Administrator Job Satisfaction in Higher Education by Tonia Toinette Howard Baldwin A dissertation submitted to the Graduate Faculty of Auburn University in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the Degree of Doctor of Education Auburn, Alabama December 18, 2009 Keywords: administrators, higher education, job satisfaction, work climate, job structure Copyright 2009 by Tonia Toinette Howard Baldwin Approved by Marie F. Kraska, Chair, Mildred Cheshire Fraley Distinguished Professor of Educational Foundations, Leadership and Technology Caroline Dunn, Professor of Special Education, Rehabilitation, Counseling/School Psychology Olin Adams, Associate Professor of Educational Foundations, Leadership and Technology ii Abstract The purpose of the study was to investigate the job satisfaction of men and women administrators in higher education in four-year public institutions in Alabama. In addition, the study examined whether there was a relationship between gender and overall job satisfaction, work climate, and job structure. In conducting the study, the researcher selected four public four-year higher education institutions from a list of 14 four-year public institutions governed by the Alabama Commission on Higher Education. The researcher compiled the e-mail addresses of all administrators fitting the profile from the websites of each selected institution into a Microsoft Excel spreadsheet. Each potential participant fitting the profile was contacted electronically requesting their participation in this study. The total number of administrators in the data set was 56. The administrator demographic variables were as follows: (a) gender, (b) ethnicity, (c) age group, (d) marital status, (e) education level, (f) years of administrator experience, (g) salary, and (h) job title. Results from the statistical analysis showed that in terms of present job duties, pay, opportunities for promotion, and supervision, the administrators who participated in this study were satisfied. The administrators expressed a level of dissatisfaction with the people with whom they work and their job in general. There was no statistically significant difference in overall job satisfaction of the male and female administrators iii surveyed. There was no statistically significant difference in overall job satisfaction, work climate, and job structure between the male and female administrators who participated in this study. The findings indicated that male administrators were more satisfied with their work climate than the female administrators; however, the findings were still not statistically significant at the .05 level. iv Acknowledgements I wish to acknowledge and express my sincere gratitude to my committee members, Dr. Caroline Dunn and Dr. Olin Adams, for their continued guidance and support throughout this process. I am very grateful to my committee chair, Dr. Kraska, for her commitment to me, support, words of encouragement and guidance throughout my graduate studies. I would also like to thank my Outside Reader, Dr. Rebecca Curtis, for her insight and assistance in this momentous endeavor. Special acknowledgements go to my family. Thanks to my parents Ronnie and Beverly Howard, my mother-in-law, Yvonne Baldwin, and my cousin Sakina Huffman who supported me in every way possible. I could not have completed my degree without their financial and unwavering support. Thanks for continuing to push me when many times I felt like giving up. In addition, thanks for praying for me and asking God to continue His walk with me. Without Him nothing would be possible. An unlimited amount of gratitude goes to my husband, Dewayne L. Baldwin, who has stood by me every step of the way, and dealt with the frequent mood swings, days apart, and for understanding why I did not have time for him. To our son, Christopher, thank you for all your kisses, hugs and drawings of the sun, they were constant reminders of why completing what I started was important. You and Daddy sacrificed the most so I v could accomplish my goal and I am truly thankful. Finally, I would like to thank my best-friend Demetriss L. Locke for staying on my case and not allowing me to quit. vi Table of Contents Abstract ............................................................................................................................ ii Acknowledgements ......................................................................................................... iv Table of Contents ............................................................................................................ vi List of Tables ....................................................................................................................x List of Figures ................................................................................................................ xi List of Abbreviations .................................................................................................... xii Chapter I. Introduction ......................................................................................................1 Statement of the Problem ......................................................................................4 Purpose of the Study .............................................................................................4 Research Questions ...............................................................................................5 Statement of the Hypothesis .................................................................................5 Definition of Terms ...............................................................................................6 Limitations of the Study........................................................................................7 Assumptions of the Study .....................................................................................8 Significance of the Study ......................................................................................8 Chapter II. Review of Literature .....................................................................................10 Definitions of Job Satisfaction ............................................................................10 Theoretical Foundation of Job Satisfaction ........................................................11 vii Taylor?s Scientific Management .........................................................................11 Hawthorne Studies ..............................................................................................12 Maslow?s Hierarchy of Needs ............................................................................14 Herzberg?s Motivation-Hygiene Theory .............................................................15 Vroom?s Expectancy Theory ..............................................................................17 Locke?s Range of Affect Theory ........................................................................18 Determinants of Job Satisfaction .......................................................................19 Research in Job Satisfaction ...............................................................................20 Job Satisfaction in Higher Education ..................................................................29 Job Satisfaction of Administrators in Higher Education ....................................40 Gender .................................................................................................................43 Ethnicity ..............................................................................................................48 Summary .............................................................................................................53 Chapter III. Method of Study and Instrumentation .........................................................55 Design of Study...................................................................................................55 Sources of Data ...................................................................................................56 Profiles of Institutions Used in this Study ..........................................................57 Data Collection Procedures.................................................................................62 Privacy and Confidentially of Participant Data Collected ..................................65 Instrumentation ...................................................................................................65 Method of Procedure ...........................................................................................69 Summary .............................................................................................................70 viii Chapter IV. Data Analysis and Results ...........................................................................72 Data Analysis ......................................................................................................72 Results for Research Question One ....................................................................73 Demographic Characteristics for All Administrators .........................................73 Results for Research Question Two ....................................................................76 Results for Research Question Three ..................................................................81 Results for Research Question Four ...................................................................82 Results for Research Question Five ....................................................................84 Summary .............................................................................................................86 Chapter V. Summary and Conclusions. ..........................................................................87 Overview of the Study ........................................................................................88 Summary of the Results ......................................................................................89 Limitations ..........................................................................................................93 Conclusion ..........................................................................................................93 Implications.........................................................................................................94 Recommendations ...............................................................................................95 Summary .............................................................................................................97 References .......................................................................................................................93 Appendix A IRB Approval Letter - Auburn University .............................................111 Appendix B IRB Approval Letter - Auburn University Montgomery .......................113 Appendix C IRB Approval Letter - University of Alabama Huntsville .....................115 Appendix D IRB Approval Letter - University of South Alabama ............................117 ix Appendix E Letter of Permission to use JDI and JIG .................................................119 Appendix F Informational Letter to Participants ........................................................122 x List of Tables Table 1. Frequencies and Percents of Administrator Demographic Information .........74 Table 2. Summary of Descriptive Data for each Variable .............................................80 Table 3. Descriptive Results for Overall Job Satisfaction .............................................81 Table 4. Results of ANOVA for Overall Job Satisfaction .............................................82 Table 5. Descriptive Results for Work climate ..............................................................83 Table 6. Results of ANOVA for Work climate .............................................................84 Table 7. Descriptive Results for Job Structure ..............................................................85 Table 8. Results of ANOVA for Job Structure ..............................................................85 xi List of Figures Figure 1. Map with Locations of Four-Year Public Institutions Used in Study ...........62 xii List of Abbreviations AU Auburn University AUM Auburn University Montgomery HERI Higher Education Research Institute HEW Higher Education Worker IRB Institutional Review Board JDI Job Descriptive Index JIG Job in General NSOPF National Study of Postsecondary Faculty UAH University of Alabama at Huntsville USA University of South Alabama WES Work Environment Survey 1 CHAPTER I INTRODUCTION Job satisfaction has been the subject of many studies for over forty years (Van Saane, Sluiter, Verbeek & Frings-Dresen, 2003). Early research on work climate and management effectiveness as they relate to job satisfaction tends to focus more on corporate and government organizations than institutions of higher education (Volkwein & Parmley, 2000). Literature relating to the organizational environment focuses on models that examine the relationships between work environment, employee satisfaction, employee productivity, and turnover behavior (Tett & Meyer, 1993). However, in higher education, past studies focus primarily on some of the above variables and their relationship to job satisfaction of academic faculty (Volkwein & Parmley, 2000). Iiacqua, Schumacher and Li (2001) noted that more recently there has been extensive research on levels of job satisfaction as it relates to academic faculty. Much of this research, according to Iiacqua, Schumacher and Li (1995), is based on Herzberg?s (1987) motivational model that distinguishes between intrinsic and extrinsic factors. ?For example, an extrinsic factor, the drive to earn a good salary, is built upon the basic need of hunger. However, intrinsic factors such as responsibility and the satisfaction with work itself arise from the human ability to personally advance and grow? (Iiacqua, Schumacher & Li, 2001, p. 51). 2 Fraser and Hodge (2000) also acknowledged that there has been extensive research on faculty job satisfaction in higher education, but more so on work groups such as white males (Fraser & Hodge, 2000). ?This research suggests that White males gain considerably more satisfaction from jobs that provide higher extrinsic rewards, such as pay and benefits, than from jobs that offer intrinsic rewards such as challenge and pleasant coworkers? (Fraser & Hodge, 2000, p. 172). For example, Frazer and Hodge (2000) interviewed 180 male and female faculty at a large, urban, and predominantly white state university. Frazer and Hodge (2000) found that job satisfaction for male faculty was not affected by coworker relationships. Frazer and Hodge (2000) agreed that males in the work place do not feel the need to establish quality relationships with coworkers in order to feel satisfied in the work place. The opposite was found for female faculty in the study. Frazer and Hodge (2000) pointed out that the quality of ties to coworkers was directly linked to job satisfaction of the females interviewed. Frazer and Hodge (2000) believed as a result ??those women who do spend time and energy working on relationships with coworkers are labeled as ?passive? and are not viewed as ?aggressive? enough to merit promotions and the like? (p.182). Kanter (1987) agreed that men and women rarely share the same experiences in the workplace. Fraser and Hodge (2000), continued to suggest that ??organizational members hold beliefs that define women as inferior to male workers in terms of productivity and achievement? (p. 175). As a result, Fraser and Hodge (2000) believed that ?. . . negative images of women in the workplace manifest themselves in coworker interaction and, at times, result in barriers that women face when seeking upward 3 mobility in the workplace? (p. 175). Ridgeway (1997) suggested that gender status beliefs can cause inequality in the workplace. Reflecting on the review of literature one would conclude that much of the negative attitudes and perceptions toward women and their ability to perform in leadership positions are a direct result of the culture in which they are employed. For instance, there is still a gap between the number of women and men administrators in higher education. As stated before, some studies imply that society?s belief that women are not capable of successfully holding and sustaining the same leadership positions as men corresponds to why many women occupy only lower-level administration jobs (as cited in Weber, Feldman & Poling, 2003). Archer (2003) suggested that bias in the recruiting and hiring process, male professional networks, and the clash between roles at home and work contribute to the low representation of women in higher education administration. Fraser and Hodge (2000) wrote that most approaches to job satisfaction fall into two categories: structural and dispositional model. The structural approach focuses on the relationship between workplace environment and employee satisfaction. Fraser and Hodge (2000) explained that this perspective suggests that the structure of the workplace is a direct reflection of the employees? attitude. The dispositional model focuses on the ??individuals? attributes and abilities to adapt to the organizational environment. The dispositional model contends that workers will approach job satisfaction contingent on their personal experiences, values, and attributes? (Fraser & Hodge, 2000, p. 173). Fraser and Hodge (2000) extended the notion that since males benefit from gender status beliefs, males are largely uninterested in correcting discrimination. This creates an unequal 4 organizational culture is which Lev S. Vygotsky believed directly impacts the way individuals learn and view their surroundings (as cited in Gredler, 2005). Talbert-Hersi (1994) believes that the structure and business of an organization, communication and gender stereotyping are elements of the culture which negatively impact the level of job satisfaction for women in higher education administration. In general, there is a lack of sufficient information regarding overall job satisfaction of men and women administrators in higher education. Much has been written on job satisfaction as it relates to businesses and governmental organizations, but most of the literature that examines the satisfaction levels in higher education focuses on faculty rather than administrators. Statement of Research Problem There is a paucity of research and literature related to job satisfaction of administrators in higher education. ?A great deal of uncertainty exists about the factors influencing job satisfaction of men and women. The importance of each aspect of the job to the individual influences his or her overall feeling of satisfaction . . .? (Thomas, 1987, p. 7). Furthermore, information related to job satisfaction may be helpful in recruitment and retention of education administrators. Based on the lack of research and literature, further study involving job satisfaction of administrators in higher education is needed. Consequently, the focus of this study is the lack of information related to job satisfaction of men and women administrators in higher education. Purpose of Study The purpose of this study was to investigate the job satisfaction of men and women administrators in higher education in four-year public institutions in Alabama. The researcher examined whether there was a relationship between gender and overall 5 job satisfaction, work climate, and job structure. Research Questions The following research questions were addressed in this study: 1. What are the demographic characteristics of administrators in higher education in four-year public institutions in Alabama? 2. To what extent are administrators in higher education institutions satisfied with their jobs in terms of (a) their present job duties, (b) pay, (c) opportunities for promotion, (d) supervision, (e) people with whom they work, and (f) the job in general? 3. What is the overall job satisfaction of administrators in higher education in four-year public institutions in Alabama? 4. To what extent are there differences in job satisfaction (work climate) of male and female administrators in higher education institutions in Alabama? 5. To what extent are there differences in job satisfaction (job structure) of male and female administrators in higher education institutions in Alabama? Statement of the Null Hypotheses The following null hypotheses were formulated to respond to research questions two, three, four and five: Ho 1 : The mean of administrator is equal to 27 which is the published neutral point on the Job in General and Job Descriptive scales for (a) present job duties, (b) pay, (c) opportunities for promotion, (d) supervision, (e) people with whom they work, and (f) the job in general. Ho 2 : There is no statistically significant difference in overall job satisfaction between male and female administrators in higher education institutions in Alabama. 6 Ho 3 : There is no statistically significant difference in job satisfaction (work climate) between male and female administrators in higher education institutions in Alabama. Ho 4 : There is no statistically significant difference in job satisfaction (job structure) between male and female administrators in higher education institutions in Alabama. Definition of Terms 1. Administrator ? ?. . . primarily in nonteaching positions involving translation of general policy into specific workable procedures, decision-making, supervision of staff, and general management functions? (Thomas, 1987, p. 11). 2. Educational Administrators ? for the purpose of this study, professional education positions include Provost, Assistant or Associate Provost, Dean, Assistant or Associate Dean, Department Head or Chair. 3. ?Extrinsic job satisfaction ? the factors related to the job that cause job satisfaction; such as, salary, fringe benefits, working conditions, supervision and institutional policies and practices? (Talbert-Hersi, 1994, p. 22). 4. General Job Satisfaction ? extrinsic and intrinsic factors contributing to a feeling of fulfillment and happiness felt by individuals as it relates to their occupation and the tasks associated with it (Talbert-Hersi, 1994). In this study, general job satisfaction was measured by the Job in General (JIG) Index (Balzer, et al., 2000). 5. ?Intrinsic job satisfaction ? the factors related to the job that appeal to the affective nature of the individual; such as, the work itself, achievement, recognition and responsibility? (Talbert-Hersi, 1994, p. 22). 6. Work climate ? for the purpose of this study, work climate refers to supervision and co-workers relationships (Balzer, et al., 2000). 7 7. Job structure ? for the purpose of this study, job structure refers to work on present job, job duties, pay, and opportunity for promotion (Balzer, et al., 2000). Limitations of the Study The following limitations applied to this study. 1. The scope of this study was limited to administrators who are currently employed as educational administrators in public four-year colleges and universities located in the State of Alabama. 2. For purposes of this study, ?administrator? is defined ?. . . primarily in nonteaching positions involving translation of general policy into specific workable procedures, decision-making, supervision of staff, and general management functions? (Thomas, 1987, p. 11). As a result, there may be individuals that perform such duties but are not titled ?administrator? and are thus not included in this study. On the other hand, there may be administrators included in this study that may not perform the duties exactly as their title would suggest. 3. The population for this study was limited to administrators employed in professional education positions such as Provost, Assistant or Associate Provost, Dean, Assistant or Associate Dean, or Department Head or Chair. 4. The results may not be representative of administrators at other universities throughout the United States since the sample for this study was obtained from only four public universities in the southeastern United States. 8 Assumptions of the Study The following assumptions applied to this study. 1. The administrators participating in this study are representative of the population of administrators who are currently employed in four-year public colleges and universities in the State of Alabama. 2. The names and e-mail addresses of the administrators provided by the website of each institution are current and correct. 3. Professional education positions held under similar titles are equal in job background and substance. 4. The participants in this study will respond to all items on the survey honestly. 5. Participants can make a distinction in their attitudes toward different aspects of the workplace. 6. The professional characteristics of the administrators may vary based on gender, ethnicity, age, education level, and years of administrator experience. Significance of the Study This research assists in filling the gap in the resources available concerning overall job satisfaction, work climate, and job structure of administrators in higher education. Specifically, there is a gap in the research and literature addressing job structure and work climate. Knowledge of job satisfaction of administrators in higher education institutions should help university program directors, curriculum planners, practicing educational professionals, and prospective students to better understand the higher education environments for which administrators may be prepared and in which they may 9 be employed. Such knowledge should be helpful not only for program planning and improvement, but also for student recruitment and retention as well. 10 CHAPTER II REVIEW OF LITERATURE Chapter I provided the background information for this study, statement of the research problem, significance of the study, purpose of the study, research questions, statement of hypotheses, limitations and assumptions of the study. Chapter II provides a review of literature and research on the definition of job satisfaction, theories relating to job satisfaction, general studies of job satisfaction, an overview of job satisfaction studies in higher education, and an analysis of literature relating to the job satisfaction of administrators in higher education. Definitions of Job Satisfaction There are a plethora of research definitions employed by researchers to define job satisfaction. Vroom (1964) defined job satisfaction as the optimistic orientation of a person towards his or her current work role. In 1976, Locke?s definition of job satisfaction played an important part in shaping the research surrounding this topic (Brief & Weiss, 2002). Locke (1976) defined job satisfaction as ?a pleasurable or positive emotional state resulting from the appraisal of one?s job or job experience? (p. 1300). Some researchers that followed Locke contended that job satisfaction is based on one?s assessment of his or her job experiences. For example, Kalleberg (1977) defined job satisfaction as an overall emotional orientation of individuals toward the work 11 roles that they are presently occupying. Balzer et al. (2000) defined job satisfaction as ?the feelings a worker has about his or her job or job experiences in relation to previous experiences, current expectations, or available alternatives? (p. 7). Cranny, Smith and Stone (1992) defined job satisfaction as ?an affective (that is, emotional) reaction to one?s job, resulting from the incumbent?s comparison of actual outcomes with those that are desired (expected, deserved, and so on)? (p. 1). Spector (1997) believed that job satisfaction is based on the level of which he or she likes their job. Eagly and Chaiken (1993) defined job satisfaction as ?an internal state that is expressed by affectively and/or cognitively evaluating an experienced job with some degree of favor or disfavor? (p. 86). Benge and Hickey (1984) recognized job satisfaction as a collection of different attitudes of an employee at a given time. ?Brief (1998) describes job satisfaction as an internal state that is expressed by affectively and/or cognitive evaluating an experienced job with some degree of favor or disfavor? (as cited in Huff & Yeoh, 2008, p. 3). Smith, Kendall, and Hulin (1969) defined job satisfaction as ?feelings or affective responses to facets of the situation? (p. 7). Weiss (2002) contended that job satisfaction is an attitude, as ?a positive (or negative) evaluative judgment one makes about one?s job or job situation? (p. 175). Following is a brief discussion of some of the major theories supporting these many definitions of job satisfaction. Theoretical Foundation of Job Satisfaction Taylor?s Scientific Management Fredrick Taylor?s, Principles and Methods of Scientific Management (1911), is an early study focusing on motivation and job satisfaction. Taylor (1911) outlined four principles of management: ?the development of a true science, the scientific selection of 12 the workman, the scientific education and development of the workman, and intimate and friendly cooperation between the management and the men? (p. 130). He believed that the employer and employee share the same interest, the desire to prosper. Taylor (1911) suggested that prosperity will not exist long term for the employer unless it exists for the employee, and vice versa. Taylor (1911) contended that it is necessary to give some special incentive to the workman, such as promotion, higher wages and better working conditions, if the manager desires any effort from the workman. Taylor (1911) called this type of management, initiative and incentive. ?Taylor?s belief that job satisfaction related to extrinsic rewards and the physical needs of the worker meant that meeting these needs, the worker would thus maximize his or her potential? (Duncan, 2006, p. 8). Hawthorne Studies The Hawthorne Studies served as a preface to the study of job satisfaction. The studies, which began 85 years ago, were in five stages conducted over a period of eight years. The purpose of the studies was to investigate work behavior and attitudes deriving from an array of physical, economic, and social variables (Carey, 1967). The five stages are described in the following paragraph. Stage I, The Relay Assembly Test Room Study was intended to investigate the impact physical conditions have on work behavior. For example, variations in work breaks, pay, temperature, and humidity. Stage II, Second Relay Assembly Group Study, and Stage III, Mica Splitting Test Room Study, were designed to confirm the findings in Stage I. The results in Stage I indicated that the observed increase in production was a result of a change in the social situation, work task, wage incentives, and reduced fatigue. Stage II focused on the introduction of the new pay incentive system only, and Stage III 13 centered on the introduction of new supervision but no new pay incentive. Stage IV, The Interviewing Program, and Stage V, The Bank-Wiring Observation Room Study, ?. . . resulted directly from conclusions based on Stages I-III about the superior influence of social needs? (Carey, 1967, p. 404). Stage IV was carried out to investigate worker attitudes towards the job. Stage V was used to study informal group organizations in a work situation. The Hawthorne Studies were an attempt to apply the concept of the scientific management theory, developed by Frederick Winslow Taylor, to the work being done at the Bell Telephone Western Electric manufacturing plant in Hawthorne, IL (Gautschi, 1989). The personnel managers of the plant, in 1928, consulted with Elton Mayo, of the Harvard Business School, and Clair Turner, a professor of biology and public health at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology, to interpret the results of the studies (Brannigan & Zwerman, 2001). It was concluded that changes in the work conditions can have an impact on a worker?s productivity. This was evidenced in the increase of productivity by workers as they were being observed during the experiments, a phenomenon known as the ?Hawthorne Effect?. ?The initial Hawthorne effect referred to the observation that the productivity of the workers increased over time with every variation in the work conditions introduced by the experiments? (Brannigan & Zwerman, 2001, p. 56). According to Brannigan and Zwerman (2001), those workers that were observed during the illumination experiments and relay assembly tests worked at optimal levels to show themselves in a more positive light. Gautschi (1989) stated: The Hawthorne Studies have had a direct line of descent: Research on employee attitudes led to research on work motivation, which led to interest in leadership, 14 which led to studies of the impact of the organization?s social structure on the work group, and ultimately to the field of organizational psychology and organizational behavior (p. 180). According to Carey (1967) the data reported by the Hawthorne investigators appear to be consistent with the view that the material, and particularly financial, reward is the primary influence on worker morale and behavior. Maslow?s Hierarchy of Needs Abraham Maslow believed that his hierarchy of needs theory outlines how people satisfy various personal needs in the context of their work. According to Maslow (1954), humans have five basic needs that can be categorized into two groups, deficiency needs and growth needs. The first group, called deficiency needs, included physiological, safety, and affection or belongingness needs. The second group, called growth needs, addressed self-fulfillment. Shoura and Singh (1998) outlined Maslow?s (1943) five levels of needs as described below in hierarchical order: 1. Physiological needs: air, water, food, sex, etc., which are basic and most powerful. 2. Safety needs: assurance of survival and continuing satisfaction of basic needs. 3. Affection or belongingness needs: relation to emotional and social grouping, loving, being loved, and fellowship with others. 4. Esteem needs: by self and others, an individual having adequate self-esteem being capable, confident, and productive. 5. Self-actualization or self-development needs: this set includes the characteristics and conditions for advancing self and humanity through elevating culture, science, and other areas of growth, including spiritual, that propel a drive for oneness, interconnectedness, justice, perfection, and ultimately the truth in all dealings, perceptions, and beliefs (p. 45-46). Maslow (1954) placed the deficiency needs on the bottom, which he explains need to be satisfied first before those on the upper level can be met and satisfied. Maslow explains 15 that the lower part of the pyramid make up an individual?s primary needs while the upper part makes up the motivational needs (Duncan, 2006). According to Maslow and Lowery (1998), the ?growth needs? group was later modified by adding two more needs, cognitive (the need to know and understand), and aesthetic. In addition, Maslow (1971) states that one level beyond self-actucalization was added, self-transcedence. ?Maslow's basic position is that as one becomes more self- actualized and self-transcendent, one becomes more wise (develops wisdom) and automatically knows what to do in a wide variety of situations? (Huitt, 2004, p. 2). Maslow (1971) believed that an individual could not be satisfied unless the elements of the hierarchy of needs are met. He considered the concept of self-actualization as the ultimate state for satisfaction but believed that very few individuals could achieve it (Maslow, 1971). Herzberg?s Motivation-Hygiene Theory Fredrick Herzberg?s Two Factor Theory, also known as Motivator Hygiene Theory, was first outlined in the book The Motivation to Work (Herzberg, Mausner, & Synderman, 1959). The theory focuses on those sources of motivation that are essential for an individual to achieve and accomplish goals in the workplace (Hall & William, 1986). The theory is outlined in two separate parts. Part one states that job factors can be divided into separate sets: factors that contribute to job satisfaction, and seldom if at all, job dissatisfaction that are called ?Motivators? and factors that contribute to job dissatisfaction, and seldom if at all, to job satisfaction called ?Hygienes?(Gardner, 1977). Part two of this theory is also in two parts: (1) paying attention to Motivators (intrinsic job satisfaction or higher order needs) will increase satisfaction with no impact on 16 dissatisfaction, and (2) paying attention to Hygiene factors (extrinsic job satisfaction or lower order needs) will decrease job satisfaction but will not increase overall job satisfaction (Gardner, 1977). This means if attention is paid to the motivators, by improving them, then there will be improvement in organizational efficiency such as higher productivity. On the other hand, if attention is paid to hygiene factors then there will be no improvement in performance. According to Flores and Utley (2000), Herzberg described motivators as those aspects of the job that give individuals the desire to perform and provide them with satisfaction. Examples of motivators are achievement, recognition, the work itself, responsibility, growth, and advancement (Herzberg, Mousner, & Snyderman, 1959). Hygiene factors are described by Herzberg as those factors that can only bring an employee?s job satisfaction level to neutral, such as company policy, supervision, working conditions, interpersonal relations, salary, status, job security, and personal life (Herzberg, Mousner, & Snyderman, 1959). Herzberg (1965) briefly stated the theory as follows: 1. Job satisfaction and job dissatisfaction are not the obverse of each other, rather they are best viewed as two separate and parallel continua. 2. The opposite of job satisfaction is no job satisfaction; the opposite of job dissatisfaction is no job dissatisfaction. 3. Job satisfaction is determined by the feelings that the individual has concerning the content of his job. 4. Job dissatisfaction is determined by the feelings the individual has concerning the context or the environment in which his or her task is accomplished (as cited in Hazer, 1976, p. 12). Herzberg?s Two Factor Theory has received praise and criticism in the area of job satisfaction (Gardner, 1977; Hazer, 1976; Smerek & Peterson, 2007; Thomas, 1987). 17 There have been some studies conducted in an attempt to test Herzberg?s Two Factor Theory and the results from these studies have not provided support (Ewen, 1964; Gardner, 1977; Smerek & Peterson, 2007). Overall, some research on the theory has raised some questions about its validity. On the other hand, ??the core concept was not destroyed, which was that satisfaction and dissatisfaction were on different continua? (Thomas, 1987, p. 26). Vroom?s Expectancy Theory Victor Vroom?s Expectancy Motivation Theory has been used by psychologists and industrial sociologists to predict performance, effort, and job satisfaction (Lincoln, Graham, & Lane, 1983). The Expectancy theory is based on the assumption that people have an idea of what consequences are associated with their actions and they make conscious choices as to preference of outcome (Lincoln, Graham, & Lane, 1983). There are three concepts important to the Expectancy Theory: valence, instrumentality, and expectancy. Valence is the outcome an individual wishes to obtain (i.e., the valence is zero if the outcome is not obtained) (Lincoln, et al., 1983). Lincoln, et al. (1983) stated: Valence refers to the anticipated satisfaction associated with an outcome and is distinguished from the value of an outcome, which is the actual satisfaction resulting from the attainment of an outcome, while instrumentality relates an outcome to another outcome and expectancy relates an effort or action with an outcome (p. 6). Instrumentality is the extent to which an individual sees an outcome leading to other outcomes. Expectancy is the likelihood of the individual obtaining the outcome they desire (Duncan, 2006). Vroom has three theoretical models associated with this theory: valence, force, and performance. The equation for the valence model is as follows: V null null?f null? (V null? l nullnull null with 18 k=1. According to Lincoln, et al. (1983), this model can be used to predict the valence of any outcome. It has been used to predict job satisfaction and occupational preference. Vroom has used the second model, force, to predict choice of occupation, remaining on the job, and effort on that job (Lincoln, et al., 1983). The equation for this model is as follows: F null null?f null? (E nullnull? V null null with j = 1. The third model, performance, ?. . . hypothesize that job performance (P) is a function of the interaction between ability (A) and motivation (M)? (Lincoln, et al., 1983, p. 8). The equation for this model is as follows: P = f (A x M). Overall, Vroom (1964) viewed job satisfaction as the level in which an individual?s job provided positively valued outcomes. Locke?s Range of Affect Theory Edwin A. Locke believed that satisfaction is determined by two factors: the have- want discrepancy and the importance of satisfaction (McFarlin, Coster, Rice, & Cooper, 1995). The have-want discrepancy is the difference between the amount of a job facet the employee wants to experience and what he or she actually feels. According to McFarlin, et al. (1995), this is a result of the employee comparing what he or she actually has in a job against what they want and desire. The importance of satisfaction ?. . . refers to the position that the [importance] holds within the worker?s personal hierarchy of values? (McFarlin, et al., 1995, p. 490). Locke believed that his Range-of-Affect hypothesis explains the possible level of satisfaction that can be obtained by a particular job facet (McFarlin, et al., 1995). McFarlin, et al., (1995) stated that when facet importance is high, one could experience the full range of affective reactions, from extreme satisfaction to extreme dissatisfaction. ?When facet importance is low?affective reactions are more muted and restricted to the 19 neutral range of the satisfaction-dissatisfaction dimension? (McFarlin, et al., 1995, p. 490). In addition, Locke?s Range-of-Affect hypothesis can be used to predict when workers will experience the most satisfaction and dissatisfaction. According to McFarlin, et al. (1995), facet satisfaction will be at its highest level when what is received matches what is wanted. On the contrary, facet dissatisfaction will be at its highest level when what is received is less than or greater than what is wanted and important. Determinants of Job Satisfaction Several studies have addressed the factors that influence job satisfaction and dissatisfaction (Thomas, 1987; Fraser & Hodge, 2000; Volkwein & Parmley, 2000; Volkwein & Zhou, 2003; Smerek & Peterson, 2007). Some researchers believe specific factors such as promotion, and fringe benefits influence job satisfaction. While others believe that intrinsic and extrinsic factors such as job security, work conditions, achievement and recognition influence job satisfaction and dissatisfaction (Thomas, 1987). For example, Talbert-Hersi (1994) defined general job satisfaction as extrinsic and intrinsic factors contributing to a feeling of fulfillment and happiness felt by individuals as they relate to their occupation and the tasks associated with them. These intrinsic and extrinsic factors that contribute to general job satisfaction, as described by Talbert-Hersi (1994), are salary, the work itself, fringe benefits, working conditions, achievement, recognition, responsibility, supervision, and institutional policies and practices. There have been a few studies that focused on the relationship of job satisfaction to the workplace climate and structure of the organization (as cited in Kline & Boyd, 1991). For example, Campbell, Fowles and Weber (2004) surveyed 192 nurses to 20 examine the relationship between organizational structure and job satisfaction. The findings of their ??study suggested that work environments in which supervisors and subordinates consult together concerning job tasks and decisions, and in which individuals are involved with peers in decision making and task definition, are positively rated to job satisfaction? (p. 570). Porter and Lawler (1965) contended that variables associated with organizational structure have a role in determining job satisfaction. Sellgren, Ekvall and Tomson (2008) believed that organizational climate is essential for the feeling of job satisfaction. They explained that when a positive work climate is present subordinates will feel job satisfaction and remain in their jobs. Thomas (1987) contended that a number of factors both in an individual?s job and in the situation in which he or she works influence job satisfaction and dissatisfaction. In addition, Volkwein and Zhou (2003) argued that an array of office and work climate characteristics have a significant influence on the workplace. Consequently, the importance of the structure of an organization and work climate has been emphasized by organizational theorists (Volkwein & Zhou, 2003). For this study, therefore, job satisfaction was defined using the elements of work climate (relationships with co- workers and supervision), and job structure (work on present job, job duties, pay, and opportunity for promotion). Research in Job Satisfaction Job satisfaction has become an important topic of discussion for many years. Roethlisberger and Dickson (1939) acknowledged since the Hawthorne studies in the 1920s, job satisfaction has been the topic of research. ?Literally thousands of studies have examined how people feel about their work experience as a whole as well as about 21 specific facets of their jobs such as pay, supervision, or autonomy? (McFarlin, et al., 1995, p. 489). The key to a successful and viable organization is to maintain satisfied and qualified employees (van Saane, Sluiter, Verbeek, & Frings-Dresen, 2003). This could explain the growing number of studies relating to job satisfaction in medicine, education, manufacturing, and corporate sectors. According to Eklund and Hallberg (2000), job satisfaction is an important research area. Eklund and Hallberg (2000) investigated the job satisfaction of occupational therapists in Swedish psychiatric care, and focused on how clinical supervision, organizational aspects and demographic characteristics contribute to job satisfaction. They surveyed 334 occupational therapists out of 499. The results of their study showed that the highest levels of job satisfaction were with general satisfaction, followed by communication and co-operation. Eklund and Hallberg (2000) argued that Swedish occupational therapists in psychiatric care experienced high levels of job satisfaction, and social supports. According to Eklund and Hallberg (2000), the results of their study on job satisfaction among occupational therapists in mental healthcare were lower than previous similar studies. Best and Thurston (2006) used two standardized questionnaires to measure the job satisfaction of Canadian public health nurses (PHN) and determine whether or not scores changed over 30 months. The surveys were conducted in June 2000 and December 2002. The response rate in the year 2000, n = 44 and in 2002, n = 43. The results of the study showed that the two most important components of job satisfaction for the PHNs were autonomy followed by pay. ?Satisfaction mean scores increased significantly between 2000 and 2002 for two components: professional status and 22 interaction? (Best & Thurston, 2006, p. 253). The satisfaction mean score decreased slightly for task requirements, increased for organizational policies, and remained the same for autonomy. According to Best and Thurston (2006), the PHNs were most satisfied with their professional status. Cortese (2007) investigated the factors that lead to feelings of job satisfaction and dissatisfaction by nurses operating in three Italian hospitals. In this study, 64 nurses were interviewed out of 75. ?The completion of 64 interviews permitted the classification of 381 stories altogether: specifically 207 stories that described experiences in which subjects felt satisfied (54.3%) and 174 stories that described experiences in which subjects felt dissatisfied (45.7%)? (Cortese, 2007, p. 306). Cortese (2007) found that job content, professional relationships, responsibility, autonomy and professional growth, relationships with patients and their families, and relationships with coordinators lead to the job satisfaction of the nurses interviewed. In addition, Cortese (2007) wrote that coordinator management style, activity planning and organization, relationships with doctors, and relationships with patients and their families (i.e., unfair accusations and lack of compliance to assigned therapy) lead to job dissatisfaction. Sutton and Huberty (1984) evaluated teacher stress and job satisfaction of teachers in elementary, junior high, and high school. Twenty teachers were surveyed to investigate whether there were differences in stress between regular education teachers and teachers of students with extensive disabilities. Sutton and Huberty (1984) investigated to what extent job satisfaction was associated with levels of stress. The results of their study suggested that the stress level of the regular education teachers and teachers of the students with extensive disabilities were similar. In addition, the level of 23 satisfaction was higher for the special education teachers than of that for the regular education teachers (Sutton & Huberty, 1984). Eichinger (2000) also investigated the job stress and satisfaction among special education teachers. Eichinger (2000) focused on the job stress and satisfaction of special educators by gender and by social role orientation in Southern California. Eighty-nine female and 43 male special education teachers participated in this study (Eichinger, 2000). The findings of this study suggested that female special education teachers are more stressed then their male counterparts. According to Eichinger (2000), those that reported having high levels of stress also indicated they had low levels of job satisfaction. Zembylas and Papanastasiou (2005) focused on the job satisfaction of teachers in Cyprus, a small country located in the Eastern part of the Mediterranean. The purpose of this study was to determine the impact that teacher satisfaction had on four dimensions of teachers? sense of empowerment: professional growth, decision-making, promotion, and staus (Zembylas & Papanastasiou, 2005). Zembylas and Papanastasiou (2005) surveyed 449 elementary and secondary teachers, 70.8% were women and 29.2% were men. The researchers found that status, promotion, decision-making and personal growth all considerably affect the participants? sense of empowerment (Zembylas & Papanastasiou, 2005). Those teachers that were satisfied with the promotion procedure of the school system were also likely to be satisfied with their opportunities for decision-making (Zembylas & Papanastasiou, 2005). This resulted in a higher sense of empowerment for teachers satisfied with levels of professional growth, their opportunities for decision- making, and their status. The findings also suggested that promotion influenced teachers? empowerment negatively. Zembylas and Papanastasiou (2005) stated that ??teachers 24 who were very satisfied with their opportunities for promotion ended up having lower empowerment compared to the teachers who were not as satisfied with their opportunities for promotion? (p. 451). Ryder?s (1994) work examined whether women administrators in Torrance Unified School District were experiencing the same problems as their peers across the country in securing and maintaining administrative positions. Ryder (1994) surveyed nineteen women in the Torrance Unified School District. The study suggested that mentoring programs can help ease the way into the male-dominated field of educational leadership (Ryder, 1994). The research also indicated that obtaining jobs in educational leadership is difficult for women. The literature has shown that a lack of role models, mentors and encouragement has held women back from applying for educational administration positions or advancing for certification in administration (Allen, Jacobson & Lomotey, 1995). Ryder (1994) contended that women will need the support and encouragement of their female colleagues to make bigger strides in the field. According to Thomas (1987), ?encouragement and support have been identified as being significantly important to career satisfaction and success? (p. 34). Tibbetts (1977) believed that if women successfully obtain jobs in administrative positions, they will not receive the same support as their male counterparts (as cited in Thomas, 1987). Hean and Garrett (2001) focused on teacher job satisfaction in the developing country of Chile. This study was part of a larger study conducted by Hean (1999). The objective was to ?. . . provide some explanation of the form and distribution of the sources of satisfaction and dissatisfaction as they appear in the Chilean . . .? (Hean & 25 Garrett, 2001, p. 363). Forty-five science teachers in Chile were surveyed. The findings of this study suggested that the greatest source of satisfaction came from working with students and relationships formed within the profession. Hean and Garrett (2001) reported that over half of the sample indicated they were dissatisfied with the salary. Many of the teachers stated they were working multiple jobs due to the financial constraints associated with receiving such low salaries. Dissatisfaction was also found with the lack of resources, training, and poor infrastructure. Fuming and Jiliang (2007) also believed that job satisfaction is an important issue in Secondary and Elementary education research. They examined studies conducted in the past ten years on teacher education in China. The purpose of their study was to investigate whether the job satisfaction of teachers in China changed over a period of ten years. According to Fuming and Jiliang (2007), the findings suggested that secondary and elementary school teachers are considerably more satisfied with their jobs than they were ten years ago. On the contrary, the findings also suggested that the teachers have always been dissatisfied with remuneration, working conditions, leadership administration, and opportunities for promotion in their profession (Fuming & Jiliang, 2007). ?This shows that the teaching profession provides lower salary, poorer working conditions, fewer opportunities for promotion, and virtually no power of self- determination compared with most other professions? (Fuming & Jiliang, 2007, p. 88). Fuming and Jiliang (2007) concluded that the situation has not changed over the past ten plus years and proposed suggestions that school and educational administration may find relevant for improvement. 26 Miles, Patrick, and King (1996) focused on job satisfaction in the manufacturing sector. They surveyed 595 hourly employees and 118 first-line supervisors from a medium-sized manufacturing company in the southeastern part of the United States (Miles, et al., 1996). According to Miles, et al. (1996), the sample was comprised of 72% female and 28% male employees. The researchers found that the first-line supervisors reported a higher level of job satisfaction than that of the hourly employees. In addition, communication with one?s superior was a predictor of job satisfaction and differed by job level. Edwards, Bell, Arthur, and Decuir (2008) also focused on job satisfaction in manufacturing. Edwards, et al. (2008) surveyed 444 employees holding a variety of jobs in a large manufacturing plant located in southeastern Texas. The purpose of their study was to investigate the relationship between job satisfaction and task and contextual performance (Edwards, et al., 2008). The results of their study suggested that overall job satisfaction was related to task and contextual performance. Satisfaction with the job was increasingly related to task than contextual performance and satisfaction with supervision was greatly related to contextual rather then task performance (Edwards, et al., 2008). In conclusion, Edwards, et al. (2008) stressed the importance of corresponding predictors and criteria of job satisfaction in terms of compatibility, both conceptually and empirically. In the corporate world, studies on job satisfaction have been extremely important for decades. For example, Poist and Lynagh (1976) used Lyman W. Porter?s instrument for measuring job satisfaction to investigate the job satisfaction of physical distribution managers (PDM). They mailed surveys to 350 members of the National Council of 27 Physical Distribution Management to obtain a sample for the study. One hundred and ninety-two responded which yielded a 55% return rate. Poist and Lynagh (1976) found that the PDMs were least satisfied with the opportunity for personal growth, the opportunity to participate in goal setting, the feeling of self-fulfillment and prestige within the firm. The PDMs were highly satisfied with esteem, security and social categories (Posit & Lynagh, 1976). Poist and Lynagh (1976) contended that there was evidence to suggest that job satisfaction increased as the PD department controlled more functions. In conclusion, Posit and Lynagh (1976) suggested that behavioral aspects of systems planning and design such as job satisfaction and work enrichment no longer need to be ignored for productivity sake. Bergmann (1981) reported that there is a strong relationship between satisfaction with personal progress and development and overall job satisfaction. Using the Minnesota Satisfaction Questionnaire, Bergmann (1981) investigated managerial job satisfaction by surveying 1,159 managers from three organizations, a multi-location retail organization, a large bank and the home office of a multinational insurance firm. The results of this study suggested that the level of position had the greatest effect on job satisfaction. Those in higher level positions experienced greater job satisfaction. Further evidence indicated that personal progress and development, other than rewards, superior- subordinate relations or organization environment is the strongest predictor of overall satisfaction (Bergmann, 1981). Rasch and Harrell (1989) administered a questionnaire to Management Advisory Services (MAS) designers/consultants, employed by a Big Eight consulting firm, to investigate the work stress, job satisfaction and voluntary personnel turnover rates. In 28 addition, they examined whether these factors were influenced by differences in employee achievement motivation, A/B personality type, influence-orientation and life stress. Forty-six personnel were given the opportunity to complete the questionnaire, but only 30 were completed and viable for use in the study. Rasch and Harrell (1989) indicated that life stress had no considerable result on the participants? work stress, job satisfaction, and turnover intentions. Their findings also suggested that those MAS designers/consultants who had high achievement needs, the Type A personality and an influence-orientation were likely to experience less work stress, greater job satisfaction and to display lower rates of intentional personnel turnover than their colleagues (Rasch & Harrell, 1989). Beam (2006) investigated the job satisfaction of journalists (i.e., print, broadcast, and online). The data used in this study were collected from the American journalists study. According to Beam (2006), this study is conducted every ten years to track the characteristics of journalists in the United States. A telephone survey was used to obtain data from 1,149 print, broadcast, and online journalists randomly selected from news and editorial staff lists. The interviewing process took place during the summer and fall of 2002. Beam (2006) found that journalists with high levels of job satisfaction were those that believed that their organization emphasized the importance of professional goals and priorities. ?The most-satisfied journalists perceive a great deal of autonomy in their work and influence in the newsroom, and feel they are working for an organization doing a good job informing the public? (Beam, 2006, p. 182). The research on job satisfaction covers a broad spectrum of studies conducted in industries and organizations ranging from medicine, education, and manufacturing to 29 corporations. The research addressed the relationship of job satisfaction and worker productivity. Productivity was identified as the employees? contributions to their specific place of employment. For example, teachers? relationships with students and the relationships of healthcare workers to patients were studied. Job Satisfaction in Higher Education Job satisfaction of scholars and staff in the field of higher education has been the topic of research in past decades (Rhodes, Hollinshead, & Nevill, 2007). Much of the literature relating to job satisfaction in higher education tends to focus more on faculty and staff than administrators (Volkwein & Parmley, 2000; Fraser & Hodge, 2000; Iiacqua, Schumacher & Li, 2001; Volkwein & Zhou, 2003). For instance, Milosheff (1990) conducted a study that focused on factors contributing to faculty job satisfaction in the community college system. Milosheff (1990) surveyed 703 community college faculty from 35 institutions. The study focused on six general categories, job satisfaction, personal and demographic characteristics, professional activities/responsibilities, perceptions of relationships with students, institutional environments, and departmental environment. The findings indicated that on the average, community college faculty are satisfied with their jobs. In comparison to those studies that surveyed faculty in four-year institutions, gender was not significant in predicting job satisfaction at the community college level. The more time faculty spent with professional responsibilities and activities the less job satisfaction they enjoyed. The findings also suggested that the faculty members surveyed enjoyed being recognized as contributing members to the students and institution. The more faculty saw students as appreciative, interested, and 30 academically well prepared, the more faculty were satisfied with their jobs (Milosheff, 1990). Thoreson, Kardash, Leuthold, and Morrow?s (1990) conducted a study that focused on gender differences in self-rating of satisfaction with an emphasis on various aspects of productivity, stress experienced, and actual rewards structure of academic careers. They surveyed male and female faculty in the colleges of agriculture, education, home economics, journalism, and nursing at a major Midwestern university (Thoreson, et al., 1990). The sample size totaled 63, and was comprised of 35 female and 28 male faculty. The findings of this study indicated that there were high levels of satisfaction with the personal and professional life of both the female and male faculty surveyed. Olsen (1993) focused on faculty development over the first three years of appointment. Olsen (1993) interviewed and surveyed the entire cohort of newly hired, tenure-track faculty from a large, public research university at the end of the first and third year of their academic appointments. The first year, 52 faculty members were interviewed and surveyed and 47 faculty members in the third year. Two types of job satisfaction measures were included in this study; faculty satisfaction with specific aspects or ?facets? of the work, and global job satisfaction. The findings suggested that there was a fairly high level of job satisfaction in both years of the study (Olsen, 1993). Autonomy, the opportunity to use skills and abilities, and a sense of accomplishment were the most satisfying aspects for the participants. Salary, recognition by the institution, conflict among work commitments, and time pressures were the least satisfying aspects of the job (Olsen, 1993). ?Overall, the findings appear to show a fairly high, consistent level of satisfaction with the 31 autonomous, intellectually challenging nature of the academic enterprise, and a lower, steadily eroding level of satisfaction with compensation and governance? (Olsen, 1993, p. 461). Iiacqua, Schumacher, and Li (1995) surveyed the faculty of an independent private business college to measure the impact that the workplace and socio-demographic factors have on job satisfaction. The survey was distributed to all members of the faculty, but yielded 83 out of 137. For this study, Iiacqua, Schumacher, and Li (1995) withheld the purpose and hypothesis of the study to eliminate bias. They analyzed the relationship between demographic variables and job satisfaction. Iiacqua, et al. (1995) believed their findings supports Herzberg?s hypothesis that job satisfaction is influenced by intrinsic and extrinsic variables. In addition, tenure, rank, years teaching, and age had an effect on job dissatisfaction. Older and more experienced tenured faculty expressed less job dissatisfaction. Lacy and Sheehan (1997) examined selected data collected during 1991-1992, with the support of the Carnegie Foundation for the Advancement of Teaching, on the academic profession in 14 countries. Lacy and Sheehan (1997) selected eight countries from the list of 14 that participated in the international survey. The following countries were used for their analysis: Australia, Germany, Hong Kong, Israel, Mexico, Sweden, United Kingdom and the United States of America. Different survey materials and methodologies were used but appeared to be comparable. ??cautionary signals relating to cross-national and cross-cultural comparisons must be borne in mind: the data sources have not been sufficiently validated in cross-cultural terms to yield unequivocal findings? (Lacy & Sheehan, 1997, p. 306). 32 Lacy and Sheehan (1997) examined the following different aspects of the jobs of academic staff: teaching, professional relationships, job security, prospects for promotion, opportunity to pursue their own ideas, management (institution), and overall job satisfaction. A total of 12,599 academic staff participated in this study. The findings suggested that generally the academic staff were satisfied with their jobs at their institution, relationships with colleagues, job security, the opportunity to pursue their own ideas, and their job situation as a whole (Lacy & Sheehan, 1997). Those in the United States were most satisfied overall. Furthermore, the data suggested that respondents from the United States, Mexico, and Israel were most satisfied with promotion prospects. In comparison, German respondents were least satisfied with promotion prospects. In regards to overall job satisfaction, 60% of those respondents from the United States and Sweden were satisfied compared to those from Germany, Mexico, Australia, and the United Kingdom, who were less than 50% satisfied. According to Lacy and Sheehan (1997) the male academics were more satisfied than the females with most areas of their job. Lacy and Sheehan (1997) suggest that this is consistent with the research literature. Fields (2000) reported the results of the Higher Education Research Institute?s (HERI) faculty survey. The data for this report was collected in 1998-1999 from a national sample of 33,785 faculty members at 378 colleges, universities, and community colleges. According to Fields (2000) the data had been weighted to approximate the results as if the information was obtained from college faculty in all accredited institutions across the country had responded. Fields (2000) found that faculty at American colleges and universities remain predominantly White. In addition, ?. . . 33 African American faculty members not only have experienced an overall loss in representation among the nation?s faculty pool in the past decade, they also have shown a decline in representation among new faculty hires? (Fields, 2000, ? 3). According to Fields (2000), black faculty is among the major identified racial groups showing the greatest decline in representation. Fields (2000) explained that the low minority representation suggested that institutions are not making significant progress in diversifying. Faculty is experiencing increasing levels of job satisfaction, but women?s perceptions of the academic climate are still less favorable than men. Valadez and Anthony (2001), analyzed data drawn from the 1992 ? 1993 National Study of Postsecondary Faculty (NSOPF) to determine the job satisfaction and commitment of two-year college part-time faculty members. According to Valadez and Anthony (2001), the original sample used for the 1992-1993 NSOPF included 974 institutions and 31,354 faculty members. For their study, Valazdez and Anthony (2001) limited their sample to 6,811 respondents who identified teaching as their primary responsibility. They identified 15 items from the NSOPF questionnaire that focused on the level of satisfaction individuals experienced with different aspects of their jobs. For comparative purposes, Valazdez and Anthony (2001) findings included data from four-year colleges and part-time faculty members. Their findings suggested that the majority of part-time faculty at two-year colleges are male and come from lower or middle-socioeconomic groups. In comparison, there were a higher percentage of part- time faculty members at four-year colleges that come from upper-socioeconomic backgrounds. The results of this study yielded that a large percentage of part-time faculty members are committed to their academic careers despite the negative experiences. In 34 regards to job satisfaction, two-year college faculty are less satisfied with their autonomy than their four-year college counterparts. Valadez and Anthony (2001) pointed out that both groups were equally concerned with salary, benefits, and job security and equally satisfied with their jobs overall. Irani and Scherler (2002) undertook a study that described and explored factors that affected the job satisfaction of agricultural communications graduates during the time frame spanning 1994 to 2002 at the University of Florida. Irani and Scherler surveyed 31 graduates using the Job Descriptive Index (JDI) and the Job in General (JIG) scales. According to Irani and Scherler (2002), the sample was comprised of 93.5% female, 58.1% were married, 41.9% were 25 to 29 years of age, and 29% had or were pursing a graduate degree. The findings of their study suggested that the majority of the alumni surveyed were employed in their field and generally satisfied with their positions. The overall job satisfaction of those surveyed seemed to increase with age and with those with a Masters degree. Irani and Scherler (2002) concluded that a large percentage of the graduates were satisfied with their jobs and that this serves as an indicator of an overall successful program. Volkwein and Zhou (2003) developed a model of administrative job satisfaction and surveyed nearly 1,178 managers at 122 public and private institutions of higher education. The following variables were used in the study: state, campus, personal, work climate and satisfaction. The results of their study showed ?that few state, campus, and personal characteristics exert direct effects on one?s overall job satisfaction? (Volkwein & Zhou, 2003, p.149). In addition, the immediate work climate variables had a greater significant influence than that of organizational, environmental and individual traits in 35 regards to overall job satisfaction. Volkwein and Zhou (2003) concluded that ?positive workplace relationships and an atmosphere of teamwork are the ingredients that have highly positive impacts on most satisfaction measures? (p. 167). Rosser (2004) focused on the worklife issues that have an impact on midlevel educational/academic leaders? morale, satisfaction, and decisions to stay in or leave their position or career. Rosser (2004) referred to midlevel leaders, for the purpose of this study, as those academic or non-academic support staff in the makeup of higher education organizations (i.e., directors and coordinators of admissions, institutional research, registrars, business officers, computing and technology, human resources, communications, alumni affairs, student affairs, placement and counseling services, financial aid, student housing, development and planned giving). In 2002 a national study was conducted that included 4,000 randomly selected midlevel leaders out of 11,300 from public and private institutions in the United States within five Carnegie classifications (i.e., Doctoral/research, Master?s I, Baccalaureate generals, Associate, and Liberal arts). The findings of this study suggested that ethnic minority midlevel leaders in the United States have a lower overall level of morale than their Caucasian counterparts. Rosser (2004) believed that this suggests that ethnic minorities viewed themselves as less valuable within the institutional environment. In addition, they have a lower level of morale and would most likely leave their position or career. Rosser (2004) pointed out that job satisfaction had an impact on moral and intent to leave. ?For example, this study suggests that only through moral ethnic minorities and higher paid midlevel leaders would intend to leave their position or career? (Rosser, 2004, p. 333). 36 In another national study, Rosser (2004) investigated the individual-level perceptions of faculty members? intentions to leave their position or career. For this study, Rosser (2004) used selected data collected in fall 1999 from the National Study of Postsecondary Faculty sponsored by the National Center for Educational Statistics and the National Science Foundation. This survey was used ??to measure the various issues and topics concerning the quality of faculty members? professional and institutional worklife throughout the United States? (Rosser, 2004, p. 295). According to Rosser (2004), the original sample used for the 1999 NSOPF included 3,396 postsecondary institutions and 18,043 faculty members. For their study, Rosser (2004) limited their sample to 12,755 full-time faculty members from private and public 2 and 4-year postsecondary institutions. The results of this study indicated that the faculty?s perceptions of their worklife have a direct and great impact on satisfaction. Rosser (2004) explained that the results emphasized the important role that satisfaction has to the faculty members? perceptions of their overall worklife. In addition, the quality of the faculty members? worklife (i.e., technical and administrative support, committee and service work, and professional development) is important to faculty and has a strong effect on their overall level of satisfaction (Rosser, 2004). August and Waltman (2004) reported on a study that was conducted in 1996 at a Research I institution in the Midwest. Male and female faculty members who were at least half-time instruction and had been at the university for at least one year were surveyed. August and Waltman (2004) utilized the data from 247 female tenured and tenure-track faculty. According to August and Waltman (2004) the sample was predominantly white and mostly held the position of assistant professor. The findings 37 suggested that 46-50 percent of tenured and tenure-track female faculty are satisfied overall with their career. An investigation by Flowers (2005) focused on determining if the level of job satisfaction differs for African American faculty at 2-year and 4-year institutions of higher education. Flowers (2005) used data from the 1999 National Study of Postsecondary Faculty. Flowers (2005) analyzed the data on all African American faculty and staff that had teaching responsibilities in the fall of 1998. He found that at 2- year institutions, approximately 44% of all African American instructional faculty and staff were male and 56% were female. In contrast, at 4-year institutions 56% were males and 44% female. Flowers (2005) found that level of job satisfaction of African American faculty?s at 2-year and 4-year institutions differs. The findings suggested African American faculty at 2-year institutions was likely to report being very satisfied and having greater levels of contentment with different aspects of their jobs than those at 4- year institutions. Flowers (2005) suggested that reasons for the differences in levels of job satisfaction are contributed to such variables as gender, academic rank, educational background, and tenure status. Houston, Meyer, and Paewai?s (2006) research focused on academic staff workloads and job satisfaction. They used three sources of data collected over a three- year period from one of New Zealand?s eight public universities. Houston, Meyer, and Paewai (2006) used the Work Environment Survey (WES) in an attempt to gather institution-wide data on staff perceptions of the academic work environment. The staff?s views overall on job satisfaction were moderately to very satisfied with the freedom to choose their own method of work, their level of responsibility, and the amount of variety 38 in their job (Houston, Meyer, & Paewai, 2006). The findings also suggest that staff were less satisfied with their extrinsic awards (i.e., salary, chances for advancement, and the recognition received for good work). According to Houston, Meyer, and Paewai (2006), faculty were more satisfied with the intrinsic rewards such as flexibility, amount of responsibility, and variety in their jobs. Smerek and Peterson (2007) surveyed 2180 non-academic employees in 36 different business operations units at a large public research institution in order to examine ?. . . relationships between an employee?s personal characteristics, job characteristics, perceived work environment, and job satisfaction? (Smerek & Peterson, 2007, p. 241). Smerek and Peterson (2007) found that in regard to gender, females are more satisfied with 12 out 13 of the environment variables with salary being the only variable with which they were not satisfied. Employees in finance, human resources, and information technology are more satisfied than those employees in facilities and operations. In addition, those employees in the union were less satisfied than non-union employees. In conclusion, Smerek and Peterson?s (2007) findings suggested that perceived work environment is a greater predictor of job satisfaction. Around the same time frame as Smerek and Peterson?s research, Rhodes, Hollinshead, and Nevill (2007) studied the outcomes from a previous study that explored the job satisfaction of academics in higher education in the United Kingdom. In the initial study, two large schools located in the English West Midlands sharing the same discipline of education were selected. The chartered university had 84 academic staff involved in both teaching and research. The statutory university had 51 academic staff involved in both teaching and research. 39 Data for this study were collected in two phases, questionnaire and interview. The charter university had 33 academics to respond and 35 respondents from the statutory university. Based on the findings of the initial study, 30 of 35 facets of work experience had an impact on the job satisfaction, motivation and morale of the individuals surveyed and interviewed. Rhodes, et al. (2007) concluded that the results of this study have ?. . . enabled the validation of 30 facets of work experience deemed important in impacting upon academic?s job satisfaction? (p. 85). For example, prestige derived from association with the university, society?s views of lecturers, requirement to publish in reputable journals, requirement to maintain personal reputation through publication, and requirement to secure external research funding were cited as being considered unimportant by the whole sample (Rhodes, et al., 2007). The results indicated some work experience facets, such as friendliness of colleagues, a climate of achievement, salary is appropriate, independent working, relationship with line-manager, and opportunities for self-management, were deem important in impacting the academics? job satisfaction. Wasley (2007) believes that full-time faculty members at 4-year colleges are more satisfied with their jobs than most American workers. Wasley (2007) reports the results of studies conducted by the pension company TIAA-CREF, Harris Interactive and International Herald Tribune. The pension giant, TIAA-CREF, surveyed 300 of their full-time faculty members employed three or more years at a single 4-year institution. The results indicated that 53% were satisfied with their jobs and 43% were somewhat satisfied. On the other hand, the results of the survey of American workers conducted by Harris Interactive and International Herald Tribune showed that 42% were very satisfied 40 with their jobs and 38% somewhat satisfied. Wasley (2007) stated that a large percentage of the faculty members surveyed blamed their institutions for not providing enough support to help achieve their career goals (i.e., conducting additional research, publishing, getting tenure, and becoming full professors). In addition, only 28% of the faculty surveyed said they were satisfied with the help they received from their institutions in achieving those goals, and 47% were somewhat satisfied. Wasley (2007) concluded that less than 36% of American workers were content with the balance between their professional and personal lives. Wagoner (2007) used a different approach in analyzing the results from the 1999 National Studies of Postsecondary Faculty. Wagoner (2007) conducted a quantitative analysis of community college faculty satisfaction. The population focus of this analysis was full-time and part-time faculty in arts and sciences and vocational and training programs. Wagoner (2007) pointed out that full-time faculty are more satisfied than part- time faculty in regards to job security, advancement opportunities, salary, and benefits. Part-time faculty from arts and sciences are less satisfied than those in the vocational and training group. In addition, overall job satisfaction of part-time faculty members in arts and sciences was less than that of vocational and training part-time faculty. Wagoner (2007) acknowledged that the situation was reversed for the full-time faculty. Full-time faculty in arts and sciences overall job satisfaction was greater than that of full-time faculty in vocational and training programs. Job Satisfaction of Administrators in Higher Education Previously mentioned, in a search of the literature on administrator job satisfaction, there is a paucity of research on this topic. ?In higher education, job 41 satisfaction, particularly among administrators, has been sparsely examined, and cumulatively the studies in this area suggest there is little unity in understanding job satisfaction in a college or university context? (Smerek & Peterson, 2007, p. 230). Volkwein and Zhou (2003) pointed out that the few studies that addressed administrative job satisfaction in higher education mainly focused on understanding the dimensions and levels of satisfaction rather than the intrinsic, extrinsic and interpersonal influences of job satisfaction. For example, in 1990, Chieffo (1991) examined the results of a survey developed by compiling the literatures most valid and relevant questionnaire scales. The purpose of the study was to measure job satisfaction and organization commitment. In addition, determine the factors that contribute to both job satisfaction and organization commitment. The sample for this study was comprised of 97 administrators identified as leadership team members at 16 two-year colleges in New Mexico. The results of the study suggested that the administrators in New Mexico?s two-year institutions were fairly satisfied and committed to their jobs and institutions. In addition, Chieffo (1991) stated that all five leadership behaviors (i.e., influence orientation, people orientation, motivational orientation, and values orientation) contributed to both job satisfaction and organizational commitment. Mcinnis (1998) reported the initial results of a national survey of academics? work roles, satisfaction and values. The national survey was conducted in 1993 using a sample of 18 of 34 Australian universities and sample of 1,621 administrators. Then in 1996 all professional administrators, 1,281, at Higher Education Worker (HEW) were surveyed. Mcinnis (1998) compared and contrasted academics and administrators based on three aspects of the job: job satisfaction and morale; work values and motives; and 42 administrators? perceptions of work styles and conditions. Mcinnis (1998) found that there was little difference in job satisfaction between the academics and the administrators. Administrators were considerably more positive about their universities than the academics. Mcinnis (1998) wrote that a larger percentage of administrators than academics were more positive about the community reputation of their institution. Mcinnis (1998) also pointed out that some key issues affecting the satisfaction and morale of the academic sample were job security, salary, the academic quality of the students, and the intellectual and cultural life of the institution. Michael, Schwartz, Cook, & Winston (1999) studied a group of trustee administrators in higher education. In their study, a survey was used to investigate trustees? perceptions of their satisfaction with different aspects of their job. Michael et al. (1999) surveyed 415 trustees, 311 males and 90 females. They found that the low representation of female trustees at 20% was similar among private, public university, and community/technical colleges. There was evidence of high levels of satisfaction with respect to trustee relationships with institution presidents. A high level of satisfaction was also present with recognition and reward attached to trusteeship and their roles (Michael, et al., 1999). Anderson, Guido-DiBrito, and Morrell (2000) reviewed literature on the factors that influence satisfaction of student affairs administrators. Based on their review of literature they found that a large percentage of student affairs administrators were satisfied with their jobs. There was evidence that male senior student affairs officers (SSAO) are more satisfied with their jobs than female SSAOs (Anderson, Guido-DiBrito, & Morrell, 2000). In addition, women administrators that were in associate or assistant 43 SSAO positions had the lowest level of job satisfaction (Anderson, Guido-DiBrito, & Morrell, 2000). A survey by Volkwein and Parmley (2000) examined the difference in levels of job satisfaction among administrators in public and private universities. For this study, 1191 administrators ranging from presidents and vice presidents to directors and assistants from 120 doctoral universities were studied. Volkwein and Parmley (2000), found more similarities than differences between the administrators at the public and private institutions. Volkwein and Parmley (2000) acknowledged that there were no statistically significant differences between both groups in global satisfaction, satisfaction with intrinsic rewards, satisfaction with working conditions, and satisfaction with the people they come in contact with on the job. ?While public administration research suggests that there are significant differences between the public and private sectors with respect to levels of job satisfaction, there is little evidence in this university population apart from pay and benefits that confirms this hypothesis? (Volkwein & Parmley, 2000). Gender Thomas (1987) believed that personal characteristics such as age, gender, and skill level have some impact on favorable and unfavorable attitudes about the job. Hulin and Smith (1964) stated ?. . . probably one of the most critical moderating variables was gender differences in job satisfaction? (as cited in Thomas, 1987, p. 39). Talbert-Hersi (1994) stated that some studies reported specific causes of job dissatisfaction of women in higher education. Studies suggested that men experience opportunity structures in the workplace distinctively different than that of women (Kanter, 1987; Fraser & Hodge, 2000; Kuk & Donovan, 2004). Talbert-Hersi (1993) believed that the literature generally 44 still highlights that women in higher education administration continue to fall behind their male peers in pay, promotion, tenure and amount of research. Despite the civil rights legislation and affirmative action laws that required that women receive equal pay and employment opportunities as men, disparities still exist. ?Furthermore, they are still expected, like their male counterparts, to produce and implement new curricula, conduct research, publish books or journal articles, engage in professional development activities, serve on various committees, and teach and manage the accompanying paperwork? (Talbert-Hersi, 1993, p. 29). Talbert-Hersi (1993) suggested that many of the disparities and inequities that women in higher education administration face on the job provoke unbearable stress that creates an attitude of dissatisfaction toward the workplace. Talbert-Hersi (1993) explained that though there is a presence of women in higher education, the consequences of being a woman in the academy, especially in administration, may be high. Fraser and Hodge (2000) contended that a work environment that fosters the belief that women are inferior is the direct result of why women face challenges and barriers when seeking promotions. Leadership in higher education has been a male-driven profession for decades (Opp & Gosetti, 2002; Jaffe, 1973). Weber, Feldman and Poling (1981) suggested that men are the gatekeepers to the profession of educational administration. ?Women in higher education administration often experience the academy differently than their male counterparts; these women historically have been denied access, opportunity, and inclusion? (Hinton, 2001, p. 1). ?Women do not have equal status with men in academe?? (Jaffe, 1973, p. 16). They clearly face a challenge if they aspire to move from the classroom into administration (Weber, Feldman & Poling, 1981). According to 45 a report by Twombly and Rosser (2002), ?In 1997, women held 69,432 (46%) of the 151,363 total executive, administrative, and managerial positions?? (p. 461). Eddy (2002) stated that women represent only 20% of the president population found in institutions of higher education. In addition, only 2 percent of these resided over major research universities. The other 18% are presidents of ?less prestigious community colleges, independent colleges, women?s colleges, and comprehensive colleges? (Eddy, 2002, p. 500). Despite decades of efforts on the part of the nation?s postsecondary institutions, women still face special problems navigating their careers in academe (Singh, Robinson, & Williams-Green, 1996). ?Scholars have examined various sources of inequity in faculty and administrative employment, although more attention has focused on faculty than administrators? (Perna, Gerald, Baum & Milem, 2007, p. 196). Opp and Gosetti (2002) suggested that the underrepresentation of women in higher education leadership roles has been a focus of study since Title IX brought the issue of gender to the forefront of higher education in 1972. During the nearly three decades following the enactment of this ground-breaking legislation, the number of male administrators in higher education increased by ten percent, while the number of female administrators increased by 147% (National Education Association, 1998). According to Opp and Gosetti (2002), there is still a gap between the number of women and men administrators in 1995. Weber, Feldman and Poling (1981) contended that this is because society has been conditioned to believe that women are not as capable as men of holding leadership positions. In addition, Weber, Feldman and Poling (1981) believed that ?Not only do men dominate education in terms of administrative positions held and dollars earned?, but they also dominated the decision-making processes, which may 46 discourage women from entering the administrative ranks? (p. 321). Archer (2003) agreed that this is also due to bias in the employment search process, male-dominated professional networks and the frequent clashes between women?s roles at home and work. Early research focused on women in senior-level positions such as deans and presidents of women?s colleges. ?Recent research has examined women administrators in lower administrative positions or in positions typically associated with women?s work and roles (e.g. nursing, home economics, support roles, and student affairs)? (Hinton, 2001, p. 1). According to Weber, Feldman, and Poling (2003), some studies suggested that societal beliefs that women are not capable of successfully holding and sustaining the same leadership position as men is the reason for many women occupying only lower- level administration jobs. Ryder (1994) suggested that a lack of a support system is the reason that few women occupy positions in this male-dominated field. Female administrators in both two-year and four-year, private and public institutions were surveyed by Reisser and Zurfluh (1987). In their study, 59 respondents held middle-level or upper-level positions. Reisser and Zurfluh (1987) found that 46 of the female administrator surveyed considered resigning from their positions as a result of external factors such as discomfort with salary and lack of gender equality. Other external factors contributing to dissatisfaction among the majority of the sample included institutional decisions (e.g., resource allocation, personnel matters, policies and practices), decision making processes, and current leadership. Some internal factors according to Reisser and Zurfluh (1987) included stress or burn-out, feelings of isolation and conflicts between personal and professional priorities. Also included in the survey 47 was a section for other factors. ?Comments made under ?Other Factors? included continual institutional turmoil, problems with refueling one?s own energies, perpetual change of job description and responsibilities, boredom, low morale in the institution, harassment, desire for geographical change, and family responsibilities? (Reisser & Zurfluh, 1987, p. 27). VanDerLinden?s (2004) study focused on the professional development and career advancement of community college administrators as it relates to gender. She surveyed 135 (68 men and 67 women) community college administrators in the State of Michigan. The results suggested that women in community colleges that responded to the survey were disproportionately represented in middle-level administration positions, rather than senior-level positions. According to VanDerLinden (2004) ?as expected based on the literature review, women survey respondents were significantly less likely than the men to hold the titles of president, vice president, and dean? (p. 5). On the other hand a smaller percentage of the women (19%) surveyed compared to men (31%), held a doctorate (EdD or PhD). Tinsley (1985) suggested that women are more likely to be assistants or associates than directors, deans, vice presidents, provosts, or presidents. Most often, women and minorities in administration hold the positions of registrar, librarian, and director of financial aid. ?Women run the programs that deal with women or minorities as a special constituency, such as women?s studies programs, women?s resource centers, and special advising centers? (Tinsley, 1985, p. 6). In addition, women usually hold positions as dean of professional programs in which the primary population is women such as nursing, home economics and social work. Women?s colleges have been found to 48 employ more senior level women administrators in comparison to coeducational institutions. Kuk and Donovan (2004) found that upper-level women administrators are faced with gender battles on a day-to-day basis. They selected ten women administrators at a public, four-year research university. The sample included women from three generations, senior, middle and entry-level administrators from diverse backgrounds. The results suggested that women in each generation felt that they were not supported to the same extent in their roles by faculty, colleagues, and other administrators contrary to that of male colleagues. ?Women at all levels face many stereotypes about their competencies and management styles that are not placed upon their male colleagues? (Kuk & Donovan, 2004, Emergent Themes section, ? 2). In addition, Kuk and Donovan (2004) found that other issues of inequity included salaries in comparison to male colleagues and underrepresentation of women administrators in high-level positions. ?For example, the National Association of Student Personnel Administrators (NASPA) Student Affairs Salary Survey conducted in 2002 reports that women Senior Student Affairs Officers (SSAO) earn approximately 93 cents for every dollar their male SSAO colleagues earn? (as cited in Kuk & Donovan, 2004). Ethnicity Some researchers would argue that the social and human relations aspects of the job have an impact on job satisfaction (Fraser & Hodge, 2000; Volkwein & Zhou, 2003). Vroom (1964) suggested that such things like supervision, work relationships, promotional opportunities, and recognition impact job satisfaction. ?The organizational literature generally leads us to expect that an array of campus and environmental 49 characteristics exert significant influences on the workplace? (Volkwein & Zhou, 2003, p. 152). Volkwein, Malik, and Napierski-Pranel (1998) believed that there is a connection between all measures of administrative satisfaction and the human relations aspects of the direct work surroundings. This connection indicates such things like race discrimination would impact job satisfaction as well. According to Madden (2005), ethnic minority women are affected most strongly in this area. For example, women of color have been marginalized in terms of leadership positions in higher education because of race and gender (Smith, 1982). ?The so-called ?double whammy? of sexual and racial discrimination has been cited in numerous studies as a formidable deterrent which especially prevents Black women from benefitting from informal networks in which social relationships could possibly generate career benefits? (Smith, 1982, p. 319). Women saw affirmative action as additional help to promote the small gains made since the passage of the 1964 Civil Rights Act. ?Affirmative action [was] the nation's most ambitious attempt to redress its long history of racial and sexual discrimination? (Froomkin, 1998, ? 1). The sole purpose of Affirmative Action was to level the playing field in employment and education and provide equal opportunities for promotions, salary increases, and career advancement for women and minorities. Many African-American women felt that their hopes were shattered when white women where included as part of the minority group (Mosley, 1980). This meant that African-American women not only have to compete with white and African-American men for jobs but white women as well. Studies have addressed the struggles endured by women as a whole in higher education administration but very few studies have focused on the characteristics, needs, struggles, and job satisfaction of African-American women in the field. 50 Singh, Robinson, and Williams-Green (1996), surveyed 413 members of the Virginia Black Faculty and Administrators Association to investigate gender differences in regards to promotion, tenure, institutional climate and professional life. There was a statistically significant difference in the number of tenure positions held by African- American men than women. In this study, more women were employed on a year to year basis than men who were more likely tenured. According to Singh, Robinson, and Williams-Green (1996), 70.8% of the men surveyed held higher ranks than the women participants. Stewart (2002) believed this confirms the belief that such things like ??the club of Historically Black Colleges and Universities (HBCUs) Black male presidents will remain intact, because of the historical view of African-American women as ?the workers but not the leaders? ? (p. 26). In an early study, Mosley (1980) addressed the needs and struggles of African- American women in higher education administration. Mosley (1980) surveyed 120 African-American women administrators to determine their opinions and attitudes on general issues affecting higher education and barriers and pressures disturbing them. The research suggested that the participants felt overworked, underpaid, alienated, isolated, uncertain and powerless. In addition, Mosley?s (1980) study revealed that the participants felt a lack of support, desertion, and isolation from African-American male peers. Kolodny (2000), for instance, suggested that only when women attain policy- making administrative roles in higher education will there be substantive changes sensitive to women?s concerns. Patitu and Hinton (2003) stated that their search of databases for information on African-American women administrators in higher education revealed a dearth of 51 research on the topic. ?This paucity of literature and research reflects the scarcity of African Americans in academic affairs, student affairs, and other administrative positions? (Patitu & Hinton, 2003). Patitu and Hinton (2003) combined research from two separate studies and focused on issues that affect African-American women administrators and faculty in terms of salary, affirmative action, racism, sexism, homophobia and heterosexism, campus climate, feelings of isolation, and tenure and promotion processes. African-American administrators and faculty were interviewed and surveyed. The results of the study suggested that the participants in these studies ?. . . have been devalued, excluded, marginalized or mistreated because of who they are? (Patitu & Hinton, 2003). According to Patitu and Hinton (2003), the participants in the studies stated that expectations are higher for them than for white or male colleagues. Anderson, Guido-DiBrito, and Morrell (2000) stated that satisfaction with the job was higher for men than women. Fraser and Hodge (2000) suggested that social and human relations aspects of the job effect job satisfaction. For example, Patitu and Hinton (2003) found that African-American women are mostly affected by race, class, and gender as it relates to systems of oppression. In addition, two African-American women surveyed in Hinton?s (2001) study stated that they experienced other oppressions, such as homophobia and heterosexism. ?Higher education administrators who identify as women of color and/or lesbians frequently experience the intersection of discrimination based on their gender as well as their race and/or sexual orientation? (as cited in Kuk & Donovan, 2004, p. 1). Patitu and Hinton (2003) suggested that the humiliation these women face 52 illustrates the level of disrespect that lesbians might expect, especially if combined with race and gender prejudices. A study done by Opp and Gosetti (2002) focused on the trend and predictive analyses that examined the changes in the proportional representation of women administrators by race from 1991 to 1997 in a sample of 1,030 matched 2-year colleges. The results suggest that modest growth occurred in the proportional representation of African-American women administrators overall, and at all types of institutions except Historically Black Colleges and Universities (HBCUs), large-size colleges, rural colleges, Great Lakes colleges, and Rocky Mountain colleges where decreases occurred. Opp and Gosetti (2002) stated that white women administrators experienced the largest increase in proportional representation in comparison to women administrators of color. In addition, African-American women were more likely to hold administrative position at Hispanic serving institutions (HSI). Opp and Gosetti (2002) found that the number of women administrators of color has increased at two-year colleges but has not been uniform across all types of institutions. American-Indian and Asian-American women administrators both experienced the greatest increase in proportional representation in the Far West. ?Hispanic-women administrators experienced their greatest increase in proportional representation at HSIs? (Opp & Gosetti, 2002, p. 600). The results of this study suggested that despite the growth in the number of women in administrator positions in higher education, the treatment of women in the workplace is not as positive as that of men. In addition to addressing racism and discrimination, some studies focused on the importance of support from peers, mentors and sponsors. For example, Allen, Jacobson 53 and Lomotey (1995), administered thirty-eight questionnaires and eight in-depth interviews to African-American women administrators in western New York State who were either (a) enrolled in administrative certification or doctoral programs in educational administration or (b) working in or applying for an administrative position in that field. The research suggested that these women perceived race as their major obstacle to promotion and that role models, professional mentors and sponsors played an important part in their career development. ?Specifically, this research suggests that a lack of involvement and support by such critical figures has blocked women and members of underrepresented groups from achieving their administrative aspiration? (Allen, Jacobson & Lomotey, 1995). Summary Many researchers have attempted to defined job satisfaction. There are several different theories and models supporting the research of job satisfaction. For decades, job satisfaction has continued to be an important topic for research. Leadership and researchers continue to be concerned with the job satisfaction of employees. Leadership has often attempted to assess job satisfaction by many means whether informally through direct questioning of employees or formally through the use of a survey (Balzer, et al., 2000). In many cases, research related in job satisfaction has been used by employers from all sectors as an attempt to increase productivity. Factors that contribute to job satisfaction and job dissatisfaction have varied greatly among researchers. Some researchers have focused on very specific factors while others have focused on intrinsic and extrinsic factors. There have been reports that suggest pay, opportunities for promotion, and relationships on the job directly impact job 54 satisfaction. On the contrary, there have been reports that suggest organizational climate and structure directly effect job satisfaction. Volkwein, et al. (1998) believed that there is a relationship between administrator job satisfaction and the human relations aspects of the work climate. This could suggest that such things as gender and race discrimination, unequal pay, and security in the workplace all directly impact job satisfaction. In addition, attempt to explain the low representation of women in higher education administration, and their low levels of job satisfaction in comparison to men. Evaluating the overall job satisfaction of employees can be very useful for employers. Job satisfaction research can help employers identify changes in satisfaction and help develop appropriate and effective solutions to address employee dissatisfaction. 55 CHAPTER III METHOD OF STUDY AND INSTRUMENTATION Chapter I provided an introduction and theoretical framework for this study, statement of the research problem, purpose of the study, research questions, hypotheses, definition of terms, significance, limitations and assumptions of the study. The purpose of this study was to investigate job satisfaction of men and women administrators in higher education in four-year public institutions in Alabama. For the purpose of this study, administrator is defined as those individuals currently employed in educational administrative positions at public four-year college or university within the State of Alabama. These individuals are currently employed in positions as Provost, Assistant or Associate Provost, Dean, Assistant or Associate Dean, or Department Head or Chair. Chapter II presented a review of related literature relevant to job satisfaction of administrators in higher education and its linkage with pay, opportunity for promotion, supervision and work environment. Chapter III discusses the design of the study, sources of data, profiles of institutions used in this study, data collection procedures, privacy and confidentiality of administrator data collected, instrumentation, and method of procedure. Design of Study This was a survey research study to identify the overall job satisfaction of administrators in higher education in the four-year public institutions in Alabama. The dependent variables were components of job satisfaction, work climate and job structure 56 as measured by the Job Descriptive Index (JDI) and the Job in General (JIG) surveys. The independent variable was gender. Sources of Data Institutions of higher education (colleges and universities) in the state of Alabama include 14 four-year public universities, 26 two-year community colleges, and 17 private, undergraduate and graduate universities (Alabama Commission on Higher Education, n.d.). The Alabama Commission on Higher Education oversees public institutions of post-secondary education. The population for this study was 570 individuals currently employed in administrative educational positions at four of the 14 public four-year institutions within the State of Alabama. Administrative educational positions refer to individuals primarily in nonteaching positions whose work involves translation of general policy into specific workable procedures, decision-making, supervision of staff, and general management functions. The administrators used in this study are from the following four-year public institutions in the State of Alabama: Auburn University, Auburn University Montgomery, University of Alabama Huntsville, and University of South Alabama. The researcher obtained permission from each of the four institutions selected to conduct this study. Administrators currently employed in positions at the selected institutions as Provost, Assistant or Associate Provost, Dean, Assistant or Associate Dean, or Department Head or Chair were identified from a current list of administrators provided by the website of each institution. The researcher compiled the e-mail addresses of all administrators fitting the profile into a Microsoft Excel spreadsheet. Once potential participants were identified, each administrator fitting the profile was contacted electronically requesting 57 their participation. The data for this study yielded 36 Department Heads or Chairs, 16 Assistant or Associate Deans, three Deans, and one Assistant or Associate Provost. The total number of educational administrators in the data set was 56. The response rate was 26.4%. Profiles of Institutions Used in this Study Auburn University The main campus of Auburn University is located in Auburn, Alabama. The city of Auburn is located in Lee County, Alabama, in the eastern part of the state. Auburn University is about 60 miles northeast of Montgomery, Alabama where its satellite campus, Auburn University Montgomery, is located. Auburn University was established in 1856 as the East Alabama Male College just 20 years after the founding of the city of Auburn. The institution at the time was maintained by the Methodist Episcopal Church South. In 1872 Auburn University became the first public land-grant institution in the State of Alabama and it was renamed the Agricultural and Mechanical College of Alabama (Auburn University, 2009). Later in 1892, the first women were admitted and the first football team was organized. The institution continued to expand and with this came a new name of the institution in 1899, to the Alabama Polytechnic Institute (Auburn University, 2009). ?Expansion continued, and in 1960 the name of the school was changed to Auburn University, a title more in keeping with its location, and expressing the varied academic programs and larger curriculum of a major university? (Retrieved from http://www.ocm.auburn.edu/welcome/aboutauburn.html, 2009). Auburn University's mission is defined by its land-grant traditions of service and access. The University will serve the citizens of the State through its 58 instructional, research and outreach programs and prepare Alabamians to respond successfully to the challenges of a global economy. The University will provide traditional and non-traditional students broad access to the institution's educational resources. In the delivery of educational programs on campus and beyond, the University will draw heavily upon the new instructional and outreach technologies available in the emerging information age (Retrieved from http://www.ocm.auburn.edu/welcome/visionandmission.html, 2009). Currently, Auburn University is one of the largest universities in the state, enrolling 24,530 students in the fall of 2008. It offers undergraduate, graduate, and professional degrees in 13 schools and colleges. It continues to be ranked highly in academics and has been one of the top 50 public universities for 15 years (Auburn University, 2009). Auburn University is known for more than just academic excellence, but for its economic impact on the state of Alabama. ?A recent study determined AU had nearly a $4 billion economic impact on the state of Alabama, including a $ 1.5 billion impact on the economy and a $ 2.4 billion impact in ?human capital?? (Retrieved from http://www.ocm.auburn.edu/welcome/, 2009). Auburn University Montgomery Auburn University Montgomery is located in Montgomery, Alabama, the state capital. It is located in the central part of Alabama about 60 miles from the city of Auburn, Alabama. Auburn University Montgomery was established by an act of the Alabama Legislature, the Montgomery College Bill, in 1967 (Auburn University Montgomery, 2009). Its original location was the University of Alabama Center in Montgomery, downtown Bell Street. It officially opened on September 16, 1969, using 59 the same programs and teachers used by the University of Alabama. Then in the fall of 1971, the official campus (today?s present site) of AUM opened ??replacing the makeshift, partitioned one-room facility on Bell Street? (Retrieved from http://www.aum.edu/uploadedFiles/Student_Life/Campus_Life/AUMANAC_Update(1). pdf, 2009). Auburn University at Montgomery?s mission, as an extension of Auburn University, is to promote and embody quality in education through instruction, research, and service. ?Auburn University at Montgomery blends the traditional views of the university as a community of scholars with the contemporary view of the university as an integral part of the surrounding community, state, and region? (Retrieved from http://www.aum.edu/indexm_ektid8192.aspx, 2009). Auburn University Montgomery offers bachelors?, masters? and specialist degrees in business, education, liberal arts, nursing, and science. In addition, Auburn University offers three doctorate programs in partnership with the main campus, Auburn University (Auburn University, 2009). Auburn University?s current enrollment is near 5,000 (Auburn University, 2009). It continues to serve the needs of both the traditional and nontraditional student. University of Alabama in Huntsville The University of Alabama in Huntsville (UAH) is located in Madison County, Alabama. It is located in the largest city in northern Alabama. The University of Alabama in Huntsville was established in 1950 as the Huntsville Center, just one of the branches of the University of Alabama in Tuscaloosa. It began to offer Master?s level degrees in 1963 and baccalaureate level in 1964. Since the beginning of its 60 establishment, UAH?s ??roots were planted firmly in the space program? (Retrieved from http://www.uah.edu/News/history.php, 2009). ?The University of Alabama in Huntsville, a research-intensive university, is committed to rigorous scholarship, innovative education, technological research, cultural growth and entrepreneurial creativity in order to enrich our global community? (Retrieved from http://www.uah.edu/president/mission.php, 2009). UAH is one of the three members of the University of Alabama System. The University offers 59 academic and professional majors through the colleges of Liberal Arts, Administrative Science, Engineering, Science, Nursing, and Graduate Studies (University of Alabama in Huntsville, 2009). It is recognized for its astrophysics and atomospheric science programs. Currently, the University of Alabama Huntsville (UAH) has approximately 7,000 students enrolled (University of Alabama in Huntsville, 2009). University of South Alabama The University of South Alabama is located on the upper Gulf Coast of Alabama in Mobile County. The University of South Alabama is located in Mobile, the oldest and second largest city in the State of Alabama. The University of South Alabama was created by the Alabama State Legislature in May 1963. It was the first institution in the state that was created in which race was not used as a factor for enrollment. The university officially opened its doors in June 1964. The University of South Alabama became a member of the Southern Association of Colleges and Schools in 1968. In addition, the university has programs accredited by 14 different organizations (University of South Alabama, 2009). 61 ?The mission of the University of South Alabama is to offer high-quality programs of teaching, research, public service, and health care that create, communicate, preserve, and apply knowledge in service to the people of Alabama as citizens in a global community? (Retrieved from http://www.southalabama.edu/goalsandobjectives.pdf, 2009). The University of South Alabama offers undergraduate and graduate degrees in nine colleges and schools. In addition, it offers doctoral level degrees in the areas of Medicine, Marine Science, and Psychology. The University of South Alabama has the state of Alabama?s second state-supported medical school. In 2007, the University of South Alabama had an approximate enrollment of 14,000 and had awarded over 62,000 degrees (University of South Alabama, 2009). Figure 1 depicts the locations of the institutions used for this study. 62 Figure 1. Map showing geographical locations of the four-year public institutions used in this study. Note: Map retrieved from http://z.about.com/d/geography/1/0/7/J/al.jpg. The researcher developed points and legend. Data Collection Procedures The researcher electronically contacted each administrator listed on the Microsoft Excel spreadsheet explaining the purpose of the study, a request for their participation, assurance that their involvement would be anonymous, and the link to the survey. The surveys were formatted for Internet delivery and hosted through SurveyMonkey.com, ??a web-based software used for creating, administering, and viewing results of online surveys? (Steinberg, 2007, Abstract), using demographic questions, the Job Descriptive 63 Index (JDI) and the Job in General (JIG) job satisfaction scales. In the following paragraphs are the basic steps the researcher carried out in using SurveyMonkey. The researcher activated an account with SurveyMonkey by creating a username and password. This created a basic account (free account). For this study, the researcher upgraded from the Basic to the Professional subscription. This allowed the researcher access to the premium features for a quarterly fee. The premium features used by the researcher are described in the following paragraph. The ?No Limits? and ?Types of questions? features provided the researcher with the ability to add an unlimited number of questions with the option to choose from 15 different question formats (i.e., such as multiple-choice, rating scales, textboxes, demographic information and comment/essay box to add to the survey). The researcher was allowed to log-in and view live results as they were recorded, find patterns in the data, and create custom reports to include only the questions in which she was interested during the data collection period with the View Results Live, Filter Results, and Custom Reports features. The Create Skip Logic (Conditional Logic) and Custom Redirect features allowed the researcher to set the path a respondent takes through the survey and redirect them to a page created by the researcher upon completion of the survey. The researcher created an appreciate page for all the participants to see upon completing the survey. Participants were not allowed to skip questions in the survey due to the ?Require Answers? feature; the researcher selected which questions required a response from participants. The Randomize Answer Choices feature randomized answer choices to eliminate ?order bias?. The Add a Logo and Create Custom Themes features allowed the researcher to be creative by creating her own logo and customizing things such as fonts, 64 sizes, and colors for the survey. Finally, the researcher was able to download the data in Microsoft Excel spreadsheet and PDF with the Download Results and Create PDF after the survey cutoff for further analysis (SurveyMonkey, 2008). The researcher designed the survey by naming the survey and adding the demographic, JDI and JIG items. In this step the researcher designed the survey that was retrieved and completed by the participants. A Web Link collector was selected, which allowed the researcher to collect anonymous responses on SurveyMonkey. This Web Link collector generated a link that the participants could use to access the survey. In addition, with the professional subscription, the researcher was able to set restrictions with the Web Link collector. The researcher set a cutoff date and time for the survey link which stopped the response collection. Once the cutoff date had been met no participants could access the survey link. Finally, the researcher contacted each potential participant by electronic mail providing them with the purpose of the study, a request for their participation, the SurveyMonkey generated link to access the on-line survey, and instructions on how to retrieve and complete it. The participants were asked to respond to eight demographic items, 72 items from the JDI, and 18 items from the JIG. The responses to the demographic items were in multiple choice formats. Participants responded by marking a ?Y? (yes), ?N? (no), or ??? (cannot decide) to each item on the JDI and JIG (Balzer et al., 2000). The researcher contacted each potential participant electronically requesting their participation in the study on February 16, 2009. The participants were asked to complete the survey by March 3, 2009. 65 On February 23, 2009 only 19 participants had completed the survey, as a result, a reminder e-mail extending the deadline to March 7, 2005 was sent to all potential participants. By February 27, 2009 an additional 26 participants had completed the survey. The final reminder was e-mailed two days before the cutoff date of the survey, March 7, 2009. Only 56 completed surveys were received by the cutoff date of March 7 2009, which yield a response rate of 26.4%. A copy of the letter requesting permission to collect data from all participants is included in Appendix F. Privacy and Confidentiality of Administrator Data Collected Proper steps were taken to ensure the privacy and confidentiality of the data collected. Permission was obtained by the researcher from the Institutional Review Board (IRB) at Auburn University to conduct the study. In addition, as required by Auburn University, IRB approval was obtained from each institution selected to participate in this study. A copy of the IRB approval letters from each institution is included in the Appendices. Data were recorded on an electronic database via SurveyMonkey.com. Only the researcher had access to the data as the database is username and password protected. Data obtained in connection with this study were reported in the aggregate and remained anonymous. Instrumentation The Job Descriptive Index (JDI) and the Job in General (JIG), surveys developed at Bowling Green State University, were used for this study (Balzer et al., 2000). The JDI and the JIG scales were designed to meet the following six characteristics: 66 Characteristic 1: Includes the principal aspects of job satisfaction The JDI measures five principal facets: work itself, pay, promotion, supervision, and people with whom you work on your present job. The JIG addresses workers? general feelings towards their jobs (Balzer et al., 2000). Characteristic 2: Easy to administer and complete JDI has 72 items and the JIG has 18 items. ?Employees respond by marking a ?Y? (yes), ?N? (no), or ??? (cannot decide) to each item? (Balzer et al., 2000, p. 12). There is minimal reading and it can be completed by anyone reading on a third grade level (Balzer et al., 2000). Characteristic 3: Easy to score and interpret The JDI and JIG can quickly be scored using hand scoring keys or computer scoring programs. Norms for both scales are available for comparing with similar groups in other organizations (Balzer et al., 2000). Characteristic 4: Apply to all jobs in all organizations The JDI and JIG have been widely used for a variety of jobs for diverse groups and organization. In addition, the scales have been translated into several different languages (Balzer et al., 2000). Characteristic 5: Measuring what should be measured and consistently There has been substantial evidence that reflects if there are no major changes in the work situation, the JDI scores remain the same over time. In addition, when major changes take place in the work situation, both JDI and JIG scores reflect the changes (Balzer et al., 2000). 67 Characteristic 6: Valuable for identifying problems, choosing solutions, and evaluating The JDI can help identify problem areas in organizations and can show all changes in the workplace (Balzer et al., 2000). ?They are easily administered and scored and provide useful information on important areas of satisfaction for diagnosing and evaluating organizations? (Balzer et al., 2000, p. 13). The JDI five facet scales are described in the following paragraphs. Satisfaction with Work. This facet focuses on the employee?s satisfaction with the actual work. For example, ??opportunities for creativity and task variety, allowing an individual to increase his or her knowledge, and changes in responsibility, amount of work, autonomy, job enrichment, and job complexity? (Balzer et al., 2000, p. 36-37). Satisfaction with Pay. This facet focuses on the employee?s attitude towards pay (satisfaction actual pay and expected pay). Expected pay takes into account whether the salaries are similar in comparison to other employees with similar jobs, and qualifications. In addition, this facet can be influence by the employee?s personal financial situation, the economy and prior salaries (Balzer et al., 2000). Satisfaction with Promotions. This facet addresses the employee?s satisfaction with the employer?s promotion policy and how it is administrated. This tends to also depend on the employee?s perception of the frequency of promotions, the importance of promotions, and the desirability of promotions (Balzer et al., 2000). Satisfaction with Supervision. ?The supervision facet reflects an employee?s satisfaction with his or her supervisor(s)? (Balzer et al., 2000, p. 36). This depends on how personable the supervisor is such as praising good performance, taking personal interest 68 in employees, providing feedback and listening to subordinates? opinions (Balzer et al., 2000). Satisfaction with People on the Present Job. The facet is often referred to as Satisfaction with Co-workers on the Present Job. This section assesses the level of satisfaction an employee has with his or her fellow co-workers. For example, how well they interact with co-workers (Balzer et al., 2000). The JDI helps identify the strong and weak points in the principal areas of job satisfaction but does not do so for overall satisfaction. ?The frame of reference for answering facet scales (such as the JDI) seems to be primarily short-term, while the frame of reference for the JIG scale may be long-term (Balzer et al., 2000, p. 44). The JIG was constructed to reveal the overall, long-term assessment of the job. The JIG consist of the following items: pleasant, bad, ideal, waste of time, good, undesirable, worthwhile, worse than most, acceptable, superior, better than most, disagreeable, makes me content, inadequate, excellent, rotten, enjoyable, and poor (Balzer et al., 2000). Validity and reliability requirements were established for the JDI and JIG. The validation process for the JDI started in 1959 and lasted five years with four different studies. The results of these four studies demonstrated similarities (Smith, Smith, & Rollo, 1974). ?The internal reliability estimates for each subscale of the 1997 JDI and the JIG were calculated from the approximately 1600 cases of the national norm data? (Balzer et al., 2000, p. 43). ?A random sampling procedure, stratified by state population, was used to obtain a representative sample of the U.S. work force in the spring and summer of 1996? (Balzer et al., 2000, p. 40). The internal reliability for the 1997 JDI, using Cronbach?s alpha, for each subscale is as follows: work (0.90), Pay 69 (0.86), Opportunities for promotion (0.87), supervision (0.91), Co-workers (0.91), and the convergent validity is 0.49 to 0.70 (Balzer, et al., 2000; Saane, Sluiter, Verbeek & Frings- Dresen, 2003). Internal reliability for the JIG, using Cronbach?s alpha, is 0.92 and the convergent validity is 0.66 to 0.80. (Balzer, et al., 2000). The researcher developed items to collect demographic information on race, age, marital status, education level, salary, and job title. There were seven sections on the survey: (1) demographic, (2) work on present job, (3) pay, (4) opportunities for promotion, (5) supervision, (6) people on your present job, and (7) job in general with a combined total of 98 items. Descriptive data such as means, percents, and frequencies were calculated. In sections two through seven, the JDI and JIG, had ?Y? (yes), ?N? (no), or ??? (cannot decide) questions that were scored on as 0, 1, 3 or 6. A response of ?0? meant ?no?, a response ?1? meant ?undecided?, a response of ?3? meant ?yes?. The researcher obtained permission from the Department of Psychology at Bowling Green State University to conduct this study using the JDI and JIG surveys. A copy of the e-mail granting the researcher permission to use the JDI and JIG surveys is included in Appendix E. Method of Procedure Descriptive data such as percents and frequencies were calculated from the demographic section of the instrument. A one-sample t test was used to test the first null hypothesis. The first null hypothesis was that the population mean is equal to 27. Twenty- seven is the published neutral point on the JDI and JIG, for (a) present job duties, (b) pay, (c) opportunities for promotion, (d) supervision, (e) people with whom they work, and (f) 70 the job in general. The neutral point of 27, was set by the developers of the JIG and JDI scales. A one-way analysis of variance (ANOVA) statistical procedure was used to test the second null hypothesis. The second null hypothesis was that there is no statistically significant difference in overall job satisfaction between male and female administrators in higher education institutions in Alabama. The third null hypothesis was that there is no statistically significant difference in job satisfaction (work climate) between male and female administrators in higher education institutions in Alabama. A one-way analysis of variance (ANOVA) statistical procedure was used to test the third null hypothesis. The fourth null hypothesis was there is no statistically significant difference in job satisfaction (job structure) between male and female administrators in higher education institutions in Alabama. A one-way analysis of variance (ANOVA) procedure was also used to test the fourth null hypothesis. The on-line survey was closed to participants after the deadline set by the researcher. The data collected were downloaded from the on-line survey in the SurveyMonkey account into a Microsoft Excel spreadsheet, coded, and entered into a spreadsheet for statistical analysis in Statistical Package for the Social Sciences (SPSS), release 17.0. The original data from the on-line survey were continually maintained throughout the study at SurveyMonkey.com. This information could not be traced to any of the participants. Summary This chapter discussed the methodology used in this study. The sources of data, data collection procedures, profiles of the institutions, privacy and confidentiality of 71 administrator data collected, instrumentation, and method of procedure used in this study were presented. The data analysis and results of the study are presented in Chapter IV. 72 CHAPTER IV DATA ANALYSIS AND RESULTS Chapter I provided an introduction and theoretical framework for this study, statement of the research problem, purpose of the study, research questions, hypotheses, definition of terms, significance, limitations and assumptions of the study. The purpose of this study was to investigate the job satisfaction of men and women administrators in higher education in four-year public institutions in Alabama. For the purpose of this study, administrator is defined as those individuals currently employed in educational administrative positions at public four-year colleges or universities within the state of Alabama. These individuals are currently employed in positions as Provost, Assistant or Associate Provost, Dean, Assistant or Associate Dean, or Department Head or Chair. Chapter II presented a review of related literature relevant to job satisfaction of administrators in higher education and its linkage with pay, opportunity for promotion, supervision and work environment. Chapter III discussed the design of the study, sources of data, profiles of institutions used in this study, data collection procedures, privacy and confidentiality of administrator data collected, instrumentation, and method of procedure. Chapter IV focuses on the results of the data analysis. Data Analysis Descriptive data such as frequencies and percents were summarized for gender, ethnicity, age, marital status, education level, salary, and job title. This information was used to answer research question one. Research question two was answered by testing 73 the null hypothesis using a one-sample t test. Research questions three, four, and five were answered by testing the null hypotheses using a one-way analysis of variance (ANOVA) statistical procedure. Results of Research Question One The first research question was: What are the demographic characteristics of administrators in higher education in the four-year public institutions in Alabama? Demographic Characteristics for All Administrators Demographic characteristics for all administrators used in this study were summarized in terms of gender, ethnicity, age, marital status, education level, years of administrator experience, job title, and current salary. The total number of administrators used in this study was 56. The majority of the administrators in the sample were male (66.1%), and white (89.1%). Thirty-nine percent of the sample was 60 years of age or older and 85.7% was married. The highest degree held by the sample was the doctorate (98.2%). The majority of the sample were department heads or chairs and had 4 ? 6 years of administrative experience. Seventy-nine percent of the sample reported earning a salary of $100,000 or more. Table 1 shows the frequencies and percents of the demographic information for all administrators. 74 Table 1 Frequencies and Percents of Administrators? Demographic Information (table contiues) Variable Frequency Percent Gender Female 19 33.9 Male 37 66.1 Ethnicity African American/Black 1 1.8 Asian/Asian American 1 1.8 Hispanic/Latino 3 5.5 Native American/American Indian 0 0.0 White/Caucasian 49 89.1 Other 1 1.8 Age 30 or under 0 0.0 31 to 39 0 0.0 40 to 49 11 19.6 50 to 59 26 46.4 60 or older 19 33.9 75 Table 1 (continues) Variable Frequency Percent Marital Status Single, never married 4 7.1 Married 48 85.7 Separated 1 1.8 Divorced 3 5.4 Widowed 0 0.0 Highest Education Level Bachelor 0 0.0 Masters 1 1.8 Education Specialist 0 0.0 Doctorate 54 98.2 Administrator Experience 3 years or less 5 8.9 4 to 6 years 19 33.9 7 to 11 years 12 21.4 12 to 15 years 6 10.7 16 years or more 14 25.0 (table continues) 76 Table 1 (continues) Variable Frequency Percent Job Title Department Head/Chair 36 64.3 Assistant/Associate Dean 16 28.6 Dean 3 5.4 Assistant/Associate Provost 1 1.8 Provost 0 0.0 Salary $40,000 to 59,999 0 0.0 $60,000 to 74,999 3 5.4 $75,000 to 99,999 8 14.3 $100,000 or more 45 80.4 Results for Research Question Two The second research question was: To what extent are administrators in higher education institutions satisfied with their jobs in terms of (a) their present job duties, (b) pay, (c) opportunities for promotion, (d) supervision, (e) people with whom they work, and (f) the job in general? The following null hypothesis was formulated to answer the second research question: Ho 1 : The mean of administrator is equal to 27 which is the published neutral point on the JDI and JIG scales for (a) present job duties, (b) pay, (c) opportunities for promotion, (d) supervision, (e) people with whom they work, and (f) the job in general. 77 A one-sample t test was performed to test the null hypothesis that the population mean is equal to 27 for (a) present job duties, (b) pay, (c) opportunities for promotion, (d) supervision, (e) people with whom they work, and (f) the job in general. The neutral point of 27 was the point on the scales identified by the scales developers as being neither satisfied nor dissatisfied. The mean values for (a) present job duties, (b) pay, (c) opportunities for promotion, and (d) supervision all exceeded the test value of 27, indicating that on these variables administrator job satisfaction is greater than the neutral point of 27. The neutral point of 27 was derived from the possible range of scores (0-54) on each of the scales. However, for the variables people with whom they work, and job in general, the administrators expressed less than favorable satisfaction. For the variables people with whom they work and the job in general, mean values were 25.73 and 20.96 respectively. Following are the results of the first null hypothesis. Results of Ho 1 (a) showed that the sample mean of 43.75 for the present job duties variable (SD = 7.80) was statistically different from 27, t (54) = 15.92, p < .01. Therefore, the null hypothesis that the population mean was equal to 27 was rejected at the .05 level. The 95% confidence interval for the difference of the means for the present job duties variable ranged from 14.64 to 18.85. Cohen?s d effect size statistic was 2.1, which indicates a very large effect. The results support the conclusion that administrator job satisfaction was positive in terms of their present job duties. Results of Ho 1 (b) showed that the sample mean of 80.04 for the (b) pay variable (SD = 24.31) was statistically different from 27, t (54) = 16.18, p < .01. Therefore, the null hypothesis which states the population mean was equal to 27 was rejected at the .05 level. 78 The 95% confidence interval for difference in the mean of the pay variable ranged from 46.46 to 59.61. Cohen?s d effect size was 2.2, which indicates a very large effect. The results support the conclusion that administrator job satisfaction was positive in terms of their pay. Results of Ho 1 (c) revealed that the sample mean of 36.30 for the (c) opportunities for promotion variable (SD = 25.58) was statistically different from 27, t (53) = 2.67, p = .01. Therefore, the null hypothesis which states the population mean is equal to 27 was rejected at the .05 level. The 95% confidence interval for the difference in the mean of the opportunities for promotion variable ranged from 2.31 to 16.28. Cohen?s d effect size was .36, which indicates a moderate effect size. The results support the conclusion that administrator job satisfaction was positive in terms of their opportunities for promotion. Results of Ho 1 (d) revealed that the sample mean of 44.75 for the (d) supervision variable (SD = 8.67) was statistically different from 27, t (54) = 14.84, p < .01. Therefore, the null hypothesis which states the population mean is equal to 27 was rejected at the .05 level. The 95% confidence interval for the difference in the mean of the supervision variable ranged from 15.35 to 20.14. Cohen?s d effect size was 2.0, which indicates a very large effect size. The results support the conclusion that administrator job satisfaction was positive in terms of their supervision. Results of Ho 1 (e) showed that the sample mean of 25.73 for the (e) people with whom they work variable (SD = 6.06) was not statistically different from 27, t (54) = - 1.56, p = .13. Therefore, the null hypothesis which states the population mean is equal to 27 was not rejected at the .05 level. The 95% confidence interval for the difference between the means for the people with whom they work variable ranged from -2.91 to 79 .36. Cohen?s d effect size was .21, which indicates a small effect size. The results do not support that administrator job satisfaction was positive in terms of the people with whom they work. In other words, the people with whom they work variable has a slightly negative effect on administrator job satisfaction. Results of Ho 1 (f) revealed that the sample mean of 20.96 for the (f) job in general variable (SD = 6.40) was statistically different from 27, t (54) = -6.99, p < .01. Therefore, the null hypothesis which stated that the population mean is equal to 27 was rejected at the .05 level. The 95% confidence interval for the difference in the mean of the job in general variable ranged from -7.77 to -4.31. Cohen?s d effect size was .94, which indicated a large effect. In other words, the job in general variable had a large negative effect on administrator job satisfaction. This means that the results do not support the conclusion that administrator job satisfaction is positive in terms of their job in general. The descriptive statistics such as mean, standard deviation (SD), median, minimum and maximum score, and range, is presented in Table 2 for each variable. 80 Table 2 Summary of Descriptive Data for each variable Variable Mean SD Median Minimum Score Maximum Score Range Present job duties Female 45.16 8.04 48.00 19 54 35 Males 43.11 7.76 45.00 18 54 36 Pay Female 81.16 24.48 86.00 36 108 72 Male 80.00 24.68 84.00 24 108 84 Opportunities for Promotion Female 27.05 18.14 24.00 0 72 72 Male 41.31 27.79 36.00 4 108 104 Supervision Female 41.16 10.20 45.00 25 54 29 Male 46.43 7.56 48.00 24 54 30 Coworkers Female 25.47 3.45 24.00 21 33 12 Male 25.83 7.20 24.00 9 51 42 Job in General Female 20.95 6.86 21.00 8 30 22 Male 20.97 6.34 22.00 6 30 24 81 Results for Research Question Three The third research question was: What is the overall job satisfaction of male and female administrators in higher education in the four-year public institutions in Alabama? The following null hypothesis was formulated to answer the third research question: Ho 2 : There is no statistically significant difference in overall job satisfaction between male and female administrators in higher education institutions in Alabama. The null hypothesis was tested using the one-way analysis of variance (ANOVA) procedure. The F value for the one-way analysis of variance for overall job satisfaction was F(1, 54) = .00, p = .99. This value was not statistically significant at the .05 level. Therefore, the null hypothesis which state there is no statistically significant difference in overall job satisfaction between male and female administrators was retained. Descriptive data regarding the variable overall job satisfaction such as frequency distributions, mean scores, standard deviation, minimum and maximum scores, are presented in Table 3. Results of the one-way ANOVA for overall job satisfaction are presented in Table 4. Table 3 Descriptive results for Overall Job Satisfaction Variable Female (N = 19) Male (N = 36) Overall Job Satisfaction Mean 20.95 20.97 Standard Deviation (SD) 6.86 6.25 Minimum Score 8 6 (table contiues) 82 Table 3 (continues) Table 4 Results of ANOVA for Overall Job Satisfaction Variable df Sum of Squares Mean Square F p-value Overall Job Satisfaction Between Group 1 .008 .008 .000 .99 Within Group 53 2213.920 41.772 Total 54 2213.927 Results for Research Question Four The fourth research question was: To what extent are there differences in job satisfaction (work climate) of male and female administrators in higher education institutions in Alabama? The following null hypothesis was formulated to answer the third research question: Ho 3 : There is no statistically significant difference in job satisfaction (work climate) of male and female administrators in higher education institutions in Alabama. Variable Female (N =19) Male (N = 36) Maximum Score 30 30 Overall Job Satisfaction 95% Confidence Interval for Mean Lower Bound 17.64 18.86 Upper Bound 24.25 23.09 83 This null hypothesis was devised to ascertain whether or not there were significant differences in mean scores of female and male administrators based on the work climate. The F value for the one-way analysis of variance for work climate of female and male administrators was F (1, 54) = 3.47, p = .07. When we look at the means in Table 5, we see that satisfaction with work climate is higher for males than for females, although not statistically significant at the .05 level. Therefore, the null hypothesis which state there is no statistically significant difference in job satisfaction (work climate) between male and female administrators was retained. Descriptive data regarding the variable work climate such as frequency distributions, mean scores, standard deviation, minimum and maximum scores, are presented in Table 5. Results of the one-way ANOVA for work climate are presented in Table 6. Table 5 Descriptive results for Work climate Variable Female (N = 19) Male (N = 36) Work climate Mean 66.63 72.50 Standard Deviation (SD) 11.53 10.89 Minimum Score 49 48 Maximum Score 84 105 95% Confidence Interval for Mean Lower Bound 17.64 18.86 Upper Bound 24.25 23.09 84 Table 6 Results of ANOVA for Work climate Variable df Sum of Squares Mean Square F p-value Work climate Between Group 1 428.288 428.288 3.47 .07 Within Group 53 6543.421 123.461 Total 54 6971.709 Results for Research Question Five The fifth research question was: To what extent are there differences in job satisfaction (job structure) of male and female administrators in higher education institutions in Alabama? The following null hypothesis was formulated to answer the fifth research question: Ho 4 : There is no statistically significant difference in job satisfaction (job structure) of male and female administrators in higher education institutions in Alabama. This null hypothesis was devised to ascertain whether or not there were significant differences in mean scores of female and male administrators based on the job structure. The F value for the one-way analysis of variance for job structure of female and male administrators was F (1, 53) = .10, p = .32. This value was not statistically significant at the .05 level. Therefore, the null hypothesis which stated there is no statistically significant difference in job satisfaction (job structure) between male and female administrators was retained. Descriptive data regarding the variable job structure such as frequency distributions, mean scores, standard deviation, minimum and 85 maximum scores, are presented in Table 7. Results of the one-way ANOVA are presented in Table 8. Table 7 Descriptive results for Job Structure Variable Female (N = 19) Male (N = 35) Job Structure Mean 153.37 164.43 Standard Deviation (SD) 34.17 41.08 Minimum Score 90 82 Maximum Score 231 270 95% Confidence Interval for Mean Lower Bound 136.90 150.32 Upper Bound 169.84 178.54 Table 8 Results of ANOVA for Job Structure Variable df Sum of Squares Mean Square F p-value Job Structure Between Group 1 1506.433 1506.433 .10 .32 Within Group 52 78380.992 1507.327 Total 53 79887.426 86 Summary This chapter discussed the results of the data analysis. Descriptive data presented in this chapter summarized the demographic characteristics of the administrators used in this study. The majority of the administrators were white males. The chapter also provided the results of the one-way ANOVAs comparing female and male administrators? job satisfaction in terms job structure, work climate and overall satisfaction. The results of the ANOVAs were not statistically significant. A overview of this study, summary of results, limitations, implications, conclusion, recommendations for practical applications, and summary are presented in Chapter V. 87 CHAPTER V SUMMARY AND CONCLUSION Chapter I provided an introduction and theoretical framework for this study, statement of the research problem, purpose of the study, research questions, hypotheses, definition of terms, significance, limitations and assumptions of the study. The purpose of this study was to investigate job satisfaction of men and women administrators in higher education in four-year public institutions in Alabama. For the purpose of this study, administrator is defined as those individuals currently employed in educational administrative positions at public four-year college or university within the state of Alabama. These individuals are currently employed in positions as Provost, Assistant or Associate Provost, Dean, Assistant or Associate Dean, or Department Head or Chair. Chapter II presented a review of related literature relevant to job satisfaction of administrators in higher education and its linkage with pay, opportunity for promotion, supervision and work environment. Chapter III discussed the design of the study, sources of data, profiles of institutions used in this study, data collection procedures, privacy and confidentiality of administrator data collected, instrumentation, and method of procedure. Chapter IV presented the results of the data analysis. This chapter will present an overview of the study, summary of results, limitations, implications, conclusion, recommendations for practical applications, and summary. 88 Overview of the Study Research on job satisfaction has been carried out by various researchers for many decades. As a result, job satisfaction as defined in the literature is a multidimensional concept that is influenced by a variety of personal and situational circumstances. This multidimensional concept is the key in evaluating such things as work climate and structure of administrators in higher education institutions. Administrators are vital to the overall functions of their institutions. On the other hand, there has been little research involving job satisfaction of this important population in institutions of higher education. Most of the research involving job satisfaction in higher education tends to focus more so on faculty and staff. While there has been numerous studies focusing on the job satisfaction of faculty and staff in higher education, it is also important to assess job satisfaction of administrators. The focus of this study was job satisfaction of men and women administrators in higher education in four-year public institutions in Alabama. In this study, the researcher examined whether there was a relationship between gender and overall job satisfaction, work climate and job structure. Administrators who were currently employed in professional education positions such as Provost, Assistant or Associate Provost, Dean, Assistant or Associate Dean, Department Head and Chairperson were used in this study. The demographic characteristics used in this study are as follows: gender, race, age, marital status, education level, years of administrative experience, salary, and job title. The researcher used a convenience sample by selecting four institutions out of 14 for this study. In a spreadsheet, the researcher compiled the e-mail addresses of all administrators in professional education positions from the following institutions: Auburn 89 University, Auburn University Montgomery, University of Alabama at Huntsville, and University of South Alabama (four-year public institutions in Alabama). These four institutions were selected to represent different geographic regions (north, central, south) within the State of Alabama. Each administrator was contacted through electronic mail and sent a letter requesting their participation, information about the study and how to participate. In spring semester 2009, responses were received from 56 male and female administrators employed in professional education positions. The significance of the study has both practical and theoretical applications. In practical terms, understanding the job satisfaction of administrators may identify areas in which university program directors, curriculum planners, practicing educational professionals, and prospective students can better understand the environment in which administrators are prepared and in which they may be employed. In addition, being aware of the demographic characteristics assists institutions in providing insight and information that can be used to improve their own job experience. This study may add to the current body of knowledge on job satisfaction of male and female administrators in institutions of higher education across the country. Summary of Results This study investigated the answers to the following research questions: (1) What are the demographic characteristics of administrators in higher education in the four-year public institutions in Alabama? (2) To what extent are administrators in higher education institutions satisfied with their jobs in terms of (a) their present job duties, (b) pay, (c) opportunities for promotion, (d) supervision, (e) people with whom they work, and (f) the job in general? (3) What is the overall job satisfaction of male and female administrators 90 in higher education in the four-year public institutions in Alabama? (4) To what extent are there differences in job satisfaction (work climate) of male and female administrators in higher education institutions in Alabama? (5) To what extent are there differences in job satisfaction (job structure) of male and female administrators in higher education institutions in Alabama? Question one addressed the demographic characteristics of administrators in higher education in four-year public institutions in Alabama. Frequency and percentage tabulations were computed on the administrator demographic information. Of the 56 administrators 66.1% were males and 33.9% were females. Eighty-nine percent of the administrators were Caucasian and 10.9% were non-Caucasian. Of the 56 administrators 46.4 % were between the age 50-59 and 85.7% were married. The highest education level of the 56 administrators was the doctorate at 98.2%. In terms of years of administrative experience, 33.9% of the administrators had only 4-6 years of experience. In addition, of the 56 administrators 64.3% were department heads/chairs and 80.4% currently have a salary of $100,000 or more. Question two investigated the extent to which administrators in higher education institutions are satisfied with their jobs in terms of (a) their present job duties, (b) pay, (c) opportunities for promotion, (d) supervision, (e) people with whom they work, and (f) the job in general. The following hypothesis was used to address this question: Ho 1 : The population mean is equal to 27 for (a) present job duties, (b) pay, (c) opportunities for promotion, (d) supervision, (e) people with whom they work, and (f) the job in general. 91 Results of the one-sample t test procedure indicated that in terms of their present job duties, pay, opportunities for promotion, and supervision, administrators in higher education institutions are satisfied. The administrators expressed a less than favorable satisfaction level with the people with whom they work and their job in general. Question three focused on the overall job satisfaction of male and female administrators in higher education institutions in Alabama. The following null hypothesis was used to answer this question: Ho 2 : There is no statistically significant difference in overall job satisfaction between male and female administrators in higher education institutions in Alabama. Results of the one-way analysis of variance (ANOVA) procedure showed that there no statistically significant difference in overall job satisfaction between the male and female administrators in this study. Therefore, based on the results of this study, the researcher failed to reject the null hypothesis. The mean scores of the female administrators (20.95) and that of the male administrators (20.97) were very similar. This suggests that the female and male administrators are equally satisfied with their jobs. Question four studied to what extent there are differences in job satisfaction (work climate) of male and female administrators in higher education institutions in Alabama. The following null hypothesis was used to answer this question: Ho 3 : There is no statistically significant difference in job satisfaction (work climate) of male and female administrators in higher education institutions in Alabama. 92 The findings of the one-way analysis of variance procedure indicated that there was no statistically significant difference in job satisfaction (work climate) of the male and female administrators surveyed in this study. Therefore, based on the results of this study, the researcher failed to reject the null hypothesis. The results for the comparison of the means for the female and male administrators for work climate showed that males were more satisfied with their work climate than females. The mean score for males was 72.50 compared to the mean score for females which was 66.63. The p-value for this difference was .07. Therefore, it may be concluded that there was no statistically significant difference, alpha = .05, in job satisfaction between the male and female administrators in this study as it relates to work climate. Question five investigated to what extent there are differences in job satisfaction (job structure) of male and female administrators in higher education institutions in Alabama. The following null hypothesis was formulated to address this question: Ho 4 : There is no statistically significant difference in job satisfaction (job structure) of male and female administrators in higher education institutions in Alabama. A one-way analysis of variance procedure was used to examine this question. The results showed that there was no statistically significant difference in job satisfaction (job structure) of male and female administrators surveyed in this study. Therefore, based on the results of this study, the researcher failed to reject the null hypothesis. It may be concluded that the male and female administrators in this study were equally satisfied with their job structure. 93 Limitations The findings of this research study were base entirely on administrators who were currently employed as educational administrators in public four-year colleges and universities located in the State of Alabama. The results must be interpreted with caution for three primary reasons. First, for the purpose of this study, ?administrator? was defined as an individual mainly in a nonteaching, decision-making, supervising, and general management function. Therefore, there may have been administrators included in this study that did not perform these duties exactly as their title suggested. Second, the population for this study was limited to administrators employed in professional education positions such as Provost, Assistant or Associate Provost, Dean, Assistant or Associate Dean, or Department Head or Chair. Third, the results may not be representative of administrators at other universities since the sample for this study was obtained from only four public universities in southeastern United States. Despite these limitations, this study provides information that may be useful in job satisfaction research, enhance program planning and improvement, and student recruitment and retention. Conclusions To the extent that the data collected in this study were valid and reliable and the assumptions of the study were appropriate and correct, the following conclusions may be made. Based on the results of this study, it may be concluded that there are more Caucasians and males in administrator positions in higher education institutions in the State of Alabama. Specifically, Caucasians represented 89.1% of the administrative sample surveyed. Males represented 66.1% of the sample. Previous research by Kuk and 94 Donovan (2004), Reisser and Zurfluh (1987), and Twombly and Rosser (2002) has also reported that males out number females in senior administrative positions in institutions of higher education. The results of this study also indicated that there is no difference in overall job satisfaction among female and male administrators in higher education institutions in Alabama that participated in this study. When comparing the means of the males (20.97) and females (20.95) the overall level of satisfaction is similar. The means of males and females administrators as it relates to their work climate are slightly different. The results suggested that males are more satisfied with their work climate then that of females. These findings concur with the literature (Fields, 2000; Fraser & Hodge, 2000; Lacy & Barry, 1997; Zurfluh & Reisser, 1990) that males tend to be more satisfied than females with most aspects of their job such as supervision, and people on present job. On the other hand, the satisfaction level in this study was not statistically significantly different between the two groups. At the same time, the results also indicated that the male and female administrators? satisfaction level is not statistically significantly different as it relates to job structure. When comparing the means, the results suggested that the male administrators are more satisfied with the job structure than the female administrators. Theses findings also concur with the literature (Fields, 2000; Fraser & Hodge, 2000; Hagedorn, 1998; Lacy & Barry, 1997) that males are more satisfied than females as it relates to pay, opportunities for promotion, and present duties. Implications The results of this study suggest several implications. First, the results of this study imply that the low representation of women in administration positions in higher 95 education may be that more men apply for and are hired in administrative positions than women. More men may be promoted to administrative positions than women. Overall, men and women administrators in higher educational institutions are satisfied with their jobs. When women are employed in these positions, the work climate appears to be equitable to that of their male counterparts. Therefore, one could assume that women are treated equally by their supervisors and co-workers. In addition, the job structure appears to be equitable for men and women. Furthermore, the results of this study imply that the work on the present job, job duties, pay, and opportunities for promotion are equal for men and women. Recommendations The research for this study focused on the job satisfaction of men and women administrators in higher education in four-year public institutions in Alabama. This study only focused on administrators currently employed in professional education positions such as Provost, Assistant or Associate Provost, Dean, Assistant or Associate Dean, Department Head or Chair. The study was designed so it could be replicated at other higher education institutions regardless of institution type. The demographic variables used were gender, ethnicity, age group, marital status, highest degree held, years of administrative experience, and job title. It might be useful to include gender ratio of peers in the institution, gender of subordinates, gender of supervisor, and years in current position to provide a clearer picture of job satisfaction and the type of environment in which the administrator is employed. In addition, future research could expand the scope of administrators to include presidents as well. This could help determine what populations make up the senior executive positions in higher education institutions. 96 According to Tochton and Davis (1991), and Chamberlain (1991), women administrators are mostly found in the areas of student affairs and library services (as cited in Kuk & Donovan, 2004). This study showed that Caucasian males held more professional education positions than females and other ethnic groups in the four schools surveyed. There are additional opportunities for research that includes all higher education institutions in the state by type which may help shed some light on where the other groups of administrators are located in the state. As higher education becomes more diverse, conducting this study again might reveal a change in the level of job satisfaction of male and female administrators. It is important that higher education administrators and policy makers consider the implications of job satisfaction as the institution becomes more diverse. This study as well as a few others on job satisfaction has revealed the disproportionate numbers of those employed in administrator positions in terms of ethnicity and gender. The literature suggested that satisfied employees create a positive working environment. Therefore, similar studies may be useful in creating and maintaining this type of environment that could have a positive impact on various aspects of job satisfaction. Though the findings in this study suggested that there is no statistically significant difference in job satisfaction between male and female administrators as it relates to work climate and job structure, the difference in the means were notable. This could suggest that efforts need to be made by institutions to encourage women and minorities to enter this traditional Caucasian male dominating field. Recruiting, salary and promotion opportunity structures should be closely examined to ensure equity. Though the institutions used in this study are ultimately interested and active in increasing the low 97 representation of women and minorities in their community, a study to investigate the growth in administrators of underrepresented populations over a period of time and their overall job satisfaction. This area of study might be informative and useful to the policy makers in higher education institutions as they work to improve the perceptions of their work climate and job structures at their institution. Summary The focus of this study was job satisfaction of men and women administrators in higher education in four-year public institutions in Alabama. Administrators in four institutions located in northern, central, and southern Alabama were selected to participate in this study. The results of the study indicated that administrators were satisfied with their present job duties, pay, opportunities for promotion, and supervision. Male and female administrators were equally satisfied with their jobs. In addition, there was no significant difference in job satisfaction among the male and female administrators in this study as it relates to their work climate and job structure. 98 REFERENCES Alabama Commission on Higher Education - ACHE (n.d.). Directory of alabama colleges and universities. Retrieved September 2, 2006 from http://www.ache.alabama.gov/Colleges&Universities/Directory.htm. Allen, K., Jacobson, S., & Lomotey, K. (1995). African american women in educational administration: the importance of mentors and sponsors. Journal of Negro Education, 64(4), 409-423. Anderson, J. E., Guido-DiBrito, F., & Morrel, J. S. (2000). Factors that influence satisfaction for student affairs administrators. New Directions for Institutional Research, 2000(105), 99-110. Archer, J. (2003, March 5). Survey studies barriers to women leaders. Education Week, 22(25), 1-2. Auburn University Official Website (2009). Mission Statement. Retrieved January 4, 2009 from http://www.ocm.auburn.edu/welcome/visionandmission.html. Auburn University Montgomery Official Website (2009). Mission Statement. Retrieved January 4, 2009 from http://www.aum.edu/indexm_ektid8192.aspx. August, L., & Waltman, J. (2004). Culture, climate and contribution: Career satisfaction among female faculty. Researcher in Higher Education, 45(2), 177-192. 99 Balzer, W. K., Kihm, J. A., Smith, P. C., Irwin, J. L., Bachiochi, P. D., Robie, C., et al. (2000). Users? manual for the job descriptive index (JDI; 1997 version) and the job in general scales. In J. M. Stanton and C. D. Crossley (Eds.), Electronic resources for the JDI and JIG. Bowling Green, OH: Bowling Green State University. Beam, R. A. (2006). Organizational goals and priorities and the job satisfaction of u.s. journalists. Journalism & Mass Communication Quarterly, 83(1), 169-185. Benge, E., & Hickey, J. (1984). Morale and motivation: How to measure morale and increase productivity. New York: Franklin Watts. Bergmann, T. J. (1981). Managers and their organizations: An interactive approach to multidimensional job satisfaction. Journal of Occupational Psychology, 54(4), 275-288. Best, M. F., & Thurston, N. E. (2006). Canadian public health nurses job satisfaction. Public Health Nursing, 23(3), 250-255. Brannigan, A., & Zwerman, W. (2001). The real ?hawthorne effect?. Society, 38(2), 55-60. Brief, A. P., & Weiss, H. M. (2002). Organizational behavior: Affect in the workplace. Annual Review of Psychology, 53(1), 279-307. Campbell, S. L., Fowles, E. R., & Weber, B. J. (2004). Organizational structure and job satisfaction in public health nursing. Public Health Nursing, 21(6), 564-571. Carey, A. (1967). The hawthorne studies: A radical criticism. American Sociological Review, 32(3), 403-416. 100 Chieffo, A. (1991). Factors contributing to job satisfaction and organizational commitment of community college leadership teams. Community College Review, 19(2), 15-24. Cortese, C. G. (2007). Job satisfaction of Italian nurses: An exploratory study. Journal of Nursing Management, 15(3), 303-312. Culture. (n.d.). The American Heritage? Dictionary of the English Language, Fourth Edition. Retrieved September 29, 2008, from Dictionary.com website: http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/culture. Duncan, J. C. (2006). Relationship between demographic characteristics and current level of job satisfaction among north carolina state agency rehabilitation counselors. Unpublished Thesis, Auburn University. Eagly, A. H., & Chaiken, S. (1993). The psychology of attitudes. Fort Worth, TX: Harcourt Brace Jovanovich College Publishing. Edwards, B. D., Bell, S. T., Arthur, W. Jr., & Decuir, A. D. (2008). Relationships between facets of job satisfaction and task and contextual performance. Applied Psychology: An International Review, 57(3), 441-465. Eichinger, J. (2000). Job stress and satisfaction among special education teachers: Effects of gender and social role orientation. International Journal of Disability, Development & Education, 47(4), 397-412. Eklund, M., & Hallberg, I. R. (2000). Factors influencing job satisfaction among Swedish occupational therapists in psychiatric care. Scandinavian Journal of Caring Sciences, 14(3), 162-171. 101 Ewen, R. B. (1964). Some determinants of job satisfaction: A study of the generality of herzberg?s two factor theory. Journal of Applied Psychology, 48(3), 161-163. Fields, C. (2000). Faculty survey indicates overall satisfaction, room for improvement. Black Issues in Higher Education, 17(20), 38. Flores, G. N., & Utley, D. R. (2000). Management concepts in use - A 12-year perspective. Engineering Management Journal, 12(3), 11-17. Flowers, L. A. (2005). Job satisfaction differentials among African American faculty at 2-year and 4-year institutions. Community College Journal of Research and Practice, 29(4), 317-328. Fraser, J., & Hodge, M. (2000). Job Satisfaction in higher education: Examining gender in professional work settings. Sociology Inquiry, 70(2), 172-187. Froomkin, D. (1998). Affirmative Action Under Attack. Washington Post Company. Retrieved October 11, 2006, from www.washingtonpost.com/wpsrv/politics/special/affirm/affirm.htm . Fuming, X., & Jiliang, S. (2008). Research on job satisfaction of elementary and high school teachers and strategies to increase job satisfaction. Chinese Education Society, 40(5), 86-96. Gardner, G. (1977). Is there a valid test of herzberg?s two-factor theory? Journal of Occupational Psychology, 50(3), 197-204. Gautschi, P. E. (1989, October 23). Hawthorne studies: A workplace classic. Design News, 45(20), 180. 102 Gredler, M. E. (2005). Lev s. vygotsky?s cultural-historical theory of psychological development. In Learning and instruction: Theory into practice (pp. 304-340). Upper Saddle River, NJ: Merrill-Prentice Hall. Hagedorn, L. S. (1998). Implications to postsecondary faculty of alternative calculation methods of gender-based wage differentials. Research in Higher Education, 39(2), 143-162. Hazer, J. T. (1976). Job satisfaction: A possible integration of two theories. Training and Development Journal, 30(7), 12-14. Hean, S., & Garrett, R. (2001). Sources of job satisfaction in science secondary school teachers in chile. Compare, 31(3), 363-379. Herzberg, F., Mausner, B., & Snyderman, B. (1959). The motivation to work (2 nd ed.). New York: John Wiley & Sons. Hinton, K.G. (2001). ?The experiences of african american women administrators at Predominantly White Institutions of Higher Education.? Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Indiana University. Houston, D., Meyer, L. H., & Paewai, S. (2006). Academic staff workloads and job satisfaction: Expectations and values in academe. Journal of Higher Education Policy and Management, 28(1), 17-30. Huff, J., & Yeoh, T. (2008, October). The effect of attitude strength on the stability of job satisfaction. Paper presented at the 51 st annual meeting of the Midwest Academy of Management, St. Louis, MO. Huitt, W. (2004). Maslow?s hierarchy of needs. Retrieved January 4, 2009, from Valdosta State University, Educational Psychology Interactive Website: 103 http://chiron.valdosta.edu/whuitt/col/regsys/maslow.html. Iiacqua, J. A., Schumacher, P., & Li, H. C. (1995). Factors contributing to job satisfaction in higher education. Education, 116(1), 51-62. Irani, T., & Scherler, C. (2002). Job satisfaction as an outcome measure of the effectiveness of an agricultural communications academic program. Journal of Agricultural Education, 43(1), 12-23. Jaffe, L. (1973). Women?s place in academe. The Midwest Quarterly, 15(2), 16-30. Kalleberg, A. L. (1977). Work values and job rewards: A theory of job satisfaction. American Sociological Review, 42(1), 124-143. Kanter, R. M. (1987, March). Men and women of the corporation revisited. Management Review, 76(3), 14-16. Kline, T. J. B., & Boyd, J. E. (1991). Organizational structure, context, and climate: Their relationships to job satisfaction at three managerial levels. The Journal of General Psychology, 118(4), 305-316. Kolodny, A. (2000). Women and higher education in the twenty-first century: some feminist and global perspectives. NWSA Journal, 12, 130-147. Kuk, L., & Donovan, J. (2004). Women in higher education revisited: Intergenerational Conversations [Electronic verison]. Journal of Student Affairs, 13, 1-10. Retrieved February 15, 2008 from http://www.sahe.colostate.edu/Data/Sites/1/documents/journal/Journal2003_ 2004vol13/Women_highered.pdf. Lacy, F. J., & Sheehan, B. A. (1997). Job satisfaction among academic staff: An international perspective. Higher Education, 34(3), 305-322. 104 Lincoln, Y. S., Graham, L. L., & Lane, E. P. (1983). Expectancy theory as a predictor of grade-point averages, satisfaction, and participation in the college environment. Paper presented at the Annual Meeting of the Association for Higher Education. Retrieved January 15, 2009, from PsycARTICLES database. Locke, E.A. (1976). The nature and causes of job satisfaction. In M. D. Dunnette (Ed.), Handbook of Industrial and Organizational Psychology (pp. 1297-1349). Chicago, IL: Rand McNally. Madden, M. E. (2005). 2004 division 35 presidential address: Gender and leadership in higher education. Psychology of Women Quarterly, 29(1), 3-14. Maslow, A. H. (1943). A theory of human motivation. Psychological Review, 50(4), 370-396. Maslow, A. H. (1954). Motivation and personality. New York: Harper & Row. Maslow, A. H. (1971). The farther reaches of human nature. New York: The Viking Press. Maslow, A. H., & Lowry, R. (Ed.). (1998). Toward a psychology of being (3 rd ed.). New York: Wiley & Sons. McFarlin, D. B., Coster, E. A., Rice, R. W., & Cooper, A. T. (1995). Facet importance and job satisfaction: Another look at the range-of-affect hypothesis. Basic and Applied Social Psychology, 16(4), 489-502. Mcinnis, C. (1998). Academics and professional administrators in australian universities: Dissolving boundaries and new tensions. Journal of Higher Education Policy & Management, 20(2), p. 161-173. 105 Michael, S. O., Schwartz, M., Cook, D. M., & Winston, P. L. (1999). Trustees? level of satisfaction and strategies for improving satisfaction: A comparative analysis of higher education sectors. Journal of Higher Education Policy and Management, 21(2), 173- 191. Miles, E. W., Patrick, S. L., & King, W. C., Jr. (1996). Job level as a systemic variable in predicting the relationship between supervisory communication and job satisfaction. Journal of Occupational and Organizational Psychology, 69(3), 277-292. Milosheff, E. (1990). Factors contributing to job satisfaction at the community College. Community College Review, 18(1), 12. Mosley, M. H. (1980). Black women administrators in higher education: an endangered species. Journal of Black Studies, 10(3), 295-310. Olsen, D. (1993). Work satisfaction and stress in the first and third year of academic appointment. Journal of Higher Education, 64(4), 453-471. Opp, R. D., & Gosetti, P. P. (2002). Equity for women administrators of color in 2-year colleges: Progress and prospects. Community College Journal of Research and Practice, 26(7/8), 591-608. Patitu, C. & Hinton, K. (2003). The experiences of african american women faculty and administrators in higher education: has anything changed? New Directions for Student Services, 104, 79-93. Perna, L. W., Gerald, D., Baum, E., & Milem, J. (2007). The status of equity for black faculty and administrators in public higher education in the south. Research in Higher Education, 48(2), 193-227. 106 Poist, R. F., & Lynagh, P. M. (1976). Transportation Journal, 16(1), 42-51. Porter, L.W., & Lawler, E. E. (1965). Properties of organizational structure in relation to job attitudes and job behavior. Psychological Bulletin, 64, 23-51. Rasch, R. H., & Harrell, A. (1989). The impact of individual differences on mas personnel satisfaction and turnover intentions. Journal of Information Systems, 4(1), 13-22. Reisser, L. J., & Zurfluh, L. A. (1987). Female administrators: Moving up, or moving out? Journal of the National Association of Women Dean, Administrators, and Counselors, 50(4), 22-29. Rhodes, C., Hollinshead, A., & Nevill, A. (2007). Changing times, changing lives: A new look at job satisfaction in two university schools of education located in the english west midlands. Research in Post-Compulsory Education, 12(1), 71-79. Ridgeway, C. (1997). Interaction and the conservation of gender inequality: Considering employment. American Sociological Review, 62(2), 218-235. Rosser, V. J. (2004). Faculty members? intentions to leave: A national study on their worklife and satisfaction. Research in Higher Education, 45(3), 285-309. Rosser, V. J. (2004). A national study on midlevel leaders in higher education: The unsung professionals in the academy. Higher Education, 48(3), 317-337. Ryder, M. (1994). Women in educational administration. Thrust for Educational Leadership, 23(7), 28-34. Sandrone, V. (1997). F.w. taylor & scientific management. Retrieved January 3, 2009, from http://www.skymark.com/resources/leaders/taylor.asp. 107 Sellgren, S. F., Ekvall, G., & Tomson, G. (2008). Leadership behavior of nurse managers in relation to job satisfaction and work climate. Journal of Nursing Management, 16, 578-587. Singh, K., Robinson, A., & Williams-Green, J. (1995). Differences in perceptions of african american women and men faculty and administrators. Journal of Negro Education, 64(4), 401-408. Smerek, R., & Peterson, M. (2007). Examining herzberg?s theory: Improving job satisfaction among non-academic employees at a university. Research in Higher Education, 48(2), 229-250. Smith, C. H. (1982). Black female achievers in academe. The Journal of Negro Education, 51(3), 318-341. Smith, P. C., Kendall, L. M., & Hulin, C. L. (1969). The measurement of satisfaction in work and retirement. Chicago: Rand McNally. Smith, P.C., Smith, O. W., & Rollo, J. (1974). Factor structure for blacks and whites of the job descriptive index and its discriminations of job satisfaction among three groups of subjects. Journal of Applied Psychology, 59(1), 99-100. Spector, P. E. (1997). Job satisfaction: Application, assessment, causes, and consequences. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. Stewart, P. (2002). Responding to the voice of black women. Black Issues in Higher Education,19(3), 24-26. Sutton, G. W., & Huberty, T. J. (1984). An evaluation of teacher stress and job satisfaction. Education, 105(2), 189-192. 108 Talbert-Hersi, D. E. (1994). The impact of chronic job stressors and work support on job satisfaction for women in higher education: A communication climate study. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Howard University. Taylor, F. W. (1911). Principles of scientific management. New York: Harper & Brothers. Tett, R. P., & Meyer, J. P. (1993). Job satisfaction, organizational commitment, turnover intention, and turnover: Path analyses based on meta-analytic findings. Personnel Psychology, 46(2), 259-293. Thomas, B. W. (1987). ?Gender differences in job satisfaction of men and women Administrators in higher education. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Michigan State University. Thoreson, R. W., Kardash, C. M., Leuthold, D. A., & Morrow, K. A. (1990). Gender differences in the academic career. Research in Higher Education, 31(2), 193- 209. Tinsley, A. (1985). Upward mobility for women administrators. Journal of the National Association of Women Dean, Administrators, and Counselors, 49(1), 3-11. University of Alabama in Huntsville Official Website (2009). Mission Statement. Retrieved January 4, 2009 from http://www.uah.edu/president/mission.php. University of South Alabama Official Website (2009). Mission Statement. Retrieved January 4, 2009 from http://www.southalabama.edu/goalsandobjectives.pdf. Valadez, J. R., & Anthony, J. S. (2001). Job satisfaction and commitment of two-year college part-time faculty. Community College Journal of Research and Practice, 25(2), 97-108. 109 VanDerLinden, K. (2004). Gender differences in the preparation and promotion of community college administrators. Community College Review, 31(4), 1-24. van Saane, N. V., Sluiter, J. K., Verbeek, J. H. A. M. & Frings-Dresen, M. H. W. (2003). Occupational Medicine, 53(3), 191-200. Volkwein, J.F., Malik, S. M., & Napierski-Pranel, M. (1998). Administrative satisfaction and the regulatory climate at public universities. Research in Higher Education 39(1), 43-63. Volkwein, J. F., & Parmley, K. (2000). Comparing administrative satisfaction in public and private universities. Research in Higher Education, 41(1), 95-116. Volkwein, J. F., & Zhou, Y. (2003). Testing a model of administrative job satisfaction. Research in Higher Education, 44(3), 149-171. Vroom, V. H. (1964). Work and motivation. New York: Wiley. Wagoner, R. L. (2007). Part-time faculty satisfaction across missions and disciplines. New Directions for Community Colleges, 140, 75-81. Wasley, P. (2007). Professors? job satisfaction is higher than other workers?. Chronicle Of Higher Education, 54(12), p. A10. Weber, M., Feldman, J., & Poling, E. (1981). Why women are underrepresented in educational administration. Educational Leadership, 320-322. Weiss, H. M. (2002). Deconstructing job satisfaction: Separating evaluations, beliefs and affective experiences. Human Resource Management Review, 12(2), 173- 194. Wilson, J. (1990). Moving in and moving up: Women in higher education in the 1990s. New Directions for Higher Education, 18(2), 67-72. 110 Zembylas, M., & Papanastasiou, E. C. (2005). Modeling teacher empowerment: The role of job satisfaction. Educational Research & Evaluation, 11(5), 433-459. Zurfluh, L. A., & Reisser, L. (1990, January). A Comparison of Sources of Dissatisfaction among Male and Female Administrators. Paper presented at the International Conference for Women in Higher Education, El Paso, TX. 111 APPENDIX A IRB APPROVAL LETTER FROM AUBURN UNIVERSITY 112 113 APPENDIX B IRB APPROVAL LETTER FROM AUBURN UNIVERSITY MONTGOMERY (AUM) 114 115 APPENDIX C IRB APPROVAL LETTER FROM UNIVERSITY OF ALABAMA AT HUNTSVILLE (UAH) 116 117 APPENDIX D IRB APPROVAL LETTER FROM UNIVERSITY OF SOUTH ALABAMA (USA) 118 NOTE: The researcher contacted the University of South Alabama Office of Research Compliance and Assurance office for IRB approval. The following e-mail was sent back from their office stating that the research was approved to conduct research on their campus. 119 APPENDIX E LETTER OF PERMISSION TO USE JDI AND JIG 120 121 122 APPENDIX F INFORMATIONAL LETTER TO PARTICIPANTS 123 124