. THANK YOU VERY MUCHI
APPENDIX C
COVER LETTER FOR DISTRIBUTION OF FEDERAL EMPLOYEE SURVEY

QUESTIONNAIRE AT U.S. DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
322
325 Broadwtq • Bollldcr • Colorado • 80303
January 25, 1989
Dear Boulder Laboratories Employees Association Member,

The University of Colorado is studying hov the existence of worksite
physical fitness facilities may affect the work-related attitudes of
Federal employees. Results of this research will be used to assess the
importance of these kinds of facilities in the Federal workplace.
The attached survey is being used to collect data for this study. It
should take about 20 minutes to fill out. Please return it as soon as
possible, but no later than February 13 to Cathy Nicoletti at Mail Code
72~. You may also drop it off for her in Building 1, Room 4617. If
you have any questions, you may call cathy on extension 3931.
Although your involvement in this study is voluntary, we encourage you
to partiCipate. Complete confidentiality is assured. You vill not be
requested to provide your name or· other information that vould
specifically identify you;
Let me know if you would be interested in receiving a copy of the
study's findings . Thank you for your cooperation.
CLO:~
President
Boulder Laboratories
Employees Association
APPENDIX D

QUESTIONNAIRE AT INTERNAL REVENUE SERVICE
324
Internal Revenue Service

memorandum
date: MAR 1 0 1989
to: SU1~ey Employees
Denver District
from: District Director

Denver District
subject: Physical Fitness Survey
The University of Colorado is studying how the existence of worksite phyaical

fitness facilities may affect the work-related attitudes of Federal employees.
Results of this research will be used to assess the importance of these kinds
of facilities in the Federal workplace.
The attached survey is being used to collect data for this study. It is being
distributed to only a select sample of IRS Health Improvement Program Fitness
Center users and non-users. It should take about 20 minutes to fill out.
Please return your completed survey as soon as possible, but no later than
March 29, 1989. Address your return envelope: Employee Survey, 1415 DEN,
and place in the interoffice mail. You may also drop it off to Paula Smith
at the IRS Health Improvement Program Fitness Center on the 2nd floor of the
South Tower. If you have any questions, you may contact Paula Smith at 4410.
Although your involvement in this study is voluntary, we encourage you to

participate. Complete confidentiality is assured. You will not be requested
to provide your name or other information that would specifically identify
you.
The results of the study will be used to improve the IRS Health Improvement
Program. The study's findings will also be made available to interested
employees. Thank you for your cooperation.
/4?-, Cor-...~" 11-.- " )

Gerald F. Swanson
Attachment
APPENDIX E

QUESTIONNAIRE AT U.S. DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY
326
· Po••estal
Occupational
Health
O.ganilation
March 13, 1989
Dear Fellow DOE Employee:
The University of Colorado is studying how the existence of worksite

physical fitness facilities may effect the work-related attitudes of
Federal employees. Results of the research will be used to assess the
importance of these kinds of facilities in the Federal workplace.
The attached survey is being used to collect data for this study; It is
b~ing distributed to a select sample of Forrestal Occupational Health
Organization (FOHO) members and nonmembers. It should take about 20
minutes to fill out. Please return your completed survey to me as soon
as possible, but no later than March 24. Address the return envelope:
Emoloyee Survey, MA-513.1, and place it in the interoffice mail system.
You may also drop it off to me in Room 4B-194 of the Forrestal Building.
If you have any questions, please call me on 586-6812.
Although your involvement in this study is voluntary, we encourage you

to participate. Complete confidentiality is assured. Vou will not be
requested to provide your name or other information that would
specifically identify you.
Let me know if you would be interested in recelvlng a copy of the study

find i ngs. FOHO wi II. reeei ve a copy for use in ref i ni ng member serv ices.
,- ~....., .....LiIIoG'o ,
;t> ?~"",-.----
Douglas S. Stinchcum
Chairman, Board of Directors
Forrestal Occupational
Health Organization
Attachment
U.S. Department of Energy, 1000 Independence Avenue, S.w., Washington, D.C. 20585
(202) 586-8402
APPENDIX F
RESPONSES TO ATTITUDINAL ITEMS IN PART II

OF FEDERAL MANAGER SURVEY QUESTIONNAIRE
328
TABLE F-1
FACILITY INCREASES
USER AND NONUSER JOB SATISFACTION
Users Nonusers
(Percent) (Percent) .
strongly Disagree 16.2

Disagree 22.2
Neutral/No Opinion 5.1 45.3
Agree 42.7 14.5
Strongly Agree 52.1 1.7
Total 100.0 100.0

329
TABLE F-2
FACILITY DECREASES
USER AND NONUSER ORGANIZATIONAL COMMITMENT
Users Nonusers
(Percent) (Percent)
Strongly Disagree 52.1 21.4

Disagree 38.5 33.3
Agree 2.6 2.6
Strongly Agree .9
Total 100.0 100.0

330
TABLE F-3
FACILITY DECREASES USER AND NONUSER
INTENT TO LEAVE THE ORGANIZATION
Users Nonusers
(Percent) (Percent)
strongly Disagree 2.6 11.1

Disagree 17.2 28.2
Agree 38.8 5.1
Strongly Agree 6.9
Total 100.0 100.0

331
TABLE F-4
FACILITY DOES NOT CONTRIBUTE TO

ABILITY OF USERS TO COPE WITH JOB STRESS
Percent
Strongly Disagree 56.4

Disagree 39.3
Neutral/No Opinion 1.7
Agree 1.7
Strongly Agree .9
Total 100.0
332
TABLE F-5
FACILITY CONTRIBUTES TO
IMPROVED COWORKER RELATIONS
Percent
strongly Disagree .9
Disagree .9
Neutral/No Opinion 17.1
Agree 56.4
Strongly Agree 24.8
Total 100.0
333
TABLE F-6
FACILITY HAS POSITIVE EFFECTS ON

USER AND NONUSER ATTITUDES TOWARD TOP MANAGEMENT
Users Nonusers
(Percent) (Percent)
Strongly Disagree .9 5.1

Disagree 1.7 17.9
Agree 56.4 33.3
Strongly Agree 25.6 .9
Total 100.0 100.0

TABLE F-7
FACILITY INCREASES AMOUNT OF PHYSICAL EXERCISE,

LEVEL OF PHYSICAL FITNESS AND OVERALL PERSONAL HEALTH OF USERS
Amount of Level of Overall

Physical Exercise Physical Fitness Personal Health
(Percent) (Percent) (Percent)
Strongly Disagree
Disagree .9 .9 .9
Neutral/No Opinion 3.4 3.4 5.2
Agree 36.2 36.2 35.3
Total 100.0 100.0 100.0
w
w
~
APPENDIX G
RESULTS OF PRELIMINARY STATISTICAL DATA ANALYSIS

336
TABLE G-1
ASSOCIATION BETWEEN LEVEL OF PHYSICAL ACTIVITY CATEGORY

BASED ON KCAL/KG/DAY AND RESPONDENT SELF-REPORT
Kcal/kg/day
Count
Self- Row Pct Low- Moderately- Highly- Row
Report Col Pct Inactive Active Active Active Total
Inactive 8 2 1 1 12
6·6.7 16.7 8.3 8.3 3.7
21.1 1.6 1.5 1.1
21 39 9 5 74
Low-Active 28.4 52.7 12.2 6.8 23.1
55.3 32.0 13.4 5.3
Moderately- 9 72 44 33 158
Active 5.7 45.6 27.8 20.9 49.2
23.7 59.0 65.7 35.1
Highly- 9 13 55 77
Active 11. 7 16.9 71. 4 24.0
7.4 19.4 58.5
Column 38 122 67 94 321

Total 11.8 38.0 20.9 29.3 100.0

Significance =
.0000
Cells with expected frequency < 5 =
4 of 16
337
Differences Between Federal Agency Physical

Fitness Facility Members and Nonmembers
The first two research hypotheses related to
differences between Federal agency worksite physical
fitness facility members (n = 212) and nonmembers (n =

169) on a series of variables. The results of testing
each of these hypotheses are addressed below.
Hypothesis 1
The research hypothesis for differences between
worksite physical fitness facility members .and nonmembers
in terms of level of physical activity is stated below:
will have higher level~ of physical
activity, based on a ~easure of daily
caloric expenditure, than nonmembers.
This hypothesis examined differences between
members and nonmembers in terms of level of physical
activity. Respondent level of physical activity was
based on total kilocalories per kilogram of body weight
expended per day (kcal/kg/day). Fitness facility members
and nonmembers had mean values of 39.2 kcal/kg/day and
36.9 kcal/kg/day, respectively, for this variable. The
observed significance level for this t-test was .000.

338
Therefore, statistically significant differences between
both groups were found for this variable. The results of
this analysis are shown in Table G-2.
Hypothesis 2
worksite physical fitness facility members and nonmembers
in terms of psychosocial variables is stated below:
will have lower levels of job stress,
higher levels of job satisfaction,
organizational co'mmitment, and intent to
management than nonmembers.
Based on results of the t-tests, no significant
differences exist between the two groups with respect to
and intent to stay (Table G-3). Similarly, significant
differences between both groups on attitudes toward
coworkers and attitudes toward local top management, both
subscales of the job satisfaction index, were not found.
Observed significance levels for all variables were
higher than the .05 threshold.

TABLE G-2
T-TEST OF THE DIFFERENCES BETWEEN MEAN SCORES

ON LEVEL OF PHYSICAL ACTIVITY FOR FITNESS FACILITY MEMBERS AND NONMEMBERS
(Kcal/kg/day)
Variable Hember Nonmember t df p'"
Bean SD n Mean SD n
Level of Physical Activity"'''' 39.2346 6.194 179 36.9786 4.003 140 3.74 317 .e02l
" One-tailed significance level

** Measured in total kilocalories per kilogram expended per day
W
IN
~
TABLE G-3

ON PSYCHOSOCIAL VARIABLES FOR FITNESS FACILITY MEMBERS AND NONMEMBERS
---.._- --
Variable Member Nonmember t df p*
Mean SD n Mean SD n
Job Stress 2.7314 .532 211 2.6820 .529 169 0.90 378 .184
Job Satisfaction 3.3662 .492 207 3.3798 .530 167 -0.26 372 .399
Attitudes to Coworkers 3.7738 .669 210 3.6755 .738 169 1. 36 377 .088
Attitudes to Management 2.9561 .846 209 2.9122 .942 169 0.48 376 .317
Organizatonal Commi t.ment 3.2355 .584 211 3.2710 .616 169 -0.58 378 .283
Intent to Stay 3.4142 .737 204 3.4839 .665 155 -0.93 357 .177
W
.to-
'k
One-tailed significance level o
341
It is interesting to note that nonmember mean
scores for job stress (2.68) were lower than those of
members (2.73). Similarly, the mean scores for
nonmembers on job satisfaction, organizational
commitment, and intent to stay, were higher than those of
members for each variable, if only to a small degree.
However, since observed significance levels for each
variable were higher than .05, the statistical
significance of thes~ differences could not be confirmed
through testing.
Demographic Differences Between

Members and Nonmembers
Chi-square analysis, which tests whether two
proportions are equal in the population, was used to
discern demographic differences between Federal agency
worksite physical fitness facility members and
nonmembers. No significant differences were found
between members and nonmembers on the following
demographic variables: sex, ethnic background, marital
status, education, job category, work schedule, type of
appointment, General Schedule pay grade, family income,
and job tenure. However, chi-square analysis did reveal
significant differences (p < .05) between members and
nonmembers in terms of age, Federal agency tenure, and
Federal government tenure. The cross tabulation for age

342
-
(Table G-4) shows that younger employees, particularly
those less than 39 years old, were more likely to be
members while those employees over 50 were more likely
not to be members of the worksite physical fitness
facility_ The cross tabulation for Federal agency tenure
(Table G-5) shows a trend similar to that for age. As
agency tenure increases, so does the likelihood that an
employee will not be a member of the worksite physical
fitness facility_ Similarly, as Federal government
tenure increases, so does the likelihood that an employee
will not be a member of the. worksite physical fitness
facility as shown by the cross tabulation in Table G-6.
Also, when job categories were collapsed into two
new categories: (1) managerial/supervisory and (2)
nonsupervisory, significant differences were found
between members and nonmembers (p < .05). Based on the
cross tabulation shown in Table G-7, it appears that
managers and supervisors are less likely than
nonsupervisory employees to be members of the worksite
physical fitness facility.
Differences Between Employees Engaging in Lower or Higher

Levels of Physical Activity
The balance of hypothesis tests involved
differences between employees engaging in lower or higher

343
TABLE G.- 4
DIFFERENCES BETWEEN PHYSICAL FITNESS FACILITY
MEMBERS AND NONMEMBERS BASED ON AGE
Member
Count
Row Pet Yes No Row
Col Pet Total
41 15 56
Under 29 73.2 26.8 14.9
19.6 8.9
66 45 111
30 to 39 59.5 40.5 29.4
31.6 26.8
80 59 139
40 to 49 57.6 42.4 36.9
38.3 35.1
19 35 54
50 to S9 35.2 64.8 14.3
9.1 20.8
3 14 17
60 and Over 17.6 82.4 4.S
1.4 8.3
Column 209 168 377

Total 55.4 44.6 100.0
Chi-square = 26.93514 with 4 degrees of freedom

344
TABLE G-5
MEMBERS AND NONMEMBERS BASED ON FEDERAL AGENCY TENURE
Member
Count
Row Pct Yes No Row
Col Pct Total
21 15 36
Less than 1 Year 58.3 41. 7 9.7
10.1 9.1
66 33 99
1 to 3 Years 66.7 .33.3 26.5
31. 7 20.0
55 35 90
4 to 8 Years 61.1 38.9 24.1
26.4 21.2
44 39 83
9 to 15 Years 53.0 47.0 22.3
21.2 23.6
22 43 65
More than 15 Years 33.8 66.2 17.4
10.6 26.1
Column 208 165 373

Total 55.8 44.2 100.0

345
TABLE G-6
DIFFERENCES BETWEEN PHYSICAL FITNESS ' FACILITY
MEMBERS AND NONMEMBERS BASED ON FEDERAL GOVERNMENT TENURE
Member
Count
Row Pct Yes No Row
Col Pct Total
15 13 28
Less than 1 Year 53.6 46.4 7.5
7.1 7.9
36 21 57
1 to 3 Years 63.2 36.8 15.2
17.1 12.7
52 30 82
4 to 9 Years 63.4 36.6 21.9
24.8 18.2
105 88 193
10 to 29 Years 54.4 45.6 51.5
50.0 53.3
2 13 15
30 Years and Over 13.3 86.7 4.0
1.0 7.9
Column 210 165 375

Total 56.0 44.0 100.0
Chi-square = 14.36358 with 4 de9rees of freedom

346
TABLE G-7
.:.
MEMBERS AND NONMEMBERS BASED ON CATEGORY OF SUPERVISION
Member
Count
Row Pet Yes No Row
Col Pet Total
32 40 72
Supervisor/Manager 44.4 55.6 19.1
15.3 24.0
177 127 304

Nonsupervisory 58.2 41.8 80.9
84.7 76.0
Column 209 167 376

Total 55.6 44.4 100.0

347
levels of physical activity. The results of these tests
are discussed below.
Hypothesis 3
Federal employees engaging in lower or higher levels of
physical activity in terms of psychosocial variables is
stated below:
Hypothesis 3: Employees with higher levels of physical
fitness, based on a measure of physical
activity, will have lower levels of job
stress, higher levels of job satisfaction,
management than employees with lower
levels of physical fitness.
This hypothesis examined differences between
employees engaging in either of two categories of
physical activity: "Inactive-Low Active" or "Moderate-
High Active" for each of the psychosocial variables of
interest. The assignment of each respondent to one of
the two categories was based on their total kilocalories
per kilogram of body weight expended per day.

348
Respondents with 36 or less kilocalories per kilogram of
body weight expended per day were assigned to the
"Inactive-Low Active" physical activity category.
Respondents with 37 or more kilocalories per kilogram of
body weight expended per day were assigned to the
"Moderate-High. Active" physical acti vi ty category.
Based on results of a series of t-tests (Table G-
8), no significant differences existeq between the two
groups with respect to job stress, job satisfaction,
toward coworkers and local top management. Observed
significance levels were found to be greater than .05 for
each variable of interest.
Demographic Differences Between Employees Engaging

in Lower or Higher Levels of Activity
Chi-square analysis was used to discern
demographic differences between Federal agency employees
engaging in either of the two categories of physical
activity: "Inactive-Low Active" and "Moderate-High
Active." No significant differences were found between
employees in both groups on the following demographic
variables: sex, marital status, education, job category,
work schedule, type of appointment, family income, job
tenure, Federal agency tenure, and Federal government
tenure. However, chi-square analysis did reveal

TABLE G-8
ON PSYCHOSOCIAL VARIABLES FOR LEVEL OF PHYSICAL ACTIVITY
-----
Inactive- Moderately-
Variable Low Active Highly Active t df p
---- --- - -_.
Hean SD n Mean SD n
Job Stress 2.6968 .499 160 2.7002 .477 160 -0.06 318 .475
Job Satisfaction 3.4107 .493 156 3.4185 .492 160 -0.14 314 .444
Attitudes to Coworkers 3.7343 .691 159 3.8406 .659 160 -1.41 317 .081
Attitudes to Management 2.9958 .889 159 2.9750 .836 160 0.22 317 .190
Organizational Commitment 3 . 2807 .576 160 3.2928 .551 160 -0.19 318 .424
Intent to Stay 3.4583 .679 150 3.5132 .670 152 -0.71 300 .240
W
.".
U)
* One-tailed significance level
350
significant differences (p < .05) between employees in
the "Inactive-Low Active" and "Moderate-High Active"
groups in terms of age, ethnic background, and General
Schedule (GS) pay grade. The cross tabulation for age
(Table G-9) shows that younger employees, particularly
those less than 39 years old, were more likely to be in
the "Moderate-High Active" group while those employees
over 50 were more likely to be in the "Inactive-Low
Active" group. The cross tabulation for ethnic
background (Table G-10) indicates that whites were more
likely to be in , the "Moderate-High Active" group while
blacks and Hispanics were more likely to be in the
"Inactive-Low Active" group. A cross tabulation of
employees by General Schedule pay grade (Table G-11)
shows tha~ workers in the middle band of pay grades, GS-
10 to 14, were more likely to be moderately or highly
physically active than those in the lower or higher pay
grades.
Differences Between Members and Nonmembers

Engaging in Lower or Higher Levels of Physical Activity
Although not stated as a formal research
hypothesis for the study, the researcher postulated that
there may be statistically significant differences in job
stress, job satisfaction, organizational commitment, and
intent to stay between worksite physical fitness facility

351
TABLE G-9
DIFFERENCES BETWEEN LEVELS OF EMPLOYEE PHYSICAL ACTIVITY

BASED ON AGE
Level of Activity
Count
Row Pct Inactive- Moderately- Row
Col Pct Low Active High Active Total
20 29 49
Under 29 40.8 59.2 15.4
12.7 18.1
43 52 95
30 to 39 45.3 54.7 29.9
27.2 32.5
58 60 118
40 to 49 49.2 50.8 37.1
36.7" 37.5
13 11 24
50 to 54 54.2 45.8 7.5
8.2 6.9
15 5 20
55 to 59 75.0 25.0 6.3
9.5 3.1
9 3 12
60 and Over 75.0 25.0 3.8
5.7 1.9
Column 158 160 318

Total 49.7 50.3 100.0

Significance =.0578
352
TABLE G-10
BASED ON ETHNIC BACKGROUND
Level of Activity
Count
138 147 285

White 48.4 51.6 89.9
87.3 92.5
11 3 14
Black 78.6 21.4 4.4
7.0 1.9
7 3 10
Hispanic 70.0 30.0 3.2
4.4 1.9
2 6 8
Other 25.0 75.0 2.5
1.3 3.8
Column 158 159 317

Total 49.8 50.2 100.0

353
TABLE G-l1
BASED ON GENERAL SCHEDULE PAY GRADE
Level of Activity
Count
74 52 126
GS 1 to 9 58.7 41.3 41.9
48.4 35.1
29 41 70
GS 10 to 12 41.4 58.6 23.3
19.0 27.7
29 42 71
GS 13 to 14 40.8 59.2 23.6
19.0 28.4
21 13 34
GS 15 and Above 61.8 38.2 11.3
13.7 8.8
Column 153 148 301

Total 50.8 49.2 100.0

354
members and nonmembers engaging in either lower or higher
levels of physical activity. Specifically, members with
higher activity levels would have statistically
significant lower mean scores on the job stress index.
Similarly, these employees would also have higher mean
scores on the indexes for job satisfaction,
toward coworkers and local top management.
Therefore, differences between worksite physical
fitness facility members and nonmembers engaging in
either of two categories of physical activity: (1)
"Inactive-Low Active" or (2) "Moderate-High Active" for
each of the principal psychosocial variables of interest:
intent to stay, and attitudes toward coworkers and local
top management were examined. The assignment of each
respondent to one of these two categories was based on
total kilocalories per kilogram of body weight expended
per day using the same range used in Hypothesis 3.
Therefore, four groups were created for purposes of
comparison: (1) "Inactive-Low Active Members" (2)
"Moderate-High Active Members" (3) "Inactive-Low Active
Nonmembers" and (4) "Moderate-High Act i ye Nonmembers." .
Analysis of variance (ANOVA), the statistical
method used to test the null hypothesis that several
population means are equal, was the test of significance

355
used to compare each of the four groups. In ANOVA, the
observed variability in the samples is dlvided into two
parts: 1) within-groups variation, which is the
variability of the observations within a group about the
group mean, and 2) between-groups variation, which is the
variability of the group means. By calculating the . ratio
of the between-groups variation to the within-groups
variation an F-statistic is generated. The observed
significant level is then based on the F-statistic and
the degrees of freedom for the two mean squares (Norusis,
1988).
The significance levels obtained from the ANOVA
tests for each of the variables examined were greater
than .05 and actually ranged between .53 and .87.
Therefore, based on results of the AN OVA tests (Table G-
12 through Table G-17), no statistically significant
differences were found to exist between the four groups
with respect to job stress, job satisfaction,
toward coworkers and local top management.
Differences between members and nonmembers on
personal values of physical fitness and overall health
were also tested. The researcher postulated that
employees that were physical fitness facility members
and/or had higher levels of physical activity would
exhibit stronger fitness and health values. To test this

TABLE G-12
ANALYSIS OF VARIANCE FOR JOB STRESS

BY FACILITY MEMBERSHIP AND PHYSICAL ACTIVITY LEVEL
Sum of Hean
Source Squares df Square F p
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - _ . _ - - _ . _ - _. '.- -- .'
Between Groups 1.8527E-01 3 6.1757E-02 2.588E-01 .8550

Within Groups 74.9249 314 .2386
Total 75.1102 317
Cateqory Mean SO n 95% Confidence Interval for Mean

__ . _ . _ _ _ ~ _ _• _ _• _ _ _ _ __ • _ _ _ ••• _ _ _ __ _ • _ _ _ k. _ _ _ •
--- - - - - - ------
Hember
In-Low Active 2.6889 .4942 79 2.5782 to 2.7996
Hod-H i gh Ac t i ve 2.7302 .4870 99 2.6331 to 2.8273
Nonmember
In-Lo\-/ Active 2.7089 .5088 80 2.5956 to 2.8221 W
Hod-High Aetive 2.6635 .4544 60 2.5461 to 2.7808 IJ1
0'1
TABLE G-13
ANALYSIS OF VARIANCE FOR JOB SATISFACTION

BY FACILITY MEMBERSHIP AND PHYSICAL ACTIVITY LBVEL
Sum of · Mean

\'/i thin Groups 75.6663 310 .2441
Total 75.8405 313
-_._ - _.- --- -- ---._ ..
Category Hean SD n 95% Confidence Interval for Mean

---
Hember
In-Low Active 3.41 2 6 .4928 76 3.3000 to 3.5252
Hod-High Active 3.3900 .4530 99 3.2997 to 3.4804
Nonmember
In-Low Active 3.4044 .4984 79 3.2928 to 3.5160 w
U1
Nod-High Active 3.4571 .5518 60 3.3145 to 3.5996 -J
TABLE G-14
ANALYSIS OF VARIANCE FOR ORGANIZATIONAL COMMITMENT

Sum of Mean

Within Groups 99.0232 314 .3154
Total 99.7206 317
Category Bean SD n 95% Confidence Interval for Mean

_._-- - -
Hember
In-Low Active 3.2987 .5466 79 3.1763 to 3.4212
Hod-High Act.ive 3.2375 .5514 99 3.1275 to 3.3475
Nonmember
In-Lo\v Acti ve 3.2572 .6078 80 3.1220 to 3.3925 IN
Hod-High Active 3.3667 .532-' 60 3.2291 to 3.5043 111
(XI
TABLE G-15
ANALYSIS OF VARIANCE FOR INTENT TO STAY

Sum of Mean

Within Groups 135.7369 296 .4586
Total 136.4167 299

- ---_.
Member
In-Low Active 3.4351 .6779 77 3.2812 to 3.5889
Hod-High Active 3.4714 . 7~188 96 3.3277 to 3. 6150 o. ..
Nonmember
1n-Lo\" Acti ve 3.4792 .6879 72 3.3175 to 3.6408 w
Hod-High Active 3.5773 .6007 55 3.4149 to 3.7397 171
lD
TABLE G-16
ANALYSIS OF VARIANCE FOR ATTITUDES TOWARD COWORKERS

Sum of Bean

Within Groups 141. 9118 313 .4534
Total 143.0126 316
Category !-,Iean .SD n 95% Confidence Interval for Mean

.--.-.-- ..- .
Hember
In-Low Active 3.7372 .7296 78 3.5727 to 3.9017
Hod-High Act. ive 3.8586 .59 2 4 99 3.7404 to 3.9767
Nonmember
In-Low Active 3.7156 .6448 80 3:5721 to 3.8591 w
0"1
Hod-High Active 3.7958 .7556 60 3.6006 to 3.9910 0
TABLE G-17
ANALYSIS OF VARIANCE FOR ATTITUDES TOWARD LOCAL TOP MANAGEMENT
Sum of Mean

Within Groups 235.5725 313 .7526
Total 235.6325 316
Category Bean SO n 95% Confidence Interval for Mean
Hember
In-Lm"1 Active 2.9829 . 9303 78 2.7732 to 3.1927
Nonmember
In-Low Active 3.0000 .8552 80 2.8097 to 3.1903 w
Hod-High Active 2.9583 1.0106 60 2.6973 to 3.2194 CTl
I-'
362
proposition, responses to question Nos. 1 and 2 from Part
II of the Federal Employee Survey Questionnaire were
combined to form the Physical Fitness and Health Scale,
an overall physical fitness/health attitude index.
T-tests revealed statistically significant
differences between 1) facility members and nonmembers
and 2) employees engaging in lower and higher levels of
physical activity on the Physical Fitness ~nd Health
Scale (Table G-18 and Table G-19) at the .01 and .001
levels of significance, respectively.
Statistically significant (p < .0001) differences

between the four groups of respondents based on fitness
facility membership status and level of physical
activity: (1) "Inactive-Low Active Members" (2)
"Moderate-High Active Members" (3) "Inactive-Low Active
Nonmembers" and (4) "Moderate:"'High Active Nonmembers"
were also found using ANOVA (Table G-20). Mean scores on
the 5-point Physical Fitness and Health Scale were high
for all four groups, ranging from 4.3 to 4.5.
Interestingly, the mean score for each categorical
grouping increased in the order that would have been
expected: (1) Inactive-Low Active Nonmembers, (2)
Inactive-Low Active Members, (3) Moderate-High Active
Nonmembers, and (4) Moderate-High Active Members.
Although the t-test and ANOVA are useful
statistical techniques for testing null hypotheses that

TABLE G-18

ON PHYSICAL FITNESS AND HEALTH VALUES
FOR FITNESS FACILITY MEMBERS AND NONMEMBERS
Variable Hember Nonmember t df p*
Hean SD n Mean SD n
Fitness/Health
Personal Value 4.4550 .570 211 4.2994 .683 167 2.41 376 .016
* One-tailed significance level
w
O"l
W
TABLE G-19

ON PHYSICAL FITNESS AND HEALTH VALUES FOR EMPLOYEES
ENGAGING IN LOWER OR HIGHER LEVELS OF PHYSICAL ACTIVITY
Inactive- Moderately-
Variable Lo\v Active Highly Active t df p
Mean SD n Mean SD n
Fitness/Health
Personal Value 4.2312 .642 160 4.5559 .509 161 -5.02 319 .000
w
O'l
~
TABLE G-2~
ANALYSIS OF VARIANCE FOR PHYSICAL FITNESS AND HEALTH VALUES

Sum of Mean
Between Groups 8.5714E+00 3 2.8571E+00 8.466E+00 .0000

\'/i thin Groups 106.3048 315 .3375
Total 114.8762 318

--
Hember
In-Low Active 4.2595 .5984 79 4.1255 to 4.3935
Nonmember
In-Lo .., Acti ve 4.2063 .6876 80 4.0532 to 4.3593 w
Hod-High Active 4.5000 .5675 60 4.3534 to 4.6466 0"1
IJI
366
two or more population means are ~qual, they cannot be
used for determining the strength and nature of
relationships between two or more variables.
Relationships Between Variables
The application of t-tests, chi-square analysis,
and analysis of variance did not reveal statistically
significant differences between 1) physical fitness
facility members and nonmembers and 2) employees at lower
or higher levels of physical activity for most variables
of interest to this study~ However, these tests are
inadequate for observing the nature of relationships
between variables. Therefore, linear relationships may
still exist between study variables. To test for the
existence of possible relationships, Pearson's
correlation coefficient (r), a commonly used measure of
association between two variables, was first used to
examine major study variables. This measure, which
ranges from -1 to +1, provides a summary of the strength
of the relationship between two variables. The value of
the coefficient is zero when there is no linear
relationship between two variables. Conversely, there is
a perfect linear relationship when the coefficient value
is 1. The coefficient sign indicates whether the
relationship is positive or negative.

367
Table G- 21 to Table G-26 provide Pearson
correlation coefficients between each psychosoci~l
variable in the study (job stress, job satisfaction,
organizational commitment, intent to stay, attitudes
toward coworkers and local top management) and variables
for facility membership, level of physical activity, and
demographic characteristics. Only variables that used
some form of continuous measure, i.e., ordinal or
interval level, were used in performing Pearson
correlations. Therefore, many nominal level variables
used in the study, e.g. -, ethnic background, job category,
work schedule, were excluded from these analyses.
However, those nominal level variables that were
dichotomous in nature, i.e., facility membership, sex,
and marital status, were assigned -values of 0 and 1 and
included in the analyses.
Pearson correlations were also performed for
measurement of the relationships between physical fitness
facility membership, level of physical activity, and
demographic variables (Table G-27 and Table G-28). In
addition, correlations were computed between each of the
demographic characteristic variables (Table G-29).
Use of Pearson correlations found no significant
relationships between physical fitness facility
membership, level of physical activity and psychosocial
variables of interest. Although statistically

368
TABLE G-21
PEARSON CORRELATION COEFFICIENTS BETWEEN JOB STRESS,

FACILITY MEMBERSHIP STATUS, LEVEL OF PHYSICAL ACTIVITY,
AND DEMOGRAPHIC VARIABLES
Va:riable n Coefficient
1. Membership Status 359 .0489
2 . Activity Level 320 -.0266
3. Sex 384 -.0534
4. Marital Status 383 .0216
5. Age 382 -.1399**
-6. Education 383 .1083*
7. GS Level 362 .1136*
8 . Job tenure 378 -.1485**
9. Agency Tenure 378 -.1172*
10. Federal Tenure 380 -.0637
* p < .05
** p < .01
*** P < .001
Note:
Facility Nonmember = 0, Facility Member =1
Male = 0, Female = 1
Not Married = 0, Married = 1
369
TABLE G-22
PEARSON CORRELATION COEFFICIENTS BETWEEN

JOB SATISFACTION, FACILITY MEMBERSHIP STATUS, LEVEL OF
PHYSICAL ACTIVITY, AND DEMOGRAPHIC VARIABLES
Variable n Coefficient
1. Membership status 374 .0133
2 . Activity Level 316 .0070
3. Sex 378 -.0053
4 . Marital status 377 -.1593
5. Age 376 .0829
6 . Education 376 .0249
7. GS Level 355 .1776***
8 . Job tenure 372 .0904
9. Agency Tenure 372 .1747***
10. Federal Tenure 374 .1147*
* p < .05
** P < .01
*** P < .001
Note:
Facility Nonmember = 0, Facility Member = 1
370
TABLE G-23

ORGANIZATIONAL COMMITMENT, FACILITY MEMBERSHIP STATUS,
LEVEL OF PHYSICAL ACTIVITY, AND DEMOGRAPHIC VARIABLES
1. Membership status 380 .0296
2. Activity Level 320 .0160
3. Sex 384 .0626
4 . Marital status 383 -.1098*
5. Age 382 .0533
6. Education 383 -.1594**
7. GS Level 362 -.0821
8. Job tenure 378 -.0930
9. Agency Tenure 378 .0212
* p < .05
** P < .01
*** P < .001
Note:
371
TABLE G-24
PEARSON CORRELATION COEFFICIENTS BETWEEN INTENT TO STAY,

1. Membership Status 359 .0489
2 . Activity Level 302 . 0411
3. Sex 362 -.0398
4. Marital Status 361 -.1571**
5. Age 360 .1213*
6. Education 361 -.1237*
7. GS Level 342 .1103*
8 . Job tenure 356 . 1186*
9. Agency Tenure 356 .2087***
10. Federal Tenure 358 .1890***
* p < .05
** P < .01
*** P < .001
Note:
, Not Marr ied = 0, Marr ied = 1
372
TABLE G-25

ATTITUDES TOWARD COWORKERS, FACILITY MEMBERSHIP STATUS,
LEVEL OF PHYSICAL ACTIVITY, AND DEMOGRAPHIC VARIABLES
1. Membership Status 379 -.0697
2 . Activity Level 319 .0602
3. Sex 383 .0036
4. Marital Status 382 -.1752***
5. Age 381 .0469
6. Educat.ion 382 .0777
7. GS Level 361 .0933
8. Job tenure 377 .0308
10. Federal Tenure 379 .0154
* p < .05
** P < .01
*** P < .001
Note:
373
TABLE G-26

ATTITUDES TOWARD LOCAL TOP MANAGEMENT, FACILITY
MEMBERSHIP STATUS, LEVEL OF PHYSICAL ACTIVITY,
1. Membership status 378 -.0246
2. Activity Level 319 .0076
3 . Sex 383 .0820
4. Marital Status 382 -.0091
5. Age 381 -.0364
6. Education 381 -.0870
7 . GS Level 360 -.0906
8 . Job tenure 376 -.0587
9. Agency Tenure 376 -.0364
* p < .05
** P < .01
*** P < .001
Note:
374
TABLE G-27

1. Activity Level 319 -.2056***
2. Sex 379 -.0760
4 . Age 377 .2681***
5. Education 378 -.0398
6. GS Level 357 .0257
7. Job tenure 373 .0896
8 . Agency Tenure 373 .1878***
9. Federal Tenure 375 .0980*
* p < .05
** P < .01
*** P < .001
Note:
375
TABLE G-28

LEVEL OF PHYSICAL ACTIVITY, FACILITY MEMBERSHIP STATUS,
1. Membership Status 319 -.2056***
2. Sex 308 -.5782***
4. Age 308 .0283
5. Education 306 .1819***
6. GS Level 291 .2157***
7. Job tenure 304 .0951
9. Federal Tenure 305 -.0059*
* p < .05
** P < .01
*** P '< .001
Note:
TABLE G-29
PEARSON CORRELATION COEFFICIENTS

BETWEEN DEMOGRAPHIC VARIABLES
Variable 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8
1. Sex .1094* -.1787*** -.4137*** -.4656*** -.2296***-.2003*** -.1391**
2. Marital Status .1094* -.1992*** -.063~ -.2366*** -.0862 -.1291** -.1897***
3. Age -.1787*** -.1992*** .1030* .2913*** .4443*** .4851*** .4856***
4. Education -.4137*** -.0635 .1030* .5515*** .0865 .0442 .0165
5. GS Level -.4656*** -.2366*·* .2913**· .5515*** .3284·** .4283*** .4659*·*
6. Job tenure -.2296*** -.0862 .4443*** .086-5*** .3284*** .6730*** .5793***
7. Agency Tenure -.2003*** -.1291*· .4851*** .0442 .4283*·* .6730*·* .7584·*·
8. Federal Tenure -.1391·* -.1897*** .4856*** .0165 .4659*** .5793**· .7584***
* P < .05
** P < .01
*** P < .001
Note.
Male - 0, Female - 1
Not Married - 0, Married ... 1
w
-.J
0'1
377
significant relationships were found between psychosocial
variables and a number of demographic variables, the
magnitude of tnese relationships were very weak. Intent
to stay and agency tenure, the two variables with the
highest degree of correlation, had a Pearson correlation
coefficient of .21.
With respect to job stress, a weak negative
association was found with age (-.14), job tenure (-.15),
and agency tenure (-.12). Weak positive associations
were found with level of education (.11) and GS level
(.11) (Table G-21).
GS level (.18), agency tenure (.17), and Federal
tenure (.11) had positive but weak statistically
significant relationihips with job satisfaction. No
significant relationship was found between job
satisfaction and other study variables (Table G-22).
Level of education (-.16) and marital status (-
.11) were the only variables found to be associated with
organizational commitment. However, the nature of these
statistically significant relationships were relatively
weak (Table G-23).
Federal agency tenure had the strongest positive
association (.21) with intent to stay. Statistically
significant positive, but relatively weak relationships
were also found between age (.12), GS level (.11), and
Federal tenure (.19) A weak negative relationship

378
appears to exist between level of education and intent to
stay. In addition, unmarried respondents seemed to be
more likely to stay (-.16) (Table G-24).
Marital status was the only variable having a
statistically significant correlation (-.18) with
attitudes toward coworkers, with unmarried workers
exhibiting more positive. attitudes (Table G-25). The
attitudes toward local top management variable did not
have statistically significant correlations with any
other variables (Table G-26).
Worksite physical fitness facility membership
status was was found to correlated with level of physical
activity (-.21), ' with members having higher levels.
Membership status also had weak but statistically
significant negative relationships with age (.27), agency
tenure (.19), and Federal tenure (.10), as found in Table
G-27.
In terms of level of physical activity (Table G-
28), positiv~ associations were found with worksite
physical fitness facility membership status, as noted
above, and sex (-.58), with males appearing to be more
active than female. Education (.18) and GS level were
also found to be positively correlated with physical
activity. Statistical significance (p < .05) was also
found for a very weak negative relationship (-.006) with
Federal government tenure.

379
Very strong statistically significant
relationships were also found between certain demographic
variables (Table G-29). The highest correlations were
found between the variables of age, job tenure, agency
tenure, and Federal tenure. The variables of Federal
agency and Federal government tenure had the highe~t
Pearson correlation coefficient (.76) for any two
variables included in the study. High correlations were
also found between sex and education, sex and GS level,
and education and GS level.

Aa00002703 00001

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Aa00002703 00001

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

AN EX~INATION OF THE RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN LEVEL

OF PHYSICAL ACTIVITY, WORKSITE PHYSICAL FITNESS

FACILITIES, AND EMPLOYEE ATTITUDES AND BEHAVIOR

AT FEDERAL GOVERNMENT AGENCIES

Bruce Herbert Kirschner

B.A., State University of New York at Buffalo, 1975

M.A., University of New Mexico, 1977

A thesis submitted to the

Faculty of the Graduate school of Public Affairs of the

University of Colorado in partial fulfillment

of the requirements for the degree of

Graduate School of Public Affairs

All Rights Reserved

Bruce Herbert Kirschner

has been approved for the

Date ___ ~_)l._'_3~/_,_O____________

An Examination of the Relationship Between Level of

Physical Activity, Worksite Physical Fitness

Facilities, and Employee Attitudes and Behavior at

Federal Government Agencies

Thesis directed by Professor Franklin J. James

This study examines the relationships between

each of two variables: 1) Federal Government employee

level of physical activity and 2) Federal agency worksite

physical fitness facilities, and several , other variables

of interest to organizations: worker job stress, job

satisfaction, attitudes toward coworkers and local top

management, organizational commitment, and intent to

It was hypothesized that employees that were more

physically fit or were members of worksite physical

fitness facilities would exhibit lower job stress,

greater job satisfaction, organizational commitment,

intent to stay, and more positive attitudes toward

coworkers and local top management than employees that

were less fit or not members of such facilities.

Federal managers (n = 117), most having employee

physical fitness facilities available in their workplace,

were first surveyed for their opinions on how these

facilities affect employee attitudes and behavior. A

second survey was then used to collect data from

employees at th~ee Fede~al agencies with wo~ksite

physical fitness facilities (n = 387) on level of

physical activity, job st~ess, job satisfaction,

attitudes toward cowo~ke~s and local top management,

o~ganizational commitment, and intent to stay.

Using multiple ~eg~ession, the study found a

~elationship between g~eate~ levels of employee physical

fitness, based on a measure of physical ~ctivity, and

reduced job stress, highe~ job satisfaction, g~eater

intent to stay, and more favorable attitudes toward

coworkers and local top management. Although wo~ksite

physical fitness facility membership status was not found

to be of impo~tance, employees that visited thei~

facility mo~e often exhibited lower levels of job stress.

Also, wo~ke~s that engaged in a g~eate~ p~opo~tion of

their exercise at the workplace had higher levels of job

satisfaction, we~e more favorable in their attitudes

towa~d cowo~kers and local top management, but had lower

levels of organizational commitment.

The study's principal finding that higher levels

of employee physical fitness may favo~ably affect certain

job attitudes has implications for organizational policy.

The establishment of physical fitness facilities in