Job satisfaction of agricultural communication, agricultural leadership, agricultural teacher education, and extension education faculty

Copyright by Ryan M Foor 2009 ABSTRACT This study was conducted using survey research methods The review of related literature revealed there was no recent measure of the level of overall job satisfac[.]

Copyright by Ryan M Foor 2009

ABSTRACT

This study was conducted using survey research methods The review of related literature revealed there was no recent measure of the level of overall job satisfaction among agricultural teacher educators in the United States using the Three Factor Job Satisfaction Scale Additionally, there appeared to be no measure of the level of overall job satisfaction among faculty members specializing in agricultural communication, agricultural leadership, and extension education using the Three Factor Job Satisfaction Scale The Three Factor Job Satisfaction Scale measured the level of satisfaction with the policy and administration, personal growth and satisfaction, and fiscal resources job factors in addition to the level of overall job satisfaction Demographic characteristics of faculty members were also collected for the study The level of overall job satisfaction was regressed on the policy and administration, personal growth and satisfaction, and fiscal resources job factors Demographic characteristics were not included in the

regression analysis

Faculty members specializing in the areas of agricultural communication,

agricultural leadership, agricultural teacher education, and extension education were moderately satisfied with their job Faculty members were moderately satisfied with the personal growth and satisfaction aspects of their job, while only slightly satisfied with job

factors pertaining to policy and administration and fiscal resources The three job factors explained 67% of the variance in the level of overall job satisfaction of faculty members The personal growth and satisfaction job factor facilitated a greater increase in the level

of overall job satisfaction than the policy and administration and fiscal resources job factors Therefore, it was concluded that faculty professional development activities should focus on aspects related to the personal growth and satisfaction job factor

Dedicated to my family and friends Nothing is possible without both.

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

Thank you to my parents, Patricia Colthurst and Randy Foor for your belief in learning and providing me the opportunity to receive a post-secondary education To my sister Megan, thank you for letting me share my knowledge with you as you begin your teaching career

Thank you to Daniel Foster and Kattlyn Wolf for encouraging me to come to The Ohio State University for graduate school Daniel, thank you for your help in

assimilating to graduate school Kat, thank you for your help in learning statistical procedures and research methods through our informal chats

Thank you to Whitney Beck and Eric Gahler for providing me “motivation by example” to complete my Master’s degree To my cohort: Rebekah Epps, Jeremy Falk, and Jon Simonsen, thank you for your friendship and abilities to continually make me think and learn!

Thank you to my adviser, Dr Jamie Cano Your belief in my ability as a

researcher has been great motivation to continue in my scholarly pursuits Thank you to Drs Birkenholz, Connors, Gliem, Hite, Miller, Newcomb, and Whittington for the formal and informal lessons you taught me

Lastly, to Ms Christina Hixson, thank you for your support in my pursuit of higher education at Iowa State University

2002 – 2007……… Agricultural Education Instructor,

2007 – present……… Graduate Teaching Associate,

The Ohio State University, Columbus, OH

FIELDS OF STUDY Major Field: Agricultural and Extension Education

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Page

Abstract……… ii

Dedication……… iv

Acknowledgments……… v

Vita……… vii

List of Tables……… xi

List of Figures……… xiv

Chapters: 1 Introduction……… 1

Statement of the Problem……… 3

Purpose of the Study……… 4

Research Questions……….……… 4

Limitations of the Study……… 6

Definitions of Terms……… 6

2 Review of Related Literature……… 9

Purpose of the Study……… 9

Research Questions……….……… 9

Review of Related Literature……… 11

Job Satisfaction Among Higher Education Faculty……… 11

Theoretical Foundation……… 13

Overall Job Satisfaction……… 23

Demographic Characteristics Related to Job Satisfaction…… 24

Conceptual Framework for the Current Study……… 28

Summary……… 31

3 Methods……… 33

Purpose of the Study……… 33

Research Questions……….……… 34

Research Design……… 35

Population and Subject Selection……… 37

Instrumentation……… 38

Data Collection Procedures……… 40

Data Analysis……… 43

4 Findings……… 47

Purpose of the Study……… 48

Research Questions……….……… 48

Research Question #1 – Demographic Variables……… 50

Research Question #2 – Overall Level of Job Satisfaction…… 61

Research Question #3 – Level of Satisfaction with Selected Job Factors……… 63

Research Question #4 – Relationship between Level of Overall Job Satisfaction and Demographic Variables………… 70

Research Question #5 – Relationship between Level of Overall Job Satisfaction and Selected Job Factors……… 74

Research Question #6 – Regression Analysis of Overall Job Satisfaction on Selected Demographic Variables……… 75

Research Question #7 – Regression Analysis of Overall Job Satisfaction on Selected Job Factors……… 76

5 Conclusions/Implications/Recommendations……… 82

Purpose of the Study……… 82

Research Questions……….……… 83

Research Design……… 84

Population and Subject Selection……… 86

Instrumentation……… 87

Data Collection Procedures……… 89

Data Analysis……… 91

Summary of Findings……… 93

Conclusions and Implications……… 97

Recommendations……… 101

Electronic Mail Message Reminder to Department Chairs

Institutions from which Names of Selected Faculty

Means and Standard Deviations of Demographic Data by

Individual or Blocked Groups……… 137

LIST OF TABLES

3.1 Comparison of reliability coefficients for job related factors and overall

job satisfaction in part I of the Three Factor Job Satisfaction

Scale……….… 40

3.2 Conventions used to describe correlations……… 43

3.3 Measures of linear relationship… ……… 45

3.4 Statistics used to describe the relationship between overall job satisfaction and the selected variables……… 46

4.1 Age of respondents……… ……… 51

4.2 Gender of respondents……… 52

4.3 Tenure status of respondents……… 53

4.4 Highest degree earned of respondents……… 54

4.5 Faculty rank of respondents……… 55

4.6 Number of years at current institution.……….……… 56

4.7 Total years of experience in higher education among respondents ……… 57

4.8 Percentage of time devoted to selected activities by respondents………… 59

4.9 Areas of specialization of respondents……… ………… 60

4.10 Overall level of job satisfaction among respondents……… 62

4.12 Personal growth and satisfaction job factor level of satisfaction… ……… 664.13 Fiscal resources job factor level of satisfaction……… 68

4.14 Means and standard deviations for overall job satisfaction and satisfaction

with selected job factors……… 69

4.15 Relationship between overall job satisfaction and selected demographic

variables……… 714.16 Relationship between overall job satisfaction and selected job activities… 724.17 Relationship between overall job satisfaction and selected areas of

program specialization….……… 734.18 Relationship between overall job satisfaction and selected job factors…… 74

4.19 Summary of intercorrelations among dependent and independent

variables……… 794.20 Stepwise regression of overall job satisfaction on independent variables:

(policy and administration, personal growth and satisfaction, and fiscal

resources)……… 81

J.1 Overall job satisfaction mean scores and standard deviations by age of

selected agriculture faculty members……… 138

J.2 Overall job satisfaction mean scores and standards deviations by gender

of selected agriculture faculty members……… 138

J.3 Overall job satisfaction mean scores and standard deviations by tenure

status of selected agriculture faculty members……… 139J.4 Overall job satisfaction mean scores and standard deviations by highest

degree earned of selected agriculture faculty members……… 139

J.5 Overall job satisfaction mean scores and standard deviations by faculty

rank of selected agriculture faculty members……… 140J.6 Overall job satisfaction mean scores and standard deviations by years in

current position of selected agriculture faculty members……… 140J.7 Overall job satisfaction mean scores and standard deviations by total

years in higher education of selected agriculture faculty members……… 141

J.8 Overall job satisfaction mean scores and standard deviations by selected

job activities of selected agriculture faculty members……… 142J.9 Overall job satisfaction mean scores and standard deviations by area of

specialization of selected agriculture faculty members……… 143

LIST OF FIGURES

2.1 Relationship between Maslow’s Hierarchy of Needs, Herzberg’s

Motivator Hygiene Theory, and Three Factor Scale……… 222.2 A conceptual framework of the effects which selected job factors and

demographic characteristics have upon overall job satisfaction………… 30

CHAPTER 1

INTRODUCTION

Cranny, Smith, and Stone (1992) wrote that job satisfaction played a central role

in the study of people’s behavior at work Job satisfaction is a construct that is one of the most important and frequently studied concepts in the organizational sciences (Cranny, Smith, & Stone, 1992; Locke, 1976) Furthermore, Spector (1997) wrote that job

satisfaction was the “most frequently studied variable in organizational behavioral

Organizations measure job satisfaction because of the presumed relationship with the organizations’ short-term goals of increasing individual productivity, reducing

absences, tardiness, and other related issues (Smith, 1992) Similarly, managers, or individuals in supervisory roles should recognize the humanitarian and utilitarian aspects

of studying job satisfaction (Spector, 1997)

From the humanitarian perspective, managers should recognize that people

deserve to be treated fairly and with respect in the workplace (Spector, 1997) In terms of the utilitarian viewpoint, the level of individuals’ job satisfaction can lead to behaviors that affect the functioning of the organization (Spector, 1997) Roznowski and Hulin (1992) wrote that one of the most important pieces of information a human resources unit could have about an individual was the individual’s job satisfaction score

The construct of job satisfaction can be considered as part of a greater system of satisfactions, particularly as a component of an individual’s life satisfaction (Smith, 1992) Individuals with a greater sense of job satisfaction tend to be happier and have a greater sense of trust with management (Smith, 1992) Unfortunately, there is not one organization where all workers will be completely and consistently satisfied with all facets of job satisfaction (Judge, Hanisch, & Drankoski, 1995) Therefore, it is

imperative to continuously measure the level of job satisfaction among employees in order for managers to know what can and should change in the work environment in order to improve employee job satisfaction (Cranny, Smith, & Stone, 1992) Employees possessing a greater sense of job satisfaction are likely to have a better quality of life, greater physical and mental health, more job stability, and exhibit greater cooperativeness

with supervisors (Cranny, Smith, & Stone, 1992) To this end, the current study

examined the level of job satisfaction in order to provide supervisors with a description of faculty members’ job satisfaction and to explain the relationships between overall job satisfaction and selected factors related to job satisfaction, including certain demographic characteristics

Statement of the Problem Job satisfaction, including the level of overall job satisfaction, has been studied among agricultural teacher educators at the national level in the United States of America over the past three decades (Bowen, 1980; Bowen & Radhakrishna, 1990; Castillo, 1999) Similarly, the level of job satisfaction has been examined among extension

faculty members (Long & Swortzel, 2007; Schmiesing, 2002)

Since the Castillo (1999) study, traditional academic departments of agricultural education at post-secondary colleges and universities have expanded to include additional disciplines, the majority of which are classified as agricultural communication,

agricultural leadership, and extension education (American Association for Agricultural Education [AAAE], 2007) To this end, few studies on job satisfaction have been

conducted at the department level for the aforementioned specializations Moreover, a study of job satisfaction among agricultural teacher educators using the Three Factor Job Satisfaction Scale (Castillo, 1999) was warranted

Therefore, the problem is that there was no recent measure of the level of job satisfaction among faculty members specializing in the areas of agricultural

communication, agricultural leadership, agricultural teacher education, and extension education using the Three Factor Job Satisfaction Scale

Purpose of the Study The purpose of the study was to describe the overall level of job satisfaction among faculty members in U.S colleges and universities specializing in agricultural communication, agricultural leadership, agricultural teacher education, and extension education Furthermore, the study sought to describe the relationship between faculty members’ overall level of job satisfaction and selected job factors: policy and

administration, personal growth and satisfaction, and fiscal resources To guide this study, the following research questions were developed

Research Questions

1 What was the age, gender, tenure status, highest degree earned, faculty rank, years in current position, total number of years in higher education, percentage of time devoted to selected activities, and areas of specialization of faculty members

specializing in agricultural communication, agricultural leadership, agricultural teacher education, and extension education?

2 What was the overall level of job satisfaction of faculty members specializing in agricultural communication, agricultural leadership, agricultural teacher education, and extension education?

3 What was the level of satisfaction with the selected job factors: policy and

administration, personal growth and satisfaction, and fiscal resources of faculty members specializing in agricultural communication, agricultural leadership,

agricultural teacher education, and extension education?

4 What relationships existed between the overall level of job satisfaction and the age, gender, tenure status, highest degree earned, faculty rank, number of years in current position, total number of years in higher education, percentage of time devoted to selected activities, and areas of specialization among faculty members specializing in agricultural communication, agricultural leadership, agricultural teacher education, and extension education?

5 What relationships existed between the selected job factors: policy and

administration, personal growth and satisfaction, and fiscal resources, and overall job satisfaction of faculty members specializing in agricultural communication,

agricultural leadership, agricultural teacher education, and extension education?

6 What proportion of the variance in the overall level of job satisfaction among faculty members specializing in agricultural communication, agricultural leadership,

agricultural teacher education, and extension education be explained by the selected demographic characteristics (age, gender, tenure status, highest degree earned, faculty rank, number of years in current position, total number of years in higher education, percentage of time devoted to selected activities, and areas of specialization)?

7 What proportion of the variance in the overall level of job satisfaction among faculty

agricultural teacher education, and extension education can be explained by a linear combination of the selected job factors: policy and administration, personal growth and satisfaction, and fiscal resources?

Limitations of the Study The study was limited to faculty members specializing in the areas of agricultural communication, agricultural leadership, agricultural teacher education, and extension education listed in the Directory of University Faculty in Agricultural Education

(American Association for Agricultural Education [AAAE], 2007) and verified by each department chair or department contact person In terms of job satisfaction factors, the study was limited to the selected factors: policy and administration, personal growth and satisfaction, and fiscal resources as they pertained to aspects of the faculty members’ position at their respective institution (Castillo, 1999)

Definitions of Terms Overall Level of Job Satisfaction

Castillo (1999) adopted Locke’s (1976) definition of job satisfaction, which stated that job satisfaction was “a pleasurable positive emotional state resulting in the appraisal

of one’s job or job experiences” (p 1300) Since the current study sought to replicate the methods of Castillo’s (1999) study, the researcher adopted the same definition of job satisfaction provided by Locke (1976) for the constitutive definition of overall level of job satisfaction

Operationally defined, the overall level of job satisfaction was the score on the one Likert-type item on the questionnaire used for the study (Castillo, 1999) The item

read, “Considering all aspects of my job as a faculty member, my overall level of job satisfaction is…” The response scale for the item ranged from 1 (Very Dissatisfied) to 6 (Very Satisfied)

Since the researcher sought to replicate the methods of Castillo (1999),

constitutive and operational definitions for Policy and Administration, Personal Growth and Satisfaction, and Fiscal Resources were adopted as outlined in that study

Policy and Administration

Policy was defined as “a definite course of action adopted for the sake of

expediency, facility, etc.” (The Random House College Dictionary, 1972)

Administration was defined as “the management of any office, employment, or

organization: direction” (The Random House College Dictionary, 1972)

For the current study, policy and administration was operationally defined as the courses of action adopted for the management of faculty members specializing in the areas of agricultural communication, agricultural leadership, agricultural teacher

education, and extension education as measured by the mean score of 21 items on a point Likert-type scale The response scale for the 21 items ranged from 1 (Very

6-Dissatisfied) to 6 (Very Satisfied)

Personal Growth and Satisfaction

Castillo (1999) defined personal using The Random House College Dictionary (1972) definition: “of pertaining to, or coming as from a particular person” Growth was defined as “the act or process, or a manner of growing” (The Random House College

(The Random House College Dictionary, 1972) Satisfaction was defined as “the state of being satisfied” (The Random House College Dictionary, 1972) and satisfied was defined

as being “content” (The Random House College Dictionary, 1972)

The operational definition of personal growth and satisfaction for the current study was the natural development and contentment pertaining to faculty members

specializing in the areas of agricultural communication, agricultural leadership,

agricultural teacher education, and extension education as measured by the mean score on

22 items on a 6-point Likert-type scale The response scale for the 22 items ranged from

1 (Very Dissatisfied) to 6 (Very Satisfied)

Fiscal Resources

Fiscal was defined by The Random House College Dictionary (1972) as

“pertaining to financial matters in general” Resources were defined as “a source of supply, support, or aid, esp one held in reserve” (The Random House College

Dictionary, 1972) Both of these definitions were utilized constitutively by Castillo (1999)

Operationally, fiscal resources was defined as the amount of finances available to supply and support faculty members specializing in the areas of agricultural

communication, agricultural leadership, agricultural teacher education, and extension education as measured by the mean score on 14 items on a 6-point Likert-type scale The response scale for the items ranged from 1 (Very Dissatisfied) to 6 (Very Satisfied)

CHAPTER 2

REVIEW OF RELATED LITERATURE

Purpose of the Study The purpose of the study was to describe the overall level of job satisfaction among faculty members in U.S colleges and universities specializing in agricultural communication, agricultural leadership, agricultural teacher education, and extension education Furthermore, the study sought to describe the relationship between faculty members’ overall level of job satisfaction and selected job factors: policy and

administration, personal growth and satisfaction, and fiscal resources To guide this study, the following research questions were developed

Research Questions

1 What was the age, gender, tenure status, highest degree earned, faculty rank, years in current position, total number of years in higher education, percentage of time devoted to selected activities, and areas of specialization of faculty members

specializing in agricultural communication, agricultural leadership, agricultural teacher education, and extension education

2 What was the overall level of job satisfaction of faculty members specializing in agricultural communication, agricultural leadership, agricultural teacher education, and extension education?

3 What was the level of satisfaction with the selected job factors: policy and

administration, personal growth and satisfaction, and fiscal resources of faculty members specializing in agricultural communication, agricultural leadership,

agricultural teacher education, and extension education?

4 What relationships existed between the overall level of job satisfaction and the age, gender, tenure status, highest degree earned, faculty rank, number of years in current position, total number of years in higher education, percentage of time devoted to selected activities, and areas of specialization among faculty members specializing in agricultural communication, agricultural leadership, agricultural teacher education, and extension education?

5 What relationships existed between the selected job factors: policy and

administration, personal growth and satisfaction, and fiscal resources, and overall job satisfaction of faculty members specializing in agricultural communication,

agricultural leadership, agricultural teacher education, and extension education?

6 What proportion of the variance in the overall level of job satisfaction among faculty members specializing in agricultural communication, agricultural leadership,

agricultural teacher education, and extension education be explained by the selected demographic characteristics (age, gender, tenure status, highest degree earned, faculty

rank, number of years in current position, total number of years in higher education, percentage of time devoted to selected activities, and areas of specialization)?

7 What proportion of the variance in the overall level of job satisfaction among faculty members specializing in agricultural communication, agricultural leadership,

agricultural teacher education, and extension education can be explained by a linear combination of the selected job factors: policy and administration, personal growth and satisfaction, and fiscal resources?

Review of Related Literature The review of related literature was conducted to establish a theoretical

foundation for the current study and consisted of six sections Section I reviewed studies

of job satisfaction among higher education faculty Section II described the theory from which the current study evolved and included the evolution of the instrument used in the current study Section III reviewed studies related to the measurement of overall job satisfaction Section IV pertained to selected demographic characteristics related to job satisfaction Section V provided the conceptual framework for the current study Section

VI summarized the review of related literature

Job Satisfaction Among Higher Education Faculty Terpstra and Honoree (2004) wrote that “there is very little data available

regarding the satisfaction levels of faculty in higher education institutions” (p 535) Bowen (1980), Bowen and Radhakrishna (1991), and Castillo (1999) examined the level

of job satisfaction among teacher educators in agriculture In addition to studies specific

satisfaction among multiple academic disciplines Theoretical foundations varied across studies and included the Herzberg Motivator-Hygiene Theory used by Moxley (1977); Locke’s theory of job satisfaction grounded the study by Plascak-Craig and Bean (1989), while Seifert and Umbach (2008) preferred Kalleberg’s theoretical foundation

Demographic characteristics, such as sex, age, seniority, rank, and tenure-status were examined in studies that reported the level of job satisfaction among faculty

members in higher education (Moxley, 1977; Plascak-Craig & Bean, 1989; Seifert & Umbach, 2008; and Terpstra & Honoree, 2004) Terpstra and Honoree (2004) reported negligible and low (Davis, 1971) relationships between selected demographics and level

of job satisfaction Conversely, Seifert and Umbach (2008) reported certain demographic characteristics were good predictors of faculty job satisfaction in United States research universities

The level of job satisfaction of higher education faculty was measured using a variety of methods Moxley (1977) sought to develop two instruments which included a number of items that measured job satisfaction based on the motivator and hygiene factors posited by Herzberg (1966) Similarly, Plascak-Craig and Bean (1989) examined faculty members’ level of job satisfaction with 20 items Seifert and Umbach (2007) used existing data from the 1999 National Study of Postsecondary Faculty to measure intrinsic and extrinsic motivation related to job satisfaction A one-item measure was used to evaluate faculty job satisfaction in the study conducted by Terpstra and Honoree (2004) Moxley (1977) and Terpstra and Honoree (2004) determined that overall, faculty members were satisfied with their jobs

Plascak-Craig and Bean (1989) reported role conflict, a work-related independent variable; and role clarity, an institution-related variable as important predictors in faculty members’ job satisfaction Moxley’s (1977) work to develop instruments that measured the level of faculty members’ job satisfaction reported that not all of the motivator and hygiene factors were associated with satisfaction and dissatisfaction as predicted In the second instrument created by Moxley (1977), all of the factors examined were associated more with satisfaction than dissatisfaction However, both instruments considered, hygiene factors related more to dissatisfaction than motivator factors and motivators were more associated with satisfaction than hygiene factors (Moxley, 1977)

The literature revealed a variety of theoretical foundations used to ground studies

of faculty job satisfaction Furthermore, multiple methods were utilized to collect data to determine the level of satisfaction among faculty members in higher education A

consistent theme across studies of faculty job satisfaction was the collection of

demographic data to describe the population studied and to determine if a relationship existed between selected demographic characteristics and the level of job satisfaction

Theoretical Foundation The current study sought to replicate the methods of Castillo’s (1999) study of the level of job satisfaction among agricultural teacher educators using the Three Factor Job Satisfaction Scale Therefore, the theory from which the Three Factor Job Satisfaction Scale was developed was examined for the current study

Herzberg Motivator-Hygiene Theory

Robertson and Smith (1985) wrote that Herzberg’s motivator-hygiene, or factor theory of job satisfaction is one of the most widely known attempts to link job characteristics with human motivation According to Herzberg’s (1966) two-factor theory, humans have two basic sets of needs related to job experiences A core principle

two-of the theory is that the two sets two-of needs are two different concepts At the time two-of Herzberg’s work, it was widely accepted that job satisfaction and dissatisfaction were opposite one another, or at two extreme ends of one spectrum (Herzberg, Mausner, & Snyderman, 1959) The first set of needs was considered maintenance needs, whereas the second set was identified as growth needs Adler (1991) wrote that the needs in each set,

or factor, were similar to those posited by Maslow (1954) in the Hierarchy of Needs

As a result, Herzberg et al (1959) called the first set, or those related to

maintenance needs, hygiene factors The moniker hygiene was likened to the use of the

phrase mental hygiene in psychiatry (Pinder, 1984) Adler (1991) classified the hygiene factors with Maslow’s lower order needs, physiological and safety The hygiene factors, according to Pinder (1984) were necessary to prevent job dissatisfaction, but had little relationship, if any to job satisfaction and were not capable of generating job satisfaction within an individual Furthermore, the hygiene factors were related to shorter-lasting job experiences Aspects of the job related to the context (Pinder, 1984) or extrinsic factors (Robertson & Smith, 1985) such as pay and supervision are hygiene factors Cherrington (1991) identified organizational factors related to Maslow’s physiological need level: pay, pleasant working conditions, cafeteria; and safety need level: safe working

conditions, company benefits, job security When the organizational factors related to physiology and safety are satisfied, job dissatisfaction can be reduced, or eliminated, but job satisfaction will not increase (Herzberg et al., 1959)

The second set of needs, called growth needs, were termed by Herzberg et al

(1959) as motivator factors Motivator factors, in contrast to hygiene factors, are related

to the content of the job such as the personal relationship between and individual and her/his job (Pinder, 1984) With relation to Maslow’s Hierarchy of Needs, the motivators were likened to higher order needs such as the social, esteem, and self-actualization need levels (Adler, 1991) The motivator factors, according to Pinder (1984) are related to the content of the job and cause feelings of growth and personal development

Organizational factors aligned with the higher needs levels include, social: cohesive work group, friendly supervision, and professional associations; esteem: social recognition, job title, high status job, and feedback from the job itself; self-actualization: challenging job, opportunities for creativity, achievement in work, and advancement in the organization (Cherrington, 1991) Motivator factors tend to derive from the intrinsic content of a job (Robertson & Smith, 1985) and are attributed to long-lasting job experiences, resulting in positive feelings about the job (Pinder, 1984)

Stated earlier, the motivator factors and hygiene factors are discrete Motivator factors are fundamental to job satisfaction, whereas the hygiene factors are predictors of job dissatisfaction (Ford, 1992) To that end, Herzberg et al (1959) claimed that fulfilled hygiene needs would not achieve satisfaction Satisfaction and motivation, according to the theory, is affected only by the motivators; individuals can be happy about some aspects of their job, while simultaneously being unhappy about other aspects

According to Steers and Porter (1991), the implications of the Herzberg

Motivator-Hygiene Theory were evident in the ability to increase motivation in the context of job satisfaction: basic changes in the nature of an employee’s job will increase job satisfaction Moreover, Steers and Porter (1991) posited that job elements should be redesigned based on the organizational factors aligned with motivators, namely indicators

of personal growth and recognition

While the Motivator-Hygiene Theory received wide recognition, the theory has garnered much criticism (Steers & Porter, 1991) King (1970) wrote there were five different theoretical interpretations of the Herzberg Motivator-Hygiene Theory and the research conducted was not consistent with the interpretations According to Steers and Porter (1991), another criticism was that the theory did not provide for individual

differences, assuming that an increase in personal growth and satisfaction, or job

enrichment, benefited all employees A third criticism identified by Steers and Porter (1991) was that research grounded in the Herzberg-Motivator Hygiene Theory often failed to support the existence of the two discrete factors (motivator and hygiene)

Despite the criticisms noted, the Herzberg Motivator-Hygiene Theory has

increased researchers’ and supervisors’ understanding of the role of motivation in the work environment (Steers & Porter, 1991) Researchers should consider the theory to be one theory from which to base research on job satisfaction To that end, Steers and Porter (1991) suggested the theory be continually modified to “develop comprehensive and accurate predictors of human behavior on the job” (p 414)

Evolution of Three Factor Scale

Bowen (1980) studied the level of job satisfaction among agricultural teacher educators Two instruments were used to measure job satisfaction The first was Wood’s (1973) “Faculty Satisfaction/Dissatisfaction Scale” modified by Bowen so that the items were applicable to agricultural teacher educators The modified Wood instrument

measured the motivator and hygiene factors related to Herzberg’s Motivator-Hygiene Theory The second instrument utilized by Bowen was the Brayfield-Rothe “Job

Satisfaction Index” as modified by Warner (1973) The modified Brayfield-Rothe Index measured job satisfaction when all facets of the job were considered (Bowen, 1980) Data from the Brayfield-Rothe Index provided a measure of an overall level of job

satisfaction among agricultural teacher educators In addition to the two job satisfaction instruments, Bowen (1980) collected demographic data on agricultural teacher educators

The study conducted by Bowen (1980) found results in contrast to the Herzberg Motivator-Hygiene Theory Three factors classified as dissatisfiers, or hygiene factors (policy and administration, supervision-technical, and interpersonal relations) had the

(motivators) and dissatisfiers (hygiene factors) Bowen (1980) reported that policy and administration, which was classified as a dissatisfier was the best predictor of job

satisfaction among agricultural teacher educators When satisfiers were correlated with dissatisfiers, moderate to very high intercorrelations were reported among the ten

satisfiers and dissatisfiers examined To that end, Bowen (1980) concluded that

Herzberg’s Motivator-Hygiene Theory was not applicable to faculty members in

agricultural teacher education

A similar study conducted by Bowen and Radhakrishna (1991) sought to

determine the level of job satisfaction among agricultural teacher educators and to

determine the suitability of the Herzberg Motivator-Hygiene Theory to faculty members

in agricultural teacher education The instruments used by Bowen (1980) were again used by Bowen and Radhakrishna (1991) and included the Wood (1973) instrument modified by Bowen (1980), as well as the Brayfield-Rothe Index modified by Warner (1973) While most of the intercorrelations between the motivator factors, hygiene factors, and job satisfaction were moderate to substantial in strength, Bowen and

Radhakrishna (1991) determined that the motivator factors were better indicators of job satisfaction than the hygiene factors and concluded that “the Herzberg motivator-hygiene theory tends to be more applicable to agricultural education faculty in 1990 than it was in 1980” (p 21)

Padilla-Velez (1993) examined the level of job satisfaction of vocational teachers

in Puerto Rico using a modified Wood (1973) instrument as well as the Brayfield-Rothe index modified by Warner (1973) Three constructs were identified as the variables

related to job satisfaction of vocational teachers in Puerto Rico and included

administration and supervision; salary, benefits, and resources; and professional

opportunities and responsibilities

In a study of faculty members in the College of Food, Agricultural, and

Environmental Sciences at The Ohio State University, Conklin (1999) found that all ten

of the motivator and hygiene factors were significantly related to job satisfaction The motivator and hygiene factors were measured using a modified Wood (1973) instrument while job satisfaction was measured with the Brayfield-Rothe Index modified by Warner (1973)

Cano and Miller (1992) investigated job satisfaction, job satisfier factors, and job dissatisfier factors in a gender analysis among Ohio agricultural education teachers Similar to the previous studies cited, a modified Wood (1973) instrument and Warner (1973) modified Brayfield-Rothe Index were used to measure motivator-hygiene factors and job satisfaction, respectively Castillo, Conklin, and Cano (1999) conducted a study

of job satisfaction among Ohio agricultural education teachers and used the same

instruments previously used in the Cano and Miller (1992) study The data from the Castillo, Conklin, and Cano (1999) study were used to develop the Three Factor Scale (Castillo, 1999) Castillo and Cano (1999) used principal component analysis to

determine if the motivator factors and hygiene factors from the Wood (1973) instrument could be reduced to a “lesser number of meaningful and interpretable factors” (Castillo,

1999, p 72)

Three components were interpreted and named by Castillo and Cano (1999) as policy and administration, personal growth and satisfaction, and fiscal resources

(Castillo, 1999) Common factor analysis was used to “identify instrument items

pertaining to certain factors” (Castillo, 1999, p 77) More specifically, items were

identified pertaining to the three factors policy and administration, personal growth and satisfaction, and fiscal resources Motivator-hygiene factors related to policy and

administration included: supervision, policies, recognition, relationship, advancement, and responsibility In terms of personal growth and satisfaction, related motivator-

hygiene factors included: the work itself and achievement Finally, the

motivator-hygiene factors salary and working conditions were classified with the newly created factor fiscal resources

Castillo (1999) used the newly created Three Factor Scale, which was ultimately a reorganization of factors related to the motivator and hygiene factors posited by Herzberg

et al (1959) to measure the level of job satisfaction among agricultural teacher education faculty members in the United States The study yielded substantial and very strong positive correlations between each of the three selected factors and overall job

satisfaction (Castillo, 1999),

Since the items in the Three Factor Scale were subjected to factor analysis,

Castillo (1999) wrote that the variables in the Three Factor Scale could not be condensed

to a more “meaningful and interpretable set of variables” (p 151) Furthermore, Castillo (1999) implied that the Three Factor Scale was a “stable measure of the selected job factors: policy and administration, personal growth and satisfaction, and fiscal resources”

(p 152) The relationship between Maslow’s (1954) Hierarchy of Needs, Hygiene Theory (Herzberg et al., 1959), and the Three Factor Scale (Castillo & Cano, 1999) is expressed in Figure 2.1.

Motivator-Need Level Motivator/Hygiene Factor Three Factor

Conditions Policy/Administration Relationships Salary Supervision

Achievement Advancement Recognition Responsibility

Overall Job Satisfaction Wanous and Reichers (1994) wrote that single-item measures of psychological constructs were generally unpopular However, Wanous and Reichers (1994) granted that complex psychological constructs, such as cognitive abilities, warrant multiple item measures whereas simpler or narrow constructs such as expectancy are aligned with single-item measures To that end, overall job satisfaction is a construct that falls in between the continuum of complex and simple psychological constructs (Wanous & Reichers, 1994)

In a meta-analysis of studies where global, single-item measures of job

satisfaction were correlated with scales that measured overall job satisfaction, Wanous, Reichers, and Hudy (1996) concluded that “single-item measures are more robust than the scale measures of overall job satisfaction” (p 13) Similarly, Brief (1998) supported the use of single-item measures for the measurement of overall job satisfaction and noted that the summation of scores across facets of job satisfaction was not equivalent to measuring the level of overall job satisfaction

To determine whether a study warrants the use of a single-item measure, Wanous

et al (1996) wrote that the research question should be examined for applicability of the global, single-item measure of job satisfaction Additionally, Wanous et al (1996) suggested the use of single-item measure of overall job satisfaction from a practical standpoint, noting that the use of a single-item, as opposed to multiple items could save space on the instrument Castillo (1999) sought to develop a parsimonious set of items to measure job satisfaction and included a single-item to measure the level of overall job satisfaction among agricultural teacher educators

Demographic Characteristics Related to Job Satisfaction The relationships between demographic characteristics and job satisfaction have been examined extensively; however the results were inconclusive (Schneider,

Gunnarson, & Wheeler, 1992) Despite the inconsistent relationships, researchers have continued to study the relationships between demographic characteristics and job

satisfaction (Castillo, 1999) The current section reviews selected demographic

characteristics investigated with previous studies of job satisfaction

Age

Positive and negligible (Davis, 1971) relationships were found between age and level of job satisfaction by Bowen and Radhakrishna (1991), Castillo and Cano (2004), Conklin (1999), and Padilla-Velez (1993) Negative and negligible (Davis, 1971)

relationships were reported by Castillo (1999) and Schmiesing (2002) Similarly,

Negative, low (Davis, 1971) relationships were discovered between age and level of job satisfaction (Bowen, 1980; Long & Swortzel, 2007) In two gender analyses, females

were found to carry negligible or low (Davis, 1971) negative relationships between age and level of job satisfaction, while males carried negligible (Davis, 1971) positive

relationships between age and level of job satisfaction (Cano & Miller, 1992; Castillo, Conklin, & Cano, 1999)