Professional Documents
Culture Documents
Sources 2
Sources 2
Sources 2
Abstract
The purpose of this descriptive-correlational study was to describe the amount of variance in
faculty member’s overall level of job satisfaction explained by Herzberg, Mausner, and
Snyderman’s (1959) job motivator and hygiene factors. Additionally, the study sought to
investigate the suitability of a one-item versus a multi-item measure of overall job satisfaction.
The faculty were generally satisfied with their jobs. However, female faculty members were less
satisfied than male faculty members. The factor “work itself” was the most motivating aspect
for faculty. The least motivating aspect was “working conditions.” The demographic
characteristics were negligibly related to overall job satisfaction. All of the job motivator and
hygiene factors were moderately or substantially related to overall job satisfaction. The factors
“recognition,” “supervision,” and “relationships” explained the variability among faculty
members’ overall level of job satisfaction. The one-item measure of overall job satisfaction was
not different from a multi-item measure of overall job satisfaction.
relationships between job satisfaction and Brayfield and Rothe (1951) developed
the hygiene factors, which were purported the “Job Satisfaction Index” to measure
by Herzberg et al., (1959) to have little overall job satisfaction when all aspects of
affect upon positive job attitudes. The the job were considered. The “Job
extent to which the motivator-hygiene Satisfaction Index” consisted of 18 items
theory and other job satisfaction theories with responses ranging from 1 (strongly
contribute to the understanding of job disagree) to 5 (strongly agree). Researchers
satisfaction, is one of several issues in the seeking to measure overall job satisfaction
abundance of research pertaining to job in recent years have contested the use of
satisfaction. multi-item scales (Scarpello & Campbell,
Determining the type of measure which 1983). Scarpello and Campbell (1983) (as
constituted a valid assessment of job cited in Brief, 1998) suggested that their
satisfaction was yet another issue. The “one-item, five-point global rating of overall
dimensions which were thought to job satisfaction is reliable and inclusive, and
contribute to overall job satisfaction have that the whole, represented by this global
been contested. Brief (1998) maintained measure, is more complex than the sum of
that there was a lack of theory which the presently measured parts” (p.15).
described the facets of satisfaction, much There has been no attempt to validate a
less theory which indicated the importance one-item measure of overall job satisfaction
of one particular facet over another. Toward among faculty in a college of agriculture.
this end, measures to assess facet Moreover, there has been no attempt to
satisfaction (Wood, 1973; Smith, Kendall, & describe the variability in overall job
Hulin, 1969; Weiss, Dawis Lofquist, & satisfaction scores by a linear relationship of
England, 1966) and overall job satisfaction the motivator-hygiene factors.
(Brayfield-Roth, 1951) were developed.
Smith, Kendall, and Hulin (1969) Purpose and Objectives
developed the “Job Description Index”
which assessed satisfaction with coworkers, The purpose of the study was to describe
pay, promotion opportunities, supervision, the amount of variance in faculty member’s
and the work itself. A value was calculated overall level of job satisfaction explained by
for each facet based upon a respondents’ Herzberg, Mausner, and Snyderman’s
reply on 9 to 18 adjectives for each facet (1959) job motivator and hygiene factors.
(Brief, 1998). Weiss, Dawis, Lofquist, & Additionally, the study sought to investigate
England (1966) developed the “Minnesota the suitability of a one-item versus a multi-
Satisfaction Questionnaire” which assessed item measure of overall job satisfaction.
employees’ level of satisfaction with 20 The following research questions were
aspects of their work. Subjects who formulated to guide the study.
responded to the “Minnesota Satisfaction
Questionnaire” were asked to indicate their 1. What was the age, gender, total
level of satisfaction using a five-point scale number of years in the present
for each of the 100 items on the measure. position, and total number of years in
Wood (1973) developed a measure to assess higher education of faculty in the
employee’s level of satisfaction with each of College of Food, Agriculture, and
the motivator-hygiene factors known as the Environmental Sciences (CFAES)?
“Faculty Satisfaction/Dissatisfaction Scale.” 2. What was the overall level of job
Bowen’s (1980) version of “Wood’s Faculty satisfaction among CFAES faculty?
Satisfaction/Dissatisfaction Scale” contained 3. What was the CFAES faculty
88 items and asked faculty members in member’s level of satisfaction with
higher education to respond to statements the job motivator factors
using a 6-item scale. Brief (1998) provided (achievement, advancement,
evidence that measuring the level of job recognition, responsibility, and work
satisfaction across facet scales was not itself)?
equivalent to measuring overall job 4. What was the CFAES faculty
satisfaction. member’s level of satisfaction with
job hygiene factors (pay, working rate of 86%. Non-respondents were not
conditions, supervision, policy and followed-up by the researchers. The number
administration, and interpersonal of usable responses for determining overall
relations)? job satisfaction, Part I, was 83%. For Part II
5. What was the relationship between of the instrument, 48% of the data was
CFAES faculty demographic considered usable as faculty members failed
characteristics (age, tenure status, to answer all of the items pertaining to the
years in current position, total years motivator-hygiene factors. The number of
in higher education) and overall job usable responses for determining
satisfaction? demographics characteristics was 80%.
6. What was the relationship between
the CFAES faculty member's job Instrumentation
motivator factor scores and hygiene The questionnaire consisted of three
factor scores? parts: the Job Satisfaction Index, Wood’s
7. To what extent can variability in the (1973) Faculty Satisfaction/Dissatisfaction
faculty member’s overall level of job Scale, and demographic characteristics. Part
satisfaction be explained by their I of the instrument contained the Job
current level of satisfaction with the Satisfaction Index. The Job Satisfaction
job motivator and hygiene factors? Index considered all facets of the job when
8. What was the relationship between measuring job satisfaction, utilizing an 18-
the Job Satisfaction Index (Brayfield item, five-point Likert type scale, with
& Rothe, 1951) and the one-item responses ranging from 1 (strongly disagree)
measure of overall job satisfaction? to 5 (strongly agree).
Part II of the questionnaire consisted of
Procedures Wood’s (1973) Faculty
Satisfaction/Dissatisfaction Scale, as
Population and Data Collection modified by the researcher, to measure the
A census for this study was conducted Herzberg et al, motivator-hygiene factors.
among faculty at the College of Food, Wood’s instrument consisted of a 79-item
Agricultural, and Environmental Sciences at six-point Likert type scale with responses
The Ohio State University. The frame was varying from 1 (very dissatisfied) to 6 (very
established from the most current list of satisfied). Part II also contained a one-item
faculty in the College. The study was overall job satisfaction measure which read,
limited to faculty on the main campus in “Considering all aspects of my job, my
Columbus, Ohio. There were a total of 172 overall level of job satisfaction is…” Part
faculty members in the population. III of the questionnaire consisted of
Two weeks prior to the first hand questions pertaining to the demographic
delivery of the questionnaire, a letter was characteristics.
sent to inform faculty of the forthcoming Content and face validity were
study. A packet containing an instrument established by a panel of experts consisting
and cover letter describing the purpose of of teacher educators, College administrators,
the study were hand delivered to each and graduate students. Each of the experts
faculty member in the respective on the panel were asked to examine the
departments. Ten days following the first instrument for content, clarity, wording,
delivery, a reminder postcard was sent to length, format, and overall appearance.
each participant via campus mail. Two Cronbach’s alpha was used to assess
weeks following the first delivery, a second instrument reliability. The reliability
delivery containing the instrument and a coefficient for Part I of the questionnaire
revised cover letter was hand delivered to all was .89. The reliability coefficient for Part
non-respondents. A third complete packet II of the questionnaire was .96, while the
was hand delivered two weeks after the coefficients for the ten sub-scales of Part II
second hand delivery. were: achievement, .81; advancement, .89;
A total of 148 faculty members returned relations, .91; policy/administration, .93;
questionnaires yielding an overall response recognition, .88; responsibility, .88; salary,
.92; supervision, .97; work itself, .83; and, (Davis, 1971). The residuals were plotted
working conditions, .82. The one-item and all of the assumptions regarding the
overall job satisfaction measure was not residuals were met. Therefore, it was
included when establishing a reliability determined that the data were suitable for
coefficient for the 79 items in Part II. multiple regression analysis. However,
based upon the negligible relationships
Data Analysis (Davis, 1971) between overall job
Appropriate descriptive statistics were satisfaction levels and selected demographic
calculated. Correlation coefficients were characteristics, demographic characteristics
interpreted using Davis’ (1971) descriptors. were not included in the regression analysis.
Stepwise multiple regression analysis was
used to describe the amount of variability Results/Findings
among CFAES faculty members’ overall
level of job satisfaction by a linear Respondents consisted of 12% (n = 17)
combination of the job motivator and female and 88% (n = 122) male faculty.
hygiene factors. The suitability of the data Most of the faculty (96%; n = 142) had
for multiple regression analysis was attained a doctorate degree. The mean age
assessed by investigating the relationship for faculty was 49 (n = 132) (Table 1). The
among the job motivator/hygiene factors mean number of years faculty had been in
(independent variables) and the overall level their current position was 15.0, while
of job satisfaction among the faculty (Table the mean number of years they had been
5) and by plotting the residuals. in higher education was 18.0. Eighty
The correlation matrix was consulted to percent (n = 110) of the faculty
investigate collinearity. Collinearity among were tenured, while 20% (n = 29) indicated
the independent variables was not a that they had not yet received tenure.
problem. The correlations between the The mean age for females (n = 15) was
motivator-hygiene factors and overall job 42. Females (n = 15) had been in their
satisfaction were moderate to substantial current position for 8 years and in higher
Table 1
Means and Standard Deviations for Selected Demographic Variables
________________________________________________________________________
Variable All Faculty Female Male
Mean SD Mean SD Mean SD
________________________________________________________________________
Table 2
Means and Standard Deviations for Overall Job Satisfaction
________________________________________________________________________
Variable All Faculty Female Male
Mean SD Mean SD Mean SD
________________________________________________________________________
Overall Job Satisfaction 4.02 .53 3.78 .57 4.06 .50
________________________________________________________________________
Table 3
Means and Standard Deviations for Job Motivator and Hygiene Factors
________________________________________________________________________
Variable Mean SD Mean SD
________________________________________________________________________
Job Motivators Job Hygienes
Achievement 4.49 .66 Relationships 4.31 .88
Advancement 3.93 .98 Policy 3.84 1.00
Recognition 4.26 1.00 Salary 3.74 1.10
Responsibility 4.43 .94 Supervision 4.08 1.23
Work Itself 4.87 .66 Work Conditions 3.50 .98
____________________________________________________________________________________________________________
Table 4
Relationships Between Overall Job Satisfaction and Selected Job Factors
________________________________________________________________________
Job Motivators Job Hygienes
Achievement .53 Relationships .44
Advancement .45 Policy .53
Recognition .45 Salary .40
Responsibility .49 Supervision .50
The Work Itself .42 Work Conditions .38
____________________________________________________________________________________________________________
Table 5
Intercorrelations Among Independent Variables and Overall Job Satisfaction
_______________________________________________________________________
X1 X2 X3 X4 X5 X6 X7 X8 X9 X10 X11
X1 1.00 .473 .529 .596 .480 .440 .434 .334 .422 .357 .441
X2 1.00 .681 .611 .510 .503 .661 .654 .545 .450 .489
X3 1.00 .595 .467 .613 .670 .713 .637 .345 .504
X4 1.00 .432 .510 .638 .535 .621 .549 .477
X5 1.00 .454 .449 .411 .303 .295 .440
X6 1.00 .570 .502 .489 .306 .512
X7 1.00 .686 .757 .537 .470
X8 1.00 .614 .520 .416
X9 1.00 .458 4.08
X10 1.00 .292
_______________________________________________________________________
Note: X1=Achievement, X2 = Advancement, X3=Recognition, X4=Responsibility, X5=Work
Itself, X6=Relationships, X7=Policy and Administration, X8=Salary, X9=Supervision,
X10=Working Conditions, X11=Overall Job Satisfaction.
Intercorrelations among the job motivator of the variance in overall job satisfaction
and hygiene factors indicated that could be accounted for. Lastly, when
collinearity was not a problem when the interpersonal relationships were added, 58%
factors were entered into a regression of the variance in the overall job satisfaction
equation model. The multiple regression score was accounted for (Table 6).
revealed that three distinct factors could To determine the validity of the one-item
explain the variability among overall job measure of overall job satisfaction, the
satisfaction. The multiple regression mean scores on the Brayfield and Rothe
analysis revealed that recognition accounted (1951) Job Satisfaction Index and the
for 43% of the variance in the level of single-item measure were standardized
overall job satisfaction. When supervision and compared. There was no difference
was added to the regression equation, 52% among the standardized scores.
Table 6
Regression of Overall Job Satisfaction on Selected Independent Variables (Stepwise Entry)
_______________________________________________________________________
Variable R2 R2 Change b
___________________________________________________________________________________________________________
Recognition .43 .43 .25
Supervision .52 .09 .34
Relationships .58 .06 .31
Constant 1.03
________________________________________________________________________
relations, department chairs should convene, feel about their jobs and how it affects their
along with College administrators, to performance. Lexington Books: New York.
attempt to remove the barriers between inter
and intra-departmental relationships. Davis, J. A. (1971). Elementary survey
The one-item measure of overall job analysis. Prentice Hall: Englewood Cliffs,
satisfaction utilized in the current study was NY.
not different from the Brayfield and Rothe
(1951) Job Satisfaction Index. Additionally, Herzberg, F., Mausner, B., &
the two measures (one-item measure and Job Snyderman, B. B. (1959). The motivation to
Satisfaction Index) were very strongly work. New York: John Wiley & Sons.
related (Davis, 1971). This research finding
implies that the single-item measure should Judge, T. A., Hanisch, K. A., &
be adopted and used in studies of overall job Drankoski, R. D. (1995). Human resource
satisfaction among higher education faculty. management and employee attitudes. In G.
Wanous, Reichers, and Hudy (1996) wrote R. Ferris, S. D. Rosen, & D. T. Barnum
that “There may also be practical limitations (Eds.). Handbook of human resources
favoring the use of a single-item measure” management. Blackwell Publishers, Ltd.:
(p. 14). Wanous, Reichers, and Hudy United Kingdom.
(1996) identified space on an instrument,
cost, and face validity as examples of Lawler, E. E., III (1973). Motivation in
practical limitations which supported the use work organizations. Brooks/Cole
of single-item measures. Publishing Company: Monterrey, CA.
Rosnowski, M., & Hulin, C. (1992). Motivation and work behavior. McGraw
The scientific merit of valid measures of Hill: New York.
general constructs with special reference to
job satisfaction and job withdrawal. In C. J. Weiss, D. J., Dawis, R. V., Lofuist, L.
Cranny, P. C. Smith, & E. F. Stone (Eds.). H., & England, G. W. (1966).
Job satisfaction: How people feel about Instrumentation for the theory of work
their jobs and how it affects their adjustment. University of Minnesota,
performance. Lexington Books: New York. Minneapolis.
Scarpello, V., & Campbell, J. P. (1983). Wanous, J. P., Reichers, A. E., & Hudy,
Job satisfaction: Are all the parts there? In M. J. (1996). Overall job satisfaction: How
A. P. Brief (1998). Attitudes in and around good are single item measures? Max M.
organizations. Sage: Thousand Oaks, CA. Fisher College of Business, Working Paper
Series, 96-20, No. 13-25. The Ohio State
Smith, P. C., Kendall, L. M., & Hulin, University, Columbus.
C. L. (1969). The measurement of
satisfaction in work and retirement: A Wood, O. R. (1973). An analysis of
strategy for the study of attitudes. Rand faculty motivation to work in the North
McNally: Chicago. Carolina community college system.
Unpublished doctoral dissertation, North
Steers, R. M., & L. W. Porter (1992). Carolina State University, Raleigh.