• unlimited access with print and download
    $ 37 00
  • read full document, no print or download, expires after 72 hours
    $ 4 99
More info
Unlimited access including download and printing, plus availability for reading and annotating in your in your Udini library.
  • Access to this article in your Udini library for 72 hours from purchase.
  • The article will not be available for download or print.
  • Upgrade to the full version of this document at a reduced price.
  • Your trial access payment is credited when purchasing the full version.
Buy
Continue searching

Herzberg's theory of motivation as applied to community college full-time and adjunct online faculty

ProQuest Dissertations and Theses, 2011
Dissertation
Author: Larry Gullickson
Abstract:
This study was designed to identify the factors that influence full-time and adjunct faculty perceptions regarding job satisfaction and dissatisfaction. It was also designed to determine if those factors relate differently to full-time and adjunct faculty. It is anticipated that this information will aid administrators in improving morale and performance of individual faculty members. During the spring 2008 semester, the 136 faculty were teaching online courses at the selected Iowa community colleges. Responses were received from 38 full-time faculties and 35 adjunct faculties for a total of 73 responses (53.7%). The survey instruments, cover letters, and self-addressed return envelopes were distributed to the faculty members in November 2008. Follow-up materials were provided to faculty members who did not respond to the initial mailing in December 2008 and again in February 2009. According to the data from survey Instrument I, Herzberg's findings were supported. The motivating factors generally provided satisfaction to faculty members. Hygiene factors generally were dissatisfying. The significance of the data from Instrument I was limited and the level of probability could not be adequately established. However, when compared to the results of similar studies, administrators can reasonably be assured that taking action to support faculty in regard to motivating factors and limiting hygiene factors will provide greater satisfaction for their faculty and enhance their performance. The rating scale of Instrument II gives a different perspective. All motivating factors showed greater satisfaction than dissatisfaction. However, the data resulted in a greater amount of responses which, in turn, led to greater significance and probability than the results from the Herzberg's critical incidence approach used in Instrument I. A more dramatic difference was with hygiene factors where respondents indicated that they had more satisfying experiences than dissatisfying experiences in virtually all hygiene factors. The primary intent of this study was to compare the satisfying and dissatisfying factors that were identified by full-time and adjunct faculty. Since the data were more statistically significant from the rating scale of Instrument II, its data were the basis for comparing the satisfying and dissatisfying factors affecting each category of faculty. With only minor exceptions, the rating responses for both groups of faculty for each factor were virtually the same. In other words. there was virtually no difference in the perceptions of full-time and adjunct faculty.

TABLE OF CONTENTS Page Abstract……………………………………………………………………………..……iii Doctoral Committee………………………………………………………………………v Acknowledgement……………………………………………………………………….vi List of Tables…………………….......................................................................................x List of Figures……………………………………………………………………….……xi Chapter 1. Introduction......................................................................................................1 Statement of the Problem............................................................................5 Research Questions......................................................................................6 Significance of the Study............................................................................6 Definition of Terms.....................................................................................8 Limitations and Delimitations.....................................................................9 Assumptions..............................................................................................10 Organization of the Study.........................................................................11 2. Review of Selected Literature and Research…………….…........................12 Historical Perspective................................................................................13 Scientific Management..................................................................13 Administrative Management..........................................................14 Human Relations Movement.........................................................16 Contemporary Content Theories of Motivation.........................................19 Maslow’s Needs Hierarchy............................................................21

viii

Alderfer’s ERG Theory.................................................................24 McClelland’s Achievement Model...............................................26 Herzberg’s Motivation-Hygiene Theory.......................................29 Summary of Content Theories......................................................43 Faculty Job Satisfaction/Dissatisfaction...................................................44 Job Satisfaction of faculty in four-year Institutions of Higher Education..................................................46 Job Satisfaction of Faculty in Community Colleges.....................49 Motivational and Inhibiting Factors of Online Education........................53 Motivation of Faculty to use Online Learning Methods….…......54 Barriers to Adoption of Online Learning Methods…….…..……56 Summary....................................................................................................58 3. Methodology...................................................................................................60 Review of Literature..................................................................................60 Population and Sample..............................................................................61 Instrumentation.........................................................................................61 Data Collection.........................................................................................64 Data Analysis............................................................................................65 4. Findings…………………………………………………………………….67 Response Rate……………………………………………………..….…67 Findings………………………………………………………………….68 Analysis of Data for Research Questions 1 and 2 from Instrument I…………………………………………………..….68

ix

Analysis of Data for Research Questions 1 and 2 from Instrument II………………………………………………….….78 5. Summary, Conclusions, Discussions, and Recommendations………………93 Summary………………………………………………… ………….....93 Problem Statement and Research Questions………………….…93 Literature Review………………………………………….…….94 Methodology……………………………………………….……97 Findings………………………………………………………….98 Conclusions……………………………………………..……………….99 Discussion……………………………………….…..………………….101 Recommendations……………………………………………………....102 Recommendations for Practice…………………………………102 Recommendations for Further Study…………………………..103 References.......................................................................................................................105 Appendixes A. Survey Instruments..................................................................................120 B. Cover Letters……………………………………………………………126 C. Office of Human Subject Protection Approval…………………………131

x

LIST OF TABLES

Table Page 1. Percentage of Each Factor to the Total Good and Bad Experiences as Derived from Instrument I…………………………………….……………...70 2. Number of Factors of Good and Bad Experiences as Derived from Instrument I…………………………………………………………………..75 3. Summary of Results of Motivator and Hygiene Factors in Terms of Satisfying and Dissatisfying Experiences as Derived from Instrument I…….78 4. Percentage of Each Factor to the Total Good and Bad Experiences as Derived from Instrument II………………………………………………...…79 5. Number of Factors of Good and Bad Experiences as Derived from Instrument II…………………………………………………………………..83 6. Summary of Results of Motivator and Hygiene Factors in Terms of Satisfying and Dissatisfying Experiences as Derived from Instrument II…....87 7. Total Good and Bad Experiences, Chi Square and Probability of Full-Time and Adjunct Faculty as Derived from Instrument II…………………….……89

xi

LIST OF FIGURES Figure Page

1. Comparison of Content Theories.....................................................................20

2. Maslow’s Needs Hierarchy Pyramid...............................................................21 3. The ERG Theory..............................................................................................25 4. Characteristics of High Need Achievers..........................................................27 5. Herzberger’s Concept of Job Satisfaction/Dissatisfaction...............................30 6. Comparison of Satisfiers and Dissatisfiers.......................................................34 7. Percentage Relationship of Motivator and Hygiene Factors to Satisfying and Dissatisfying Experiences as Identified in Instrument I……………..…..74 8. Percentage Relationship of Motivator and Hygiene Factors to Satisfying and Dissatisfying Experiences as Identified in Instrument II………………...88

1

CHAPTER 1

Introduction

In recent years, online education has become much more prevalent in higher education, particularly in community colleges. During this period of growth in online education, and in prior periods of growth in other distance education delivery platforms, utilization of adjunct or part-time faculty has increased dramatically since 1960, particularly in community colleges where we have both full-time and adjunct instructors participating in the education of students. According to the National Center for Education Statistics (NCES), college and universities tripled the proportion of adjunct faculty from 1960 to 1984. By 2000, the NCES reported that 58% of the faculties of community colleges were part-time while 23% to 40% of various types of four-year institutions were part-time (National Center for Education Statistics, 2003; Valdez & Anthony, 2001). The Iowa Community College Online Consortium consists of a group of seven community colleges in the state of Iowa. According to the director of the consortium, the growth of online education provided by the consortium has grown substantially since its formation and is expected to continue growing at a rapid rate (S. Rheinschmidt, personal communications, February, 21, 2008). This study involves online instructors from four of the Consortium’s institutional members. The increased reliance on adjunct instructors has been driven by a number of factors; the tightening of financial resources has been of primary importance since adjuncts are generally paid less and normally do not receive benefits (Kuchera & Miller, 1988). According to Valdez and Anthony (2001), other factors contributing to this movement include achieving greater flexibility in meeting staff demands, availability of

2

individuals with advanced degrees that have not wanted or found full-time employment, and the growth of community colleges (Valdez & Anthony, 2001). This trend of growth in the number of adjunct instructors is also evidenced in the Iowa Community College Online Consortium where the continued growth in enrollment in online courses has resulted in a significant increase in the number of adjunct instructors needed to teach online to augment full-time faculty who must teach online and in the classroom (S. Rheinschmidt, personal communications, February, 21, 2008). There has been extensive research regarding factors affecting the motivation of full-time and adjunct instructors, but have studies been conducted that look at the impact of teaching online courses by full-time and adjunct faculty. Kreitner and Kinichi (1992) found that many factors cause satisfaction or dissatisfaction of working conditions when applied to higher education. Robinson’s (2005) more recent study of the satisfaction and dissatisfaction of faculty from a midwestern higher education institution shows that [m]otivational factors with high significance discovered from survey results where personal motivation to use technology, more flexible working conditions, opportunity to develop new ideas for courses, intellectual challenge, ability to reach new learners, and opportunity to improve teaching. Significant inhibiting factors to faculty participation produced from survey results were concern about faculty work load, lack of release time, concern about quality of learning in online courses, absence of nonverbal communication cues, and concern about academic dishonesty. (p. 1) Studies have examined the of factors causing such satisfaction and dissatisfaction. Understanding these factors provide administrators the opportunity to examine and

3

implement policies and programs that will promote satisfaction and reduce the impact of dissatisfaction (Olanrewaju, 2001). An examination of motivation would not be complete without a review of Frederick Herzberg's two-factor theory (1966). Herzberg's research led to the conclusion that two broad categories of factors affect an individual's satisfaction or dissatisfaction with their jobs. Herzberg's first category of factors is referred to as motivator or implicit factors and is the key to true job satisfaction and motivation. Motivating factors are the nature of the work itself, actual job responsibility, opportunity for personal growth and recognition, and sense of achievement. The presence of such factors leads to satisfaction. Motivators are factors that are implicitly driven or driven internally within the individual. Herzberg refers to the second category as hygiene or extrinsic factors which involve characteristics of the work place such as policies, working conditions, pay, colleagues, and supervision. Hygiene or explicit factors are referred to as dissatisfiers and will lead to job dissatisfaction but not to satisfaction nor lead to motivation to do a good job. Hygiene factors are driven extrinsically or from outside the individual. It would appear obvious that when adjuncts must teach as many as eight courses a semester to make ends meet (Jay, 2004) and work through the summer (Fogg, 2002) hygiene factors would be more dominating to an adjunct’s psyche than motivation factor – even though it is less productive. Therefore, administrators need to find ways to provide intrinsic motivation. Herzberg's theory has been criticized by Whitesett and Winslow (1967) on the grounds that the factors can be misinterpreted. They argue that Herzberg's methods were weak and there were frequent misinterpretations of the results. However, other research

4

by Myers (1964) and Schwartz, Jenusaitis, and Stark (1963) tended to support Herzberg's findings. Research by Larry A. Olanrewaju (2001) of business faculty in the Virginia Community College system also ends to support Herzberg's thesis. However, he found that responsibility was a hygiene factor to the business faculty that were the subjects of his study while Herzberg's subjects consisted of accountants and engineers who viewed responsibility as a motivator. As already discussed, the primary reason for the expanded use of adjunct faculty is the accelerated cost of higher education during a time of reduced funding sources with more and more demands on the finances of student families. In order to cope with limited funding, administrators must increase tuition or cut costs. In an effort to cut costs, adjunct instructors are hired at reduced salaries and without benefits such as retirement, vacation, and insurance that are normally available to full-time faculty. According to Caprio, Dubowsky, Warasila, Cheatwood, and Costa (1998/1999), adjunct instructors typically teach one or two courses, and usually – often because of commitments to their full-time employment – spend very little time on campus outside of their classrooms. They meet and interact with few of the full-time instructors. Indeed, the only significant professional contact some may have is with the department head who hands them a course syllabus and a textbook at the beginning of the semester and evaluates their teaching sometime before the term ends. These faculty members seem to be a seriously underutilized resources (p. 172). In their research, Caprio et al. also found positive attributes that adjunct faculty bring to the classroom. It is normal that many adjuncts bring their experience from their

5

full-time professional careers that are related to the courses that they teach. This experience gives students a real life look at the subject area that full-time professors who have spent their entire career in the classroom cannot provide. Such an experience can peak the interests of students that book learning is unable to do (Caprio et al., 1998/1999). According to Caprio et al., adjunct instructors who come from the professional world can be a link or liaison to that professional community for students seeking employment, provides fertile areas for academic research, for cooperative curriculum development, and fund raising (Caprio et al., 1998/1999). Since the mission of the community college is teaching and learning, it is important those faculties concur with and achieve that mission (Geiger, 2001). Therefore, college administrators need to thoroughly understand factors which motivate their faculty to ensure that their students get the best education possible because staff and faculty that are enthusiastic are “more likely to further student development than is one with an apathetic group of time-savers going through the motions of information transmittal in their teaching and little more” (Cohen, 1974, pp. 369-370). The advancement of these missions and expectations through proper motivation may be applicable in two-year and four-year institutions; this research compared motivation between these two groups of faculty. Statement of the Problem This study consisted of two purposes. First, this study identified those factors that influence the full-time and adjunct faculty of four institutional members of the Iowa Community College Online Consortium regarding satisfaction or dissatisfaction of

6

teaching online courses. Second, this study determined if there are any differences in the satisfaction or dissatisfaction of adjunct faculty compared to full-time faculty. Research Questions The following research questions were tested to determine if the same factors that lead to job satisfaction or dissatisfaction of the adjunct and full-time faculty of Iowa Western Community College, Northwest Iowa Community College, Iowa Lakes Community College, and Southeastern Iowa Community College, all members of the Iowa Community College Online Consortium will correlate with Herzberg’s findings: 1. What relationships exist in faculty perception of whether motivating factors result in job satisfaction or dissatisfaction? 2. What relationships exist in faculty perception of whether hygiene factors result in job dissatisfaction or satisfaction? 3. What relationships exist in full-time and adjunct faculty perception of motivating factors and hygiene factors in delivery of online courses? Significance of the Study There is an extensive volume of research that studies the relationship between job satisfaction, performance productivity, and other variables, which focuses on workers in industry and business as well as other jobs and professions. However, only recently have we seen a significant amount of study involving faculty and institutions of higher learning and, more specifically, college faculty involved with online education. From the studies that have been conducted, it appears that there are differences between workers in industrial and business organizations, professions, etc., and that of faculty in higher education. One reason that such studies of workers in other types of organizations are

7

different is that such workers face different motivators and second, the work environments in higher education as opposed to other types of organizations are significantly different. Therefore, it is important to add to the body of research affecting college faculty and more specifically two-year institutions regarding instructors who teach online and in many cases teach both online and face-to-face. A study to help two-year college administrators understand the factors that lead to job satisfaction and dissatisfaction of two-year college faculty will assist administrators in implementing and improving the work environment so that it will foster high morale and job satisfaction among faculty. An understanding of these factors will assist administrators in developing the work and a work environment that is conducive to motivation. Since more and more institutions, in particular community colleges, move from full-time to adjunct instructors, it is important to determine if the implicit factors enhancing job satisfaction and the hygiene factors which contribute to job dissatisfaction are the same for full-time and adjunct instructors. If not, it is important for administrators to understand the differences and use different approaches to motivation for each category of instructors. In this way, [t]he significance of the understanding of these relationships for motivation might provide college administrators with an insight into the process of improving motivation among faculty. Based on the recommendation of Herzberg, administrators must improve the hygiene conditions before trying to increase motivation. Hygiene conditions distract employees from experiencing the motivators. (Olanrewaju, 2001, p. 7).

8

Definition of Terms The following definitions relate to the purposes of this research study. Community Colleges: These are accredited two-year institutions of higher education (Chung, 1989). Hygiene factors: These are explicit factors, also referred to as dissatisfiers, in the work environment that are related to job dissatisfaction (Kreitner & Kinicki, 1992) and along with motivational factors are integral to Herzberg’s motivation-hygiene theory. Job satisfaction or dissatisfaction: These are job-related factors that result in favorable or unfavorable feelings by which employees view their jobs (Newstrom & Davis, 1997). Motivation-Hygiene Theory: Frederick Herzberg developed this model, also referred to as the two-factor theory or dual-factor theory. This model hypothesizes that a set of conditions existing in the work environment, if adequate, tends to motivate an employee and results in employee job satisfaction. On the other hand, a different set of conditions existing in the work environment are hygiene factors that tends to result in a failure to motivate employees resulting in employee job dissatisfaction (Newstrom & Davis, 1997). Motivators: Motivators, also referred to as satisfiers, are implicit job tasks that can result in an employee to proceed from a state of lack of job satisfaction to a state of job satisfaction (Kreitner & Kinichi, 1992). Online(Internet) Courses: These are courses delivered exclusively by the Internet or World Wide Web (USD, 2003).

9

Online Learning: This is a form of education which brings students and faculty who are separated by distance together through the use of the Internet or World Wide Web to access learning materials and interact with course content, instructors, and other students in an environment of collaboration and discussion “for the purpose of achieving learning objectives, attaining and practicing knowledge and skill, constructing personal meaning, and improving personal learner value from the learning experience.” (Robinson, 2005, p. 8). Rating Scale: This is a subjective evaluation of a person’s performance along a scale (Werther, Williams, & Davis, 1993). In this study job factors are rated along a scale from very satisfied to very dissatisfied. Limitations and Delimitations This study is subject to the following limitations: 1. Faculty members subject to this study will self-report their responses and therefore, such responses may not have been reported or not reported on a timely basis. 2. Since technology and online pedagogy are currently subject to frequent changes, the results of the study may be time sensitive. 3. The community colleges associated with the consortium are relatively small and in rural environments, they may have a variance in job satisfaction/dissatisfaction from larger institutions and those in other geographical locations. 4. Factors other than those identified in the questionnaires may affect the responses that may affect the findings of the study.

10

5. Self-reported measures are limited to that known by the respondents and that they are willing to disclose. 6. Respondents may interpret questions and factors differently. 7. The study is limited to the full-time and adjunct online faculty of four institutional members of the Iowa Community College Online Consortium during the spring 2008 semester. 8. The responses will be limited by the study to the factors used by Herzberg, Mausner, and Snyderman (1959) as modified by Moxley (1977) and Olanrewaju (2001). 9. Only legible and usable questionnaires will be incorporated into the analysis. 10. The study will be delimited to the data requested in the questionnaires. Assumptions This study is subject to the following assumptions: 1. Responses to the studies first questionnaire will be the result of some objective happening that the respondents will be able to express in an honest unbiased manner and not solely on subjective reactions or feelings. 2. The sequence of events leading to some objective happening will be bounded by time. 3. The events must directly affect the respondents’ good or bad feelings about their job rather than such feelings about the job that result from events unrelated to the job. 4. The events must occur during a period when feelings about the job are exceptionally good or exceptionally bad.

11

5. The events resulting in good or bad feelings must have occurred while the respondent held the job subject to the study. 6. The questionnaires used in the study are valid and reliable. Organization of the Study This dissertation is organized into five chapters. Chapter 1 constitutes a general introduction into the topic of motivation consisting of subsections on statement of the problem, research questions, significance of the study, definition of terms, limitations, delimitations, and assumptions. Chapter 2 provides a review of literature including an examination of the history of theoretical development of the role of motivation of staff and their productivity. Chapter 3 consists of a description of the methodology utilized in the research including the population to be studied, the statistical design, the collection of data, and the analysis of the data. Chapter 4 reports and analyze the findings identified from research to be conducted to answer the research questions set forth in Chapter 1 of this dissertation. Finally, Chapter 5 contains a summary of the research and findings, discussion of the findings, conclusions from the findings, and recommendations for practice, and further study as may be pertinent.

12

CHAPTER 2

Review of Selected Literature and Research

Motivation has been defined in various ways; its original meaning was derived from the Latin word movere, which means, “to move” (Steers & Porter, 1979). However, for the purposes of this study the term to move is probably insufficient because to motivate must also activate human behavior. Therefore, motivation can also be defined as an internal state or condition (sometimes described as a need, desire, or want) that serves to activate or energize behavior and give it direction (Kleinginna & Kleinginna, 1981). This conceptualization is affirmed by Franken (1994) in his reference to motivation as the arousal, direction, and persistence of behavior. It would then seem apparent that an appropriate definition for the purposes of this study is the internal state or condition that activates behavior of an individual and gives that behavior direction. Within an organization that motivation energizes and directs goal-oriented behavior that also influences the intensity and direction of that behavior. Motivation has been classified as content and process (Campbell & Dunnette, 1970; Hersey & Blanchard, 1993; Schermerhorn & Hunt, 1994). Content theories concentrate on factors affecting an individual that energize, direct, sustain, and stop the behavior. The content theories of motivation are centered on the needs of the individual. These needs relate primarily to the person’s inner self and how internal needs determine behavior. However, the major difficulty with content models of motivation is that the needs people have are not subject observation by managers or precise measurement for

13

monitoring purposes it is difficult...to measure an employee’s esteem needs or to access how they change over time. Further, simply knowing about an employee’s needs does not directly suggest to managers what they should do with that information. As a result, there has been considerable interest in a motivational model that relies more heavily on carefully measured and systematic application of incentives. (Newstrom & Davis, 1993, p. 132) On the other hand, process theories describe how the behavior is energized, directed, sustained and stopped. According to Morehead and Griffin (1989), [n]eeds theories try to describe the causes of motivated behavior; they are basically content oriented. Process theories try to describe processes by which motivated behavior occurs. In other words, they examine how people satisfy their needs. Process theory also describes how people choose between behavioral alternatives. (p. 133) A Historical Perspective Scientific Management The concept of scientific management was based on the theories established by Frederick Winslow Taylor (1911) whereby he came to the conclusion that management decisions were generally unsystematic and that no research existed to determine the best means of production. He advocated the use of scientific methods to analyze work systems and determine how to complete production tasks more efficiently and effectively. He assumed that workers were primarily motivated to earn as much money as possible. He believed that there was one best way to do a job and those methods should be discovered and implemented. Further, he believed that workers were not much more than cogs in the

14

machine and that the human problems that arose in the worker’s life stood in the way of increasing production and that those human problems should be minimized. Another key element of Taylor’s approach was the use of the differential piece rate system. Taylor assumed receiving money motivated workers. Therefore, he implemented a pay system in which workers were paid additional wages when they exceeded a standard level of output for each job. Taylor concluded that both workers and management would benefit from such an approach. (Bateman & Snell, 2002, p. 34) Building on Frederick Taylor’s concept of scientific management, Frank and Lillian Gilbreth developed the concept of separating tasks into micro motion. Frank Gilbreth referred to the micro motions as therbligs which were designed to search, select, grasp, reach, move, hold, release, position, preposition, inspect, assemble, disassemble, and use. Managers to establish predetermined standard times for the completion of assigned tasks later used this concept. (Markland, Vickery, & Davis, 1998). Lillian Gilbreth, in addition to working with her husband on establishing micro motions, also emphasized the human side of work (1914), which would lead to research on the psychological and social aspects affecting individual workers and their motivation. Administrative Management The movement toward organization theory began with the traditional view that existed throughout history that the boss knows best. This culminated in the theories of scientific management as espoused by Frederick Winslow Taylor (1911) and the Gilbreths (Bateman & Snell, 2002). This traditional view, identified as the classical era, was criticized by neoclassicalists who attempted to change, expand, and add to the

15

classical theory by attempting to combine the assumptions of the classical theory with concepts that were to be used by organizational theorists from the various schools of thought that were primarily established in the behavioral sciences. While the neoclassicalists had no consistent theory of their own, they were important because their criticism of the overly simplistic mechanistic view of the classical school was minimized. Further, the neoclassicalists raised issues and established a theoretical basis that became the foundation of many of the schools of management that followed (Shafritz & Ott, 2001). Chester Barnard was a primary contributor to this neoclassical organizational theory. His concern was that members of the organization must cooperate and must be able to obtain the assistance of others to accomplish those tasks that cannot be accomplished without such assistance. It was his belief that this cooperation was necessary to hold an organization together and was an integral part of his definition of an organization as “a system of consciously coordinated activities or forces of two or more persons” (Barnard, 1938, p. 73). Barnard argued that it was the executives’ responsibility to employ those strategies as are necessary to induce cooperation. He encouraged executives to utilize objective positive incentives to encourage cooperation and to reduce or eliminate negative incentives (Shafritz & Ott, 2001). Barnard also theorized that to “change the state of mind, or attitudes or motives of the available objective incentives can become effective” (Barnard, 1938, p. 266). He further argued that executives must sometimes use persuasion to obtain and maintain required contributions to the organization of the organization’s members.

16

Mary Parker Follett built on and expanded Chester Barnard’s work by emphasizing the constantly changing situations that managers must deal with (1942). She noted that managers desire flexibility and that differences exist between motivation of groups and the motivation of individuals, thereby laying the groundwork for the modern contingency perspective. This view counters the scientific management concept that there was only one best way to accomplish things because, since circumstances vary, there can be not one best way to manage and organize (Bateman & Snell, 2002). Mary Parker Follett perceived employees as a complex bundle of attitudes, beliefs, and needs whose job performance must be motivated and not merely demanded (Follett, 1949). Thus, she was a pioneer of the human relations movement. Human Relations Movement While Mary Parker Follett laid the foundation for the human relations movement from her work in administrative management during the 1920s, it was Elton Mayo (1933) and his studies at the Hawthorne Plant of the Western Electric Company between 1924 and 1932 that is usually held as the beginning of the human relations movement. His conclusion of his investigation of the behavior and attitude of workers was that an organization is a social system and workers are the most important element in that system (Greenwood, 1983). The original research team that began the study of the Hawthorne Plant based its early assumptions on the concepts of scientific management. The focus of the investigation was to determine the environmental changes that would increase the productivity of workers. The 1924 investigation focused on changing room temperature, humidity, and lighting levels. By 1927, the results of the investigation were of such a

17

condition that the National Research Council of the National Academy of Sciences that began the investigation in 1924 was of such a condition that abandonment of the investigation was under consideration. It was then that the Council turned to Elton Mayo to conclude and make sense of the research. Mayo and his team altered the primary assumptions founded on the scientific management theories and were able to make significant breakthroughs in dealing with the Hawthorne Plant problems as social and psychological problems were conceptualized in such terms as interpersonal relationships in groups, group norms, control over one’s own environment, and personal recognition. It was only after the Mayo team made this breakthrough that it became the ‘grandfather’ – the direct precursor – of the field of organizational behavior and human resource theory. The Hawthorne studies laid the foundation for a set of assumptions that would be fully articulated and would displace the assumptions of classical organizational theory 20 years later. The experiments were the emotional and intellectual wellspring of the organizational behavior perspective and modern theories of motivation: they showed that complex, interacting variables make the difference in motivating people – things like attention paid to workers as individuals, worker’s control over their own work, differences between individual’s needs, management’s willingness to listen, group norms, and direct feedback. (Shafritz & Ott, 2001, p.146) A new dimension to the human relations movement was expressed by Douglas McGregor (1957, April). His theory was that management philosophy controls its practice. In essence, “management’s personnel practices, decision making, operations

Full document contains 145 pages
Abstract: This study was designed to identify the factors that influence full-time and adjunct faculty perceptions regarding job satisfaction and dissatisfaction. It was also designed to determine if those factors relate differently to full-time and adjunct faculty. It is anticipated that this information will aid administrators in improving morale and performance of individual faculty members. During the spring 2008 semester, the 136 faculty were teaching online courses at the selected Iowa community colleges. Responses were received from 38 full-time faculties and 35 adjunct faculties for a total of 73 responses (53.7%). The survey instruments, cover letters, and self-addressed return envelopes were distributed to the faculty members in November 2008. Follow-up materials were provided to faculty members who did not respond to the initial mailing in December 2008 and again in February 2009. According to the data from survey Instrument I, Herzberg's findings were supported. The motivating factors generally provided satisfaction to faculty members. Hygiene factors generally were dissatisfying. The significance of the data from Instrument I was limited and the level of probability could not be adequately established. However, when compared to the results of similar studies, administrators can reasonably be assured that taking action to support faculty in regard to motivating factors and limiting hygiene factors will provide greater satisfaction for their faculty and enhance their performance. The rating scale of Instrument II gives a different perspective. All motivating factors showed greater satisfaction than dissatisfaction. However, the data resulted in a greater amount of responses which, in turn, led to greater significance and probability than the results from the Herzberg's critical incidence approach used in Instrument I. A more dramatic difference was with hygiene factors where respondents indicated that they had more satisfying experiences than dissatisfying experiences in virtually all hygiene factors. The primary intent of this study was to compare the satisfying and dissatisfying factors that were identified by full-time and adjunct faculty. Since the data were more statistically significant from the rating scale of Instrument II, its data were the basis for comparing the satisfying and dissatisfying factors affecting each category of faculty. With only minor exceptions, the rating responses for both groups of faculty for each factor were virtually the same. In other words. there was virtually no difference in the perceptions of full-time and adjunct faculty.