Post on 23-Jul-2016




6 download

Embed Size (px)


<ul><li><p>JOB SATISFACTION AS NEED SATISFACTION" </p><p>HERBERT P. FROEHLICH3 and 1. WOLINS </p><p>Iowa State University </p><p>Summary TEE purpose of this study is to investigate how employees' </p><p>judgments of the importance of various aspects of the job can be used to assess job satisfaction. A 61-item attitude survey was administered to 257 engineers at the Whiting installation of the Standard Oil Company of Indiana. Two characteristics were to be tapped by each item: (a) satisfaction of the em- ployee with the content of the item (agreement), and (b) the importance of the item to the employee. </p><p>The Wherry-Winer method for factoring a large number of items (Wherry &amp; Winer, 1953) was attempted, but for three of the four satisfaction item groups the iteration failed to con- verge; thus, a modification of another of Wherry's methods was used to obtain item factor loadings (Wherry, 1949). </p><p>Most of the item variance was explained by two general fac- tors : a General Agreement Factor (Over-all Satisfaction) and a General Importance Factor. The analysis was able to indicate which items measure each of the factors best. The variance in individual responses to any one importance item was invalid for measuring job attitudes; however, it was found that the variance of the group (i.e., the mean of all 257 cases) on a par- ticular item was valid for measuring what items in the agree- ment item groups loaded highest on the General Agreement or Over-all Satisfaction Factor. Items with low satisfaction means </p><p>'A part of Mr. Froehlich's thesis (1958) submitted to the Graduate Faculty in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of Master of Science. </p><p>'The authors wish to express their appreciation to the Standard Oil Com- pany (Indiana) for financial support of this study. They are specifically indebted to the Employee Relations Research Group for technical assistance, and to Dr. William A. Owens (then in their employ) for construction of the questionnaire. </p><p>a Presently at the Naval Air Technical Training Command, Memphis, Ten- nessee. </p><p>407 </p></li><li><p>408 PERSONNEL PSYCHOLOGY </p><p>and high importance means make the best indexes for the measurement of over-all satisfaction. </p><p>The correlation between the mean importance of an item and the extent to which the agreement part of that item loads on the Over-all Satisfaction Factor was .46. The correlation of the means of the agreement items with the means of the im- portance items was .lo. The correlation of the mean agreement with the factor loadings of the agreement items on the Over-all Satisfaction Factor was -.43. This latter correlation is a sta- tistical artifact, but the relationship between mean importance and the factor loadings has psychological significance. </p><p>Introduction In spite of an insistence on the part of investigators that a re- </p><p>lationship exists between job attitudes and selected external criteria, there is enough evidence to indicate how inconsistent this relationship is (Brayfield &amp; Crockett, 1955; Herzberg, Mausner, Peterson &amp; Capwell, 1957). The consistency we seek and the meaningfulness of interpretation may be awaiting an adequate definition of concepts, proper item and questionnaire construction, relevant criteria, and appropriate statistical tech- niques to bring it to light-as well as other methodological, sta- tistical, and theoretical considerations pointed out by Brayfield and Crockett (1955). This study uses factor analysis as its statistical technique ; it uses another characteristic of attitudes considered neglected in conventional attitude measurement by Krech and Crutchfield (1948). </p><p>Another statistical approach may be pattern analysis (Mc- Quitty, 1957a, 1957b, 1957c), in which the pattern of individ- uals responses is analyzed and by means of which the charac- teristics of individuals in types may be investigated. Krech and Crutchfield (1948) suggest other characteristics of an attitude which should be investigated if we are to understand and pre- dict the behavior of an individual : kind, clarity, salience, speci- ficity, strength, and verifiability. </p><p>The characteristic of importance seems especially relevant to a consideration of job satisfaction. We recognize that satisfac- tion involves need fulfillment: the fulfillment of aspects of the </p></li><li><p>HERBERT P. FROEHLICH AND 1. WOLlNS 409 </p><p>job environment important to the employee. For example Ro- sen and Rosen (1955) indicate </p><p>. . . that satisfaction will tend to result when people see occurring what they want to occur in a given situation, and that dissatisfaction will tend to result when they do not. </p><p>An even clearer position is offered by Schaffer (1953) : Overall job satisfaction will vary directly with the extent to which those </p><p>needs of an individual which can be satisfied in a job are actually satisfied; the stronger the need, the more closely will job satisfaction depend on its fulfillment. </p><p>In a study of this nature, Ross and Zander (1957) showed that workers whose personnel needs were being satisfied on the job were more likely to remain on the job than those whose needs were not satisfied. It is such a theoretical approach, the strength of a need and its satisfaction, which has also been sug- gested by Oehler (1948), Fox (1952), Morse (1953), Decker (1955), Clark (1956), and Papanester (1958), and on which this investigation is based. </p><p>Procedure A sample of employees representing supervisors and non- </p><p>supervisors was interviewed. On the basis of comments coming from these interviews, 61 items to be answered by all employ- ees, plus two items for supervisors, were constructed. These were thought to cover the various areas relevant to the working environment at Standard Oil. Each of the 61 items includes two parts: the first asks each employee to indicate his attitude to- ward an aspect of his job, the second part asks each employee to indicate how important that aspect of the job is to him. In both cases the employee indicates his attitude or judgment of importance by marking 1 for strongly disagree or very unimportant to 5 for strongly agree or very important. </p><p>The data from one of the six installations which had been given the survey, Whiting, were chosen for the analysis since that plant had the most employees. Table 1 gives some of the personal data for the engineers included in the study. These data were also chosen for inclusion as criteria in the factor analysis. Out of a possible 277 subjects, 20 were eliminated be- </p></li><li><p>410 PERSONNEL PSYCHOLOGY </p><p>TABLE 1 Number and Percentage of All Emplc </p><p>Items and Categories </p><p>1. Engineering group Engineering Research General Engineering </p><p>Process Special service Utilities Construction Other </p><p>Inspection Design Service </p><p>Refinery Engineering </p><p>2. Age 20-24 25-30 3 1-39 40-50 51 or over </p><p>No degree B.S. M.S. Ph.D. </p><p>3. Educational level attained </p><p>4. Years of professional experience prior to joining Standard Oi </p><p>None Less than 1 1 to 3 3 to 6 6 or more </p><p>5. Type of Job Supervisory Nonsupervisory </p><p>6. Monthly salary 500 to 599 600 to 699 700 to 799 800 to 899 900 to 999 </p><p>loo0 or more </p><p>:es in Each of the Personal Data Categories </p><p>Number </p><p>29 </p><p>30 25 27 17 33 </p><p>30 49 17 </p><p>22 87 84 41 23 </p><p>11 208 27 11 </p><p>115 26 46 33 37 </p><p>68 189 </p><p>67 73 38 29 17 33 </p><p>Percentage </p><p>11.3 </p><p>11.6 9.7 </p><p>10.8 6.6 </p><p>12.8 </p><p>11.6 19.0 6.6 </p><p>8.6 33.8 32.7 16.0 8.9 </p><p>4.3 80.9 10.5 4.3 </p><p>44.8 10.1 17.9 12.8 14.4 </p><p>26.5 73.5 </p><p>26.1 28.4 14.8 11.3 6.6 </p><p>12.8 </p></li><li><p>HERBERT P. FROEHLICH AND 1. WOLINS 41 1 </p><p>cause they indicated a response to an item that had not been given as one of the choices. </p><p>The Wherry-Winer method (1953) for factoring a large num- ber of items was chosen as a short-cut for the longer complete method. Four attitude factors were guessed : Working Condi- tions and Requirements, Financial Reward, Supervision, and Effective Management and Administration. The items were sorted into these particular categories because these factors were identified in previous studies (Baehr, 1954; Wherry, 1954) and it was not the purpose of this study to discover new fac- tors. There is no indication in the literature to suggest what factors might come out of the importance items, and so the most reasonable (and economical) guess was made ; namely, that the importance factors were the same as the attitude fac- tors. </p><p>The four attitude-guessed factors, the four importance- guessed factors, and the five criteria (age, salary, experience, supervisor-nonsupervisor, education) were intercorrelated. The 122 items-that is, the agreement and importance part of the 61 items, plus the 9 job classifications4 (referred to in Table 1)-were correlated with each of the thirteen measures men- tioned in the previous sentence. This resulted in a 13 by 13 intercorrelation matrix and a 13 by 131 extended matrix of cor- relations. </p><p>The iteration to correct for the spurious overlap of an item with the guessed factor which it contained was attempted, but the process was abandoned because the iteration for three of the four attitude-guessed factors would not converge. It ap- pears that the experts who judged the apparent content of these items were very poor experts indeed, since the probable reason for failure to converge is that one or more of the items included in a subtest correlates negatively with one or another of the other items. </p><p>Since previous research indicated that one general attitude factor would probably account for a large part of the attitude variance, it was decided that the computations (i.e., the corre- These correlations were obtained by making each job classification a sepa- </p><p>rate variable and coding 1 for belonging to a particular classification and 0 for not belonging to that claeaification. </p></li><li><p>41 2 PERSONNEL PSYCHOLOGY </p><p>Agreement Importance </p><p>5 1 2 4 6 8 -__--- </p><p>57 68 01 02 09 -05 43 55-09-17-11 -13 </p><p>X 57 01 -02 04 04 -04 X -01 01 -01 06 </p><p>-01 00 X 47 48 58 -03 00 00 X 40 41 </p><p>02-03 -02 00 X 48 03 04 02-08 00 X </p><p>-01 -01 00 00 03 00 -01 -01 00-01 -01 00 </p><p>02 00-01 -01 01 01 03 -01 00-01 00 01 00-02 00-01 00 00 </p><p>lations) that had been made might be sufficient to assess the efficacy of the importance items. It was hoped that one factor would also explain a large proportion of the importance vari- ance. Fortunately this turned out to be true. </p><p>The method finally used was to factor analyze the 13 by 13 intercorrelation matrix by the Thurstone group centroid tech- nique (Thurstone, 1949) ; the item loadings were then deter- </p><p>9 10 11 12 13 </p><p>_ _ _ _ ~ _ _ _ - _ _ _ 25 32 24 35 26 21 37 18 33 22 12 18 13 29 13 28 33 23 37 14 </p><p>-03 -04 -02 -03 03 -04 -09 -05 -06 -13 </p><p>03 -04 02 -03 -02 02 -04 -02 00 -06 </p><p>X 74 51 48 12 04 X 90 75 41 </p><p>-04 04 X 24 30 01 03 -03 X 32 01 03 -02 00 X </p><p>TABLE 2 Intercorrelations and Residuals of the Thirteen Variables. </p><p>x -06 </p><p>00 01 </p><p>-03 02 06 </p><p>-03 </p><p>-03 -01 </p><p>01 00 03 </p><p>__ 1 3 5 7 </p><p>2 4 6 8 </p><p>9 10 11 12 13 </p><p>1 3 -~ </p><p>43' X </p><p>-01 02 </p><p>05 -05 </p><p>00 00 </p><p>-01 02 </p><p>-03 -05 </p><p>04 </p><p>8 Decimal points omitted. Residuals below diagonal. Significance for 255 df a t .01 level = .16. 1 = working conditions and requirements. 3 = financial reward. 5 =: supervision. 7 = effective management and administration. </p><p>2 = working conditions and requirements. 4 = financial reward, 6 = supervision. 8 = effective management and administration. </p><p>9 = age. 10 = salary. 11 = experience. 12 = supervisor-nonsupervisor. 13 = education. </p></li><li><p>HERBERT P. FROEHLICH AND 1. WOLINS 41 3 </p><p>mined by a method suggested by Wherry (1949). This method was altered to the extent that the spurious correlations were ignored in the computation. </p><p>Correlations between the means of all agreement and all im- portance items were computed. These means, each based on the 257 respondents, were correlated with the factor loadings of all the agreement items. A multiple was computed, predicting the factor loadings of the attitude items with the means of the im- portance items and the means of the attitude items. </p><p>Results </p><p>The factor analysis of the 13 by 13 matrix of intercorrelations resulted in three orthogonal factors and four doublets. The fac- tors and doublets are reported in Table 3 along with the com- munalities. The 13 by 13 matrix of intercorrelations and resid- uals are reported in Table 2. These factors and doublets are interpreted as follows : </p><p>Factor A. Over-all attitude toward the company and the job. All four agreement item clusters load on this factor. Other loadings on this factor indicate that the best attitudes are held by men who are super- visors, relatively well paid, relatively well edu- cated, experienced, and older. </p><p>TABLE 3 Factor Loadings of the Thirteen Variables8 </p><p>1 3 5 7 2 4 6 8 9 </p><p>10 11 12 13 </p><p>A </p><p>79 62 72 85 03 00 03 02 30 40 26 45 25 </p><p>I </p><p>01 - 20 </p><p>00 -01 </p><p>76 63 64 70 </p><p>- 02 - 09 -04 -08 - 04 </p><p>C </p><p>01 03 </p><p>- 12 - 02 </p><p>02 - 11 </p><p>01 00 70 76 64 47 38 </p><p>S </p><p>00 10 </p><p>-01 04 00 10 00 07 04 30 00 65 00 </p><p>AE </p><p>05 00 00 </p><p>- 10 10 </p><p>- 10 00 </p><p>- 06 - 46 - 02 </p><p>02 04 50 </p><p>PE </p><p>03 - 01 </p><p>00 05 00 03 00 00 00 05 40 </p><p>-39 00 </p><p>SE </p><p>00 05 00 00 00 07 00 00 05 41 60 00 00 </p><p>63 44 53 74 59 43 41 50 80 </p><p>100 100 100 46 </p><p>(L Decimal points omitted. </p></li><li><p>414 PERSONNEL PSYCHOLOGY </p><p>Factor I. General Importance. Only the four importance item clusters load on this factor. </p><p>Factor C. All the criteria load on this factor. </p><p>The remaining 4 factors are doublets and indicate by their load- ings that: </p><p>Factor S. Supervisors generally have higher salaries than nonsupervisors. </p><p>Factor AE. Older men have less education than younger ones. </p><p>Factor PE. Supervisors have little prior experience before coming to Standard Oil. </p><p>Factor SE. Men with more prior experience have higher salaries. </p><p>These four factors seem reasonable since (a) good men are made supervisors and given pay increases; (b) education was not stressed in former years as it is today; (c) supervisors prob- ably have worked their way up in the organization, and (d) it seems true that men with previous experience would join the company only at substantial salaries. </p><p>Before considering the item factor loadings, it should again be pointed out that each statement included an agreement (satisfaction) part, and an importance part. For example: </p><p>44. The company recognizes merit and rewards it. Agreement 5.Strong- 4. Agree 3. Neither Agree 2. Disagree 1. Strongly </p><p>1Y Nor Disagree Disagree Agree </p><p>Importance 5. Very 4. Impor- 3. Neither Impor- 2. Unimpor- 1. Very Un- </p><p>Im- tant tant Nor Unim- tant impor- por- tant </p><p>portant tant </p><p>For purposes of exposition the agreement aspect has been la- beled a and the importance aspect b. One would thus ex- pect part a to have a higher loading on the Over-all Attitude Factor than on the Importance Factor, and part b to load inore heavily on the Importance Factor than on the Over-all Satisfaction Factor. In light of this example it is hoped that the </p></li><li><p>HERBERT P. FROEHLICH AND 1. WOLINS 41 5 </p><p>item factor loadings on the factors reported above might be understood without too much difficulty. </p><p>Factor A. Over-all Attitude toward the Company and the Job. The factor is identified by the high loadings of the follow- ing items: </p><p>A .75 .67 .66 </p><p>.65 </p><p>.63 </p><p>.63 </p><p>44a The co...</p></li></ul>