DOCUMENT RESUME

ED 023 578 SE 004 624

By -Wood, Donald A.; LeBold, Wifliam K .The Multivariate Nature of Professional Job Satisfaction.Purdue Univ., Lafayette, Ind.Pub Date Nov 67Note -19p.; Paper presented at the Annual Conference of the Indiana Manpower Research Association(November 30,1967).

EDRS Price MF -$025 HC -$1 05Descriptors -*Careers, *Employment, Engineering, *Engineers, *Job Satisfaction, Physical Sciences, Scientists,Socioeconomic Influences

Identifiers -Indiana Manpower Research AssociationDiscussed are two theories of professional job satisfaction--(1) unidimensional

and (2) multidimensional with special reference to Herzberg's two factor theory. Anational sample of over 3000 engineering graduates responded to a questionnaireand satisfaction index. Analysis of results revealed that lob satisfaction is

multidimensional. Job satisfaction seemed most related to (1) a general lobcharacteristic factor and (2) professional challenges. Also identified as factors were(1) status, (2) autonomy, (3) professional recognition, (4) Interpersonal relations, and(5) supervisory relations. Certain occupational challenges and personal constraintswere examined in terms of (1) function, (2) field, (3) degree level, (4) year of BS.graduation, and (5) industrial classification of employer. Job values and perceptionswere shown to be complex. (DH)

I(-', '",-*!-,--,,,g,v,,,,,77,;,-;,,,,,,,,,,

Nms,

vetrtdm

Z')

NAY

U.S. DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH, EDUCATION & WELFARE

OFFICE OF EDUCATION

THIS DOCUMENT HAS BEEN REPRODUCED EXACTLY AS RECEIVED FROM THE

PERSON OR ORGANIZATION ORIGINATING IT. POINTS OF VIEW OR OPINIONS

STATED DO NOT NECESSARILY REPRESENT OFFICIAL OFFICE OF EDUCATION

POSITION OR POLICY.

THE MULTIVARIATE NATURE OF PROFESSIONAL JOB SATISFACTION*

by

Donald A. Wood and William K. LeBold

ABSTRACT

The unidimensional versus the multidimensional nature of professional

job satisfaction with specific reference to Herzberg's two-factor theory

of satisfiers and dissatisfiers are discussed. An overall job satisfaction

index and 34 questionnaire items were evaluated by a national sample of

over 3,000 engineering graduates; each engineer evaluated the personal

importance of each item and the degree to which each characterized his

current professional position. Factor analysis suggests that job

satisfaction is multidimensional. A general job characteristic factor

and a specific factor, Professional Challenge, tend to be most related

to overall job satisfaction. Five other factors were also identified:

Status, Autonomy, Professional Recognition, Interpersonal Relations

and Supervisory Relations. Using item data on overall satisfaction,

the two challenges, "no ready-made solutions" and "keeping abreast of

latest developments" in addition to "time for family" were examined

using function, field, degree level, year of B.S. graduation, and

industrial classification of employer to illustrate the complex nature

of job values and perceptions. The curvilinear nature of job values

are examined and alternative techniques of multivariate analysis are

suggested.

*Paper presented at the Annual Conference of the Indiana Manpower Research

Association, 1-burs-day, November 30, 1967.

THE MULTIVARIATE NATURE OF PROFESSIONAL JOB SATISFACTION

By Donald A. Wood and William K. LeBoldPurdue University

Two major developments tend to emphasize the importance for examining

professional work attitudes. (1) the increasing demand for professional

services in the U.S. labor force (Occupational Outlook Handbook, 1966-67)

and (2) the impact of technological change on skills and knowledge required

of professionals. With these developments have come changes in the professional

salary structure and increased professional involvement in large organizational

complexes (Hansen, 1963). The impact of these and other modifications on the

professional can often best be evaluated by determining how he feels toward

his job and the context in which it is found. Fully understanding the com-

plexities of these reactions and attitudes assumes great consequence if

efforts to avoid professional alienation and dissatisfaction in times of

technological and economic change are to be successful.

Traditionally, job satisfaction has been interpreted as a unidimensional

concept. This viewpoint assumes that any positive job-related or environ-

mentally-related element offering satisfaction to a worker would create

dissatisfaction in its absence. As a result, the unidimensional theory

requires only an overall job satisfaction measure.

Herzberg's (1959) two-factor job satisfaction theory was the first

significant step toward a multidimensional description of job attitudes at

the professional level. Herzberg concluded from his study of engineers and

accountants that only intrinsic work elements called satisfiers (recognition,

achievement, accomplishment, responsibility, and advancement) could generate

2

job satisfaction. Conversely, extrinsic elements, or dissatisfiers (supervision,

wages, interpersonal relations, company policy, working conditions) gave rise

to job dissatisfaction. The roles of satisfier and dissatisfier were seen as

independent--a satisfier could not evoke dissatisfaction nor could a dis-

satisfier give rise to job satisfaction.

From this brief account of the two-factor model, it becomes clear that

Herzberg imposed multidimensionality by classifying work elements on the

basis of attitudes associated with a given occupation and associated environ-

ment. However, further research testing the theory (Burke, 1966; Graen, 1965;

Ewen, 1964; Dunnette, 1967) has convincingly shown that the intrinsic--

extrinsic dichotomy does not adequately reflect the sources of positive and

negative job attitudes. In short, both "satisfiers" and "dissatisfiers"

appear to be involved both in job satisfaction and dissatisfaction. The

presumed exclusiveness of elements has faded to apparent oversimplification.

Further complexity in the nature of job satisfaction is indicated by

observed differences between blue-collar and white-collar workers (Centers

and Bugental, 1966). As a result of these and similar findings, many researchers

have warned against simplifying what is now seen as a very complex system of

feelings and reactions (Whitlock, 1960; Yuzuk, 1961; Baumgartel, 1956;

Decker, 1955). One way to demonstrate simplification and the problems

associated with it is to compare various groups on job satisfaction using

only an overall satisfaction index.

Insert Figure 1 here

woo

Figure 1 gives group comparisons for a national sample of approximately

3,000 engineering graduates (Perrucci, 1966) by job function, fiela of unuer-

3

graduate study, degree, year of B.S. degree and employer industrial class-

ification for their 1964 job and their first job after receiving the B.S.

It appears the sample was highly satisfied as a whole, with 95% indicating at

least some satisfaction. More specifically, 35% were "very satisfied,"

41% were "satisfied," 19% reported "average satisfaction," 4% felt "dis-

satisfied" and only 1% were "very dissatisfied" with their jobs. Those

respondents who were either "very satisfied" or "satisfied" with their then

current job (1964) are compared by category and also with the total satisfied

percentage line of 76%.

Except for the research and engineering management functions, recent

graduates, and the research and development classification, no subgroup,

regardless of how classified, significantly deviates from the total sample

level for overall job satisfaction. One might be tempted to conclude from

this rather flat profile that nearly all sub-classifications within the total

sample are equally satisfied with their work. However, when one attempts to

explain between group similarities and differences on a profile using over-

all satisfaction indices, the inadequacy of the unidimensional approach is

immediately apparent. For example, it can be concluded from Figure 1 that

those in research and design are very nearly equal in job satisfaction. But

it is not known whether subjects in these functions are satisfied with the

same thinal or whether they reached the same overall level through different

routes. Here, one can only conclude the former is true and merely speculate

on the latter. The same unidimensional handicap would hold-true in trying to

determine why,the young graduates are more dissatisfied than most other

groups. It is simply not discernible from the table why they are as satisfied

as they are nor is it known where their dissatisfaction in greatest.

A major phase of attitude research attempting to answer these questions

4

has centered on the use of factor analysis (Stogdill, 1966; Hearnshaw, 1954;

Harrison, 1960; Handyside, 1961). The utility of this multivariate technique

for identifying the various dimensions of job attitudes has been widely

recognized (Wherry, 1958: Guion, 1958). With the shortcomings of the

unidimensional and two-factor theories well in mind, factor analysis (Cooley

and Lohnes, 1962) was used on selected job statements from the questionnaire

survey data in an attempt to examine the multivariate nature of professional

job satisfaction.

Responses to the 34 statements concerning various aspects of the engineer's

job were made in two ways (see Appendix A). First, the respondent was to

indicate how important each item was to him personally (choices were very

important, some importance, none). Second, the respondent indicated how

characteristic the item was of his present position (choices were very

characteristic, some characteristic, none). A list of items, attitude

factors and item loadings on the factors resulting from a principal com-

ponent solution (orthogonal rotation) of responses are presented-in Table I.

Insert Table I here

Since two responses were made to each statement and the loading of the overall

job satisfaction scale was desired, the intercorrelation matrix prior to

factoring contained 69 variables in all. Loadings from characteristic

responses are enclosed in parentheses and only loadings of .25 are given and

considered significant in factor interpretation.

Results from the factor analysis show the suspected complexity and multi-

variate nature of engineering job satisfaction. Of particular interest is the

finding that the characteristic responses made to each item all highly load

5

on the first factor--labeled General Job Satisfaction. None of the importance

item loadings were .25 or above on this factor. The highest loading for the

overall job satisfaction scale, .39, was also on this general factor. From

this it would appear that a global index of .job attitudes is more closely

associated to what this professional sample sees as characteristic of their

job than to what it values as important. By comparing the characteristic

and importance loadings for the remaining six factors, it can be noted that

Factor II, Professional Challenge, is the only factor with characteristic

values greater than those for importance with respect to the higher loading

items. For this factor, these include "using skills," "no ready-made

solutions," "keeping abreast" and "working with interested colleagues."

The overall scale loaded next highest on this factor indicating that the

relationship between overall satisfaction and specific job attitudes may be

dependent, in part, on the discrepancy between what a person values and

what characterizes his job. Since the Job Status, Job Autonomy, Professional

Recognition, Supervisory Relations and Interpersonal Relations factors, all

with the lower characteristic values, have almost negligible overall scale

loadings, support for the importance--characteristic difference is again

indicated.

From correlating the overall satisfaction scale with importance and

characteristic responses (also found in Table I), little relation to values

was found, but substantial relation with item characteristics was true for

nearly all items. This seems to verify the prominence of job characteristics

in overall satisfaction found in the factor analysis, but the low importance

correlations may simply reflect an underestimate of the true relationship

which may be more curvilinear than linear (the correlation coefficient used

assumed linearity). (See Appendix B)

6

As a result of factoring a large number of items, several-distinct and

specific attitude dimensions have emerged from the sample data which are

assumed to better represent the complex phenomenon of professional job

satisfaction. With more specific attitude referents available, it is

possible to make much more definitive discriminations between groups on several

different aspects so that similarities and differences can be better pin-

pointed. For example, Figure 2 gives importance and characteristic profiles

(in percentages for "very important" and "very characteristic") for all

classifications using the "no ready-made solutions" item, found to best re-

present the Professional Challenge factor. Due to the demonstrated value of

Insert Figure 2 here

the discrepancy between importance and characteristic as an indicator of

overall job satisfaction, the profile differences between groups appear to

be significant in a factor attitude analysis. The research and design groups,

though very similar in overall satisfaction (Figure 1), show very different

profile differences here. The design group with a much larger discrepancy

would appear to be more dissatisfied with job challenges than the research

group. To show that this item is not atypical, the "keeping abreast" item, also

from the Professional Challenge factor, is profiled in like manner in Figure 3.

Insert Figure 3 here

It can be seen that the research-design discrepancy differences are in the same

direction, although the contrast is not as marked as in the "no ready-made

solutions" item.

7

From Figures 2 and 3, it is also possible to shed some light on the

previously posed problem of why more recent graduates seemed more dissatisfied

than older graduates. For both items, the 1961-64 B.S. group has larger

discrepancies between importance and characteristic responses than does any

other B.S. category.

These figures pose many other interesting comparisons which cannot be

discussed in a detailed manner here. However, from only the several brief

inspections made above, it does appear that a multidimensional look at job

satisfaction using the importance--characteristic profiles offers many valuable

insights for better understanding the concept and in making group attitude

comparisons more meaningful.

An example of how different "routes" to similar overall satisfaction

scores can occur is shown in Figure 4. The top profile repeats the overall

Insert Figure 4 here

satisfaction indices from Figure 1 showing similarity in attitudes between

classes, except for the last group. The very characteristic profiles for

"keeping abreast" (Professional Challenge Factor) and for "time for family,"

representing a different satisfaction dimension, Interpersonal Relations, are

given in the lower portion. The profiles are nearly opposite in slope;

whereas "time for family" becomes more and more characteristic'of the younger

B.S. groups, "keeping abreast" becomes progressively less so. This kind of

profile variability seems to suggest how summing across attitude dimensions

could "cancel" out such differences giving the rather bland overall profiles

found in Figure 1 and here in Figure 4.

Conclusion

Several summary statements about a multivariate approach to professional

job satisfaction dimensionality seem necessary. First, with the finding of

a general job satisfaction factor in the above study, one cannot hastily

abandon the notion that at least some part of job attitudes includes an over-

all, global or unidimensional component. What does appear significant here is

that the identification of specific factors in addition to the general com-

ponent has provided new insights and group comparison techniques heretofore

obscured by a one-factor approach. As far as this study is concerned, job

satisfaction is comprised of both general and specific features. Second, any

study of attitude dimensions is somewhat bound by the method and statistics

used. The initial list of questionnaire items can greatly affect the dimensions

resulting from a factor analysis. Also, violating linearity assumptions in

computing the item intercorrelation matrix can distort, in unknown ways, the

factor matrix emanating from it. Further research is needed here to investi-

gate the possible curvilinearity in the importance--job satisfaction correla-

tion and its affect on the resulting factor structure. Third, the correlates

of professional attitudes, though not of major concern here, seem suspect of

the same oversimplification that is still all too prevalent in job satisfac-

tion research. Of particular concern is the relationship between attitudes

and scientific productivity--a criterion again often measured in a unitary

manner. Much greater emphasis is needed in viewing scientific productivity as

sa complex phenomenon with interrelated components such as creativity, quality

and quantity of output. It is very difficult to study professional produc-

tion of performance using a single measure, a problem we have attempted to

define on the attitude side. Only when job satisfaction and work performance

for the professional are examined simultaneously in a multivariate fashion

will their inherent complexities and interrelationships be disdovered.

In addition to factor analysis, we are examining the emerging multivariate

statistical techniques, especially multiple discriminant analysis and canonical

correlation. The purpose in using these techniques is to investigate further

the complex relations and interrelations between background, education, experience,

productivity, values, perceptions and job satisfaction.

TABLE I

SIGNIFICANT FACTOR LOADINGS FOR OVERALL JOB SATISFACTION AND IMPORTANCE-CHARACTERISTICS OF DETAILED JOB ELEMENTS*

FACTOR I

General Job

Satisfaction

FACTOR II

FACTOR III FACTOR IV

Professional Job

Job

Challenge

Status

Autonomy

FACTOR V

Professional

Recognition

FACTOR VI

Interpersonal

Relations

FACTOR VII

Supervisory

Relations

CORRELATIONS WITH

OVERALL SATISFACTION

39

25

Job Satisfaction (Overall)

(41)

40

(53)

1. Use own skills and abilities

11

(39)

(33)

47

(52)

2. Problems with no ready solution

12

(27)

(41)

43

(49)

3. Keep abreast of developments

36

26

10

(28)

(39)

45

(50)

4. Work with interested colleagues

42

(28)

26

11

(25)

(53)

54

(40)

5. To advance self economically

26

07

(29)

(47)

58

(42)

6. Enhance status and prestige

26

06

(20)

(52)

54

(39)

7. Clearly visible career line

31

03

(26)

(61)

35

8. Promotion to those who merit it

31

09

(28)

(50)

60

(39)

9. Move into management career

32

10

(25)

(34)

10. Sufficient time for family

37

(29)

06

(06)

(28)

50

(50)

11. Relatively free of supervision

06

(08)

(49)

56

(52)

12. Chance to make most decisions

25

08

(29)

(50)

58

(52)

13. Freedom to manage own work

25

11

(27)

(50)

14. Clear expectations from superior

48

(29)

02

(20)

(49)

15. Work with able colleagues

55

(40)

31

04

(21)

(49)

16. Respect for technical achievement

49

(40)

34

09

(23)

(39)

26

17. Member of professional community

61

(52)

07

(15)

(55)

18. Treatment as a professional

47

(35)

31

03

(27)

(38)

19. Free to publish contributions

67

(49)

05

(13)

(42)

20. Contribute scientific knowledge

68

(56)

07

(20)

(45)

21. In a highly regarded organization

58

(48)

09

(18)

(60)

22. To be able to count on others

44

(30)

27

09

(24)

(63)

23. People like to work together

61

(27)

07

(26)

(65)

24. Get credit for accomplishments

45

06

(29)

(61)

25. Superior backing for own ideas

48

10

(30)

(47)

26. To supervise cooperative people

40

58

(56)

10

(23)

(48)

27. To supervise responsible people

32

63

(56)

13

(24)

(59)

28. Express own opinions freely

46

(27)

10

(26)

(47)

29. Reasonable time for projects

31

52

(33)

02

(14)

(49)

30. Make significant contributions

49

(39)

25

34

(31)

07

(22)

(47)

32

31. Work with people, not things

25

45

(41)

10

(17)

(53)

32. Have a stable, secure future

50

(26)

09

(18)

(57)

.43

33. Chance to exercise leadership

26

51

(48)

11

(30)

(50)

34. Opportunity to help others

26

32

45

(47)

08

(20)

*Loadings for characteristic are in parentheses (), importance are not.

Decimal points have been omitted.

G rt t-ti ci H. 0 r" 00 111

M 04 rt 11) . a' 0 M 0'

M) 11 0 rt 1314 rt ro 0 M 0 m 1-..

ti 0 et

Po 0., H 0 4000 T kCm(5 1-1

-Immo PAH MH H M

I-4 m m 0 El

0 0 PO u) 74 P4 rt I-, 0 0 kC M rt Ei ., Lis IA' 04 0 o tn m 0.' o4 o-ti HI PI H. 0 CfQ 64... LA) n 0 rt O'h fD k0 LiA) H CO CA P. O n rt .P. O 0 .... M

cn o, 0 IA' fD fD 0 0:1 rt U) CfQ 0 H. M H PAP El OC) M fD

H. fD H. M 4 0 H M H H. H. 4> 0 M rt 0 P.i 4 ia (IQ

P.i

4 .. co .....4 %. Li. 0 H M Cr 0 O M 0) 0) 04 0 P1 0) rt IA' rt 1-h (D

(1 O 0'H 0 M

M M M " cn n H 4 M M m 0' M I-6H 0 oo 4 M PI Oti H 0 H. O 00 MO O H (114 H. 04

4 Ia. Cn M t7) H f) 0 0 0 04 n CrJ CM rt M p, , M 4 tel Cla

H.

fD o F." H Ot)

n 011 O rt H. la. " 0 IA' 0

og O pi rt 0 pri

PERCENT OF VERY SATISFIED AND SATISFIED

IS (.11 CM 0

Research (364)

Development (723)

Design (496)

Operations (710)

Engr. Mgmt. (465)

Other (296)

Aero. Engr. (108)

Civil Engr. (517)

Chem. Engr. (505)

Elect. Engr. (656)

Engr. Sci. (58)

Ind. & Mech. (936)

Met. & Mining (127)

Gen. Engr. (61)

Other (114)

Bachelor (21.11)

Master (495)

twa Doctorate (343)

or

1901-1930 (169)

1931-1940 (355)

1941-1945 (275)

1946-1950 (670)

1951-1955 (582)

1956-1960 (662)

1961-1964 (412)

Construction (76)

Engr. & Arch. (154)

Chem. & Petrol. (461)

M Met. & Ord. (204)

1-1 Machinery (212)

Elect. Equip. (539) En 1.1

Aero-Spact (440)

re Misc. Manu. (459)

5 Utilities (152)

ti) Res. & Dev. (80) C/3

enP-1 Fed. Govt. (170)

1-3 Local Govt. (234)

I-h 0 Hi I. 0 He Pc, Ii. M Pc, frQ O n 1-.4 0 0

0) 0, II II rt rt rt (D

I. 0 0) O 0 i-h t.) 0 0 rt M I 0 0 rt

1-ti o PT, M M

M rtPl II f/Q n Pc1 II M (D

f) Ig 0 rt 0 rt (D 0 Pc:I 0) II M P3 M fig

1-1. II rt i M u) M rt 0 0 14s U) l-h n rj z OA H " M

II 03 0 0 Cr) 04 0 0

I-h OA 0) CrQ

M O fp M M

cl U) II 0 ClA P3 rtOq iC HI II I-h M O, 0 0 I-h M M M rtGQ P3 M II 01 II II II M M M P3 H.

ri) M n P M rPGQ rn M

(DIIGQ rh C I.J. II O M

rt rt O . M M

0) rt M 0 a) 0 M (t) Pa 1-C1 II U) O 0 rt O 1-3 II 0' 17i

cP3 M M M U) 1-1. O rn M M rt

I-h C 1-1 O H. I-4 0 0 ES- 0 0 II PA

1-s. P3 frQ P1 H Cort M tcl 0 11)

1-1. 0 rt rt O 0 cn 0 PC, 0 rn ac;$ 0 crg

OA rn 0 M 0 GQ rt 0

OA PC:I II H. 0 M 0

M M 0 II II II CD

II M 113 - O 0 PA II 03 CI, 1/40 1.4 rn Pc! M I

Pij 0 113

O II CIA M II Cr M

M t-C 0 0 M 03 rt 0 0 rt 0 1-4 I-4 H. II 0 O ::il rt O PA M U) 0 0 0

rt 0 rt Co

0 0) Cr 4

p)

O 0 1-4 0 4 II) 0 M

U) kC I 0

to.)

914 .4.

Research (364)

Development (723)

Design (496)

0 Operations (710)

Engr. Mgmt. (465)

Other (296)

Aero. Engr. (108)

Civil Engr. (517)

I' Chem. Engr. (503)

Elect. Engr. (656) P3e

Engr. Sci. (58)

'n1 Did & Mech. (936)

0 Met. & Mining (127) g Gen. Engr. (61)

Other (114)

Bachelor (2112) t:s

Master (495)

tn Doctorate (343)

te

1901-1930 (169)

1931-1940 (355)

1941-1945 (275)

1946-1950 (670)

1951-1955 (582)

1956-1960 (662)

1961-1964 (412)

Construction (76)

Engr. & Arch. (154) Chem. & Petrol. (461)

0 Met. & Ord. (204)

Machinery (212)

Elect. Equip. (539) cn

Aero-Space (440)

r4 Misc. Menu. (459)

5 Utilities (152) cn cn Res. & Dev. (80) -4

Fed. Govt. (170) 1-3

0 Local Govt. (234)

a

n mrti o Cr p 0 0 H. 0 it, Cid OQ H M 0 0 0 0 H t4P1 n OQ M M 0 M H 0 M H 0 (...)

H P it:,

CO

g (11)1

0 rP M t7:1

P, g M 0 M n H

M rt ** 11 0 I-A 0 M M 40.4 0 t4 0 H. 0 OQ

H0 OM 0 M it:I H. 0 0 0 CP 4 HI

H 04 M

He 0 N HI 0 0 rr

n He M M 0O H M M 0 M Ms H P14 H 0

m m 0, P1m 0 M 0 0 M 0

H P1OQ om4mp oomom n HM H 0 H

io H. M 0 t4 o 0 P0 H M 11) OQ 0 0 0

M H rPOQ 0.1 M 0'4 H M H. H M 0

rr 0 HI M H. P

p.n H 0 n m 0

H. n rt rt 4 0 m

H H. H. H MOOHM MOOQMO 0 0

0 OQ tdrtrJ 0 H M 0 cr3 m

0 0 0 hz/ M H. 0 0114 H. P .04 0 M 0 P.

H CP H. H. M (DHO() H M 0 0 H OM 0 0 q:1 H. H 11:1 0 HA P

WHOWOQ 0 Cu CI M "'

H. n PF iel 0 0 H crm 0 H it:I

H. M 00n0 0 rt 0 OQ

M H H.H 0

M 0 M H. Cu 0 H 0 0 0 M n 0 m rt La. m

H 0 0 0 H. CV

M F" HI 0 0

H. n 0 m 1+ 0 0 0 4 m H. M

H M 0 H rt la. kC M hh 0 H. H n n HIO m 0 I-aori I 0 M 0

H. 1"'"1 H 0 a, o 0 0

o o Ft.1 0

ZNI

Research (364)

Development (723)

Design (496)

0 Operations (710)

Engr. Mgmt. (465)

Other (296)

.....11111.MMoM

cn

Aero. Engr. (108)

Civil Engr. (517)

Chem. Engr. (505)

Elect. Engr. (656)

Engr. Sci. (58)

Ind. & Mech. (936)

Met. & Mining (127)

Gen. Engr. (61)

Other (114)

Bachelor (2112)

Master (495)

Doctorate (343)

1901-1930 (169)

1931-1940 (355)

1941-1945 (275)

1946-1950 (670)

1951-1955 (582)

1956-1960 (662)

1961-1964 (412)

ConstruCtion (76)

Engr. & Arch. (154)

Chem. & Petrol. (461)

Met. & Ord. (204)

Hz Machinery (212)

Elect. 'Equip. (539) 1,1

Aero-Space (440)

Misc. Menu. (459)

Utilities (152) C/)

Res. & Dev. (80) Pia

Fed. Govt. (170) 53; 1-3

H Local Govt. -(234)

80%.

70%Overall satisfaction VERY SATISFIED

AND SATISFIED

"Time for family"LAJ 40%

LU

t.0

c.)

Luc:4 30%el.

20%

0%

"Keeping abreast"

COLO

141Lil LO

r."Lil Lil

YEAR OF B.S.

VERY

CHARACTERISTIC

Figure 4. Top profile is the overall satisfaction percentages for thenational engineering sample according to year B.S,. degree receivedshowing high group similarity and recent graduate decrease. Becauseof time-length differences, the 1901-1930 and 1931-1940 B.S. groupsare not included in the profile percentages. Since survey was conductedin 1964, the latest B.S. group was restricted to a 4 year period. Twobottom profiles indicate percentages within each classification whosaid "keeping abreast" (Factor I, Professional Challenge) and "timefor family" (Factor VI, Interpersonal Relations) was very characteristicof their current position (1964). Opposite item profile slopes for .

the two job characteristics shown here demonstrate how "similar"overall satisfaction indices can obscure marked item leveldifferences.

APPENDIX A

The following is a list of the 34 job statements and the percentage of a national engineeringsample (N=3234) who evaluated each as very important (VI) to them personally and very

VI VCcharacteristic (VC) of their professional position:

To use my skills and abilities in challenging work.To work on problems for which there are no ready-made solutions.Opportunity to keep abreast of the latest developments in my field.Opportunity to work with colleagues who are interested in the latest developments in their field.Opportunity to advance myself economically.Opportunity to enhance social status and prestige.To have a clearly visible career line of increasing rewards and promotions.To work in a setting where promotion goes to those who merit it most.To have an opportunity to move into a managcdent career.A position which leaves rufficient time to devote to my family.A position which leaves me relatively free of supervision.An opportunity to make most decisions connected with my work.A large degree of freedom to manage my own work.To work under superiors who make it quite clear what they expect of me.Association with other engineers and scientists of recognized ability.To have the respect of my colleagues because of my technical achievement.To be a member of a professional community "outside" of the particular place I am employed."Treatment as a professional" by my superiors and higher management.To be free to publish non-confidential scientific contributions.Opportunity to contribute to basic scientific knowledge.Membership in an organization that is highly regarded by people in my profession.To be able to count on others for the backing and co-operation necessary for accomplishing

my own wbrk.To have a position where people are interested in working together and not encouraging petty

jealousies.To get credit for my accomplishments.To have the backing of my superiors on ideas that I wish to try out.To supervise people who are co-operative and willing to learn.To supervise people who are willing to assume responsibility.To be able to express my opinions and feelings freely to those whom I work with.To work on projects where I have a reasonable amount of time for completion.To have the opportunity to make significant contributions to society.To give me an opportunity to work with other people rather than things.To enable me to look forward to a stable secure future.To give me a chance to exercise leadership.To give me an opportunity to help others.

85 48 1.

61 44 2.

62 32 3.

46 28 4.

58 23 5.

13 08 6.

33 11 7.

78 26 8.

41 24 9.

59 37 10.

22 24 11.

60 36 12.

62 44 13.

46 22 14.

35 23 15.

42 26 16.

11 11 17.

46 26 18.

15 22 19.

16 12 20.

19 21 21.

61 34 22.

77 33 23.

65 33 24.

65 35 25.

56 30 26.

59 25 27.

70 46 28.

41 19 29.

26 12 30.

27 28 31.

39 29 32.

48 30 33.

37 25 34.

APPENDIX B

The data below is based on an independent survey of Purdue engineering and

science graduates. It is included to indicate the linear-curvilinear

rel'ationship of the importance and the characteristic dimensions to over-

all job satisfaction.

70% --I

60%

r 5 0 %

oLau' 40%

LLcD.

iczc' 30%1=

a" 20%

10%

0%

PROFESSIONAL CHALLENGE

Very Important

Very Characteristic

4-4

OVERALL JOB SATISFACTION

Figure 5. Average very important and very characteristic response per-

centages for items significantly loading on Professional Challenge, by degree

of current (1965) overall job satislaction for a Purdue Alumni engineering and

science graduate sample. (N is approximately 35500 since N's varied somewhat

from item to item). The curvWnearity evidenced here resulting from plotting

the importance dimension across the overall satisfaction scale is typical for

all factors identified in the sample analysis. This finding may well question

the linearity assumption used in computing item correlations for importance.

Linearity appears more pronounced in the characteristic (lower) profile. Of

particular significance is the increasing difference between the response

dimension of importance and characteristic as overall job satisfaction

decreases and overall job dissatisfaction increases. (Perrucci, 1967 ;LeBold,

1967)

Bibliography

Baumgartel, H. J. Leadership, motivation, and attitudes in 20 research

organizations. Dissertation Abstracts, 1956, 16, p. 1518.

Burke, R. J. Are Herzberg's motivators and hygienes unidimensional? Journal

of Applied Psychology, 1966, 50, 317-321.

Centers, R. and Bugental, D. E. Intrinsic and extrinsic job motivations among

different segments of the working population. JoilPsycholo,1966, 50, 193-197.

Cooley, W. W., Lohnes, P. R. Multivariate Procedures for the Behavioral Sciences,

New York: Wiley and Sons, Inc., 1962.

Decker, R. L. A study of 3 specific problems in the measurement and interpreta-tion of employee attitudes. Psycholo9ical Monographs, 1955, 69 (16), No. 401,

11 pp.

Dunnette, M. D., Campbell, J. P. and Hakel, M. D. Factors contributing to job

satisfaction and job dissatisfaction in six occupational groups. Or9anizational

Behavior.and Human Performance, 1967, 2, 143-174.

Ewen, R. B., Hulin, C. L., Smith, P. C. and Locke, E. A. An empirical test of

the Herzberg two-factor theory. iiairralof_Aliec Psychology, 1966, 50, 544-550.

Graen, G. B. Addendum to an empirical test of the Herzberg two-factor theory.Journal of Applied Psychology, 1966, 50, 551-55.5.

Guion, R. M. The problem of terminology. Personnel Psychology, 1958, 11, 59-64.

Handyside, J. D. Satisfactions and aspirations. Lcalp.2.12391y., 1961,

35, 213-244.

Hansen, W. L. Professional engineers: salary structureiroblems. Industrial

Relations, 1963, 2, 33-45.

Harrison, R. Sources of variation in managers job attitudes: Personnel

Ilschc,L,J.J..oly. 1960, 13, 425-434.

Hearnshaw, L. S. Attitudes to work. w_p_occuatimulushoipa, 1954, 28, 129-139.

Herzberg, F. W., Mausner, B. and Snyderman, B. B. The Motivation to Work, New

York: Wiley & Sons, Inc., 1959.

LeBold, W. K. and Wood, D. A. Engineers: satisfied or dissatisfied? Unpubliched

paper presented at the St. Louis Chapter of the Institute of Environmental Science,

April 30, 1967, Purdue University, Department of Freshman Engineering.

Occu ational Outlook Handbook, Bureau of Labor Statistics, U.S. Department of

Labor, Bui etin No. 1450, 966-1967.

Perrucci, C. C. and LeBold, W. K. The engineer and scientist: student, professional

citizen. 9s_tensionSer.EnineerinDlesBulle.in, Purdue University, No. 125,

January, 1967.

Perrucci, R, LeBold, W. K. and Howland, W. E. The engineer in industry and

government, Information Document No. 7, Goals of Engineering Educatton,

American Society for Engineering Education, 1966.

Stogdill, R. M. Brief report: some possible uses of factor analysis in

multivariate studies. Multivariate Behavioral Research, 1966, 1, No. 3, 387-390.

Wherry, R. J. Factor analysis of morale data: reliability and validity.

Personnel 1958, 11, 78-89.

Whitlock, G. H. The status of morale measurement: 1959 USAF WADD technical

note. 1960, No. 60-136, 29 pp.

Yuzuk, R. P. The Assessment of Employee Morale, Columbus, Ohio: Ohio State

University Press, 1961, 67 pp.