Employee Reactions to Job Characteristics: A Partial Replication

Western Michigan University ScholarWorks at WMU Master's Theses Graduate College 4-1978 Employee Reactions to Job Characteristics: A Partial Replication Artegal R. Camburn Western Michigan University Follow this and additional works at: https://scholarworks.wmich.edu/masters_theses Part of the Industrial and Organizational Psychology Commons Recommended Citation Camburn, Artegal R., "Employee Reactions to Job Characteristics: A Partial Replication" (1978). Master's Theses. 2114. https://scholarworks.wmich.edu/masters_theses/2114 This Masters Thesis-Open Access is brought to you for free and open access by the Graduate College at ScholarWorks at WMU. It has been accepted for inclusion in Master's Theses by an authorized administrator of ScholarWorks at WMU. For more information, please contact maira.bundza@wmich.edu.

EMPLOYEE REACTIONS TO JOB CHARACTERISTICS: A PARTIAL REPLICATION by Artegal R. Camburn A Thesis Submitted to the Faculty Df The Graduate College in partial fulfillment of the Degree of Master of Arts Western Michigan University Kalamazoo, Michigan April 1978

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS I would like to thank Professors R. Schmidt, E.J. Asher Jr., and J.R. Rizzo whose encouragement and constructive criticism has been of great help to me. I would like to give special thanks to Professor Rizzo for his aid in obtaining the sample and to Professor Asher for his help and direction in the analysis of these data contained in this thesis. I would also like to thank lylr. David Quick for the help I received with the computer phase of this thesis. The assistantship and the academic training from the faculty of the Department of Psychology, have made graduate study a pleasure for me. It is not necessary to say that gratitude in no way removes responsibility from me for what is written here. Artegal R. Camburn

INFORMATION TO USERS This material was produced from a microfilm copy of the original document. While the most advanced technological means to photograph and reproduce this document have been used, the quality is heavily dependent upon the quality of the original submitted. The following explanation of techniques is provided to help you understand markings or patterns which may appear on this reproduction. 1. The sign or "target" for pages apparently lacking from the document photographed is "Missing Page(s)". If it was possible to obtain the missing page(s) or section, they are spliced into the film along with adjacent pages. This may have necessitated cutting thru an image and duplicating adjacent pages to insure you complete continuity. 2. When an image on the film is obliterated with a large round black mark, it is an indication that the photographer suspected that the copy may have moved during exposure and thus cause a blurred image. You will find a good image of the page in the adjacent frame. 3. When a map, drawing or chart, etc., was part of the material being photographed the photographer followed a definite method in "sectioning" the material. It is customary to begin photoing at the upper left hand corner of a large sheet and to continue photoing from left to right in equal sections with a small overlap. If necessary, sectioning is continued again beginning below the first row and continuing on until complete. 4. The majority of users indicate that the textual content is of greatest value, however, a somewhat higher quality reproduction could be made from "photographs" if essential to the understanding of the dissertation. Silver prints of "photographs" may be ordered at additional charge by writing the Order Department, giving the catalog number, title, author and specific pages you wish reproduced. 5. PLEASE NOTE: Some pages may have indistinct print. Filmed as received. University M icrofilm s International 300 North Zeeb Road Ann Arbor, Michigan 48106 USA St. John's Road, Tyler s Green High Wycombe, Bucks, England HP10 8HR

MASTERS THESIS 13-11,354 CAMBURN, Artegal R., EMPLOYEE REACTIONS TO JOB CHARACTERISTICS: A PARTIAL REPLICATION. Western Michigan University, M.A., 1978 Psychology, industrial University Microfilms International, Ann Arbor, Michigan 48106

TABLE OF CONTENTS CHAPTER PAGE I THE PROBLEIY1 AND ITS BACKGROUND... 1 II P U R P O S E... 8 III SAIYIPLE AND DATA COLLECTION... 13 IV R E S U L T S... 15 V DISCUSSION... 34 VI SUGGESTIONS FOR FUTURE RESEARCH... 41 VII REFERENCE LIST... 42 iii

TASK DESIGN Task design, which has been a part of our culture for most of our written history, has been found to be very complex in nature. Ulork simplification based on scientific management as discussed by Taylor (1911), et al. became the focus of the task design efforts early in the twentieth century. The benefits seen in work simplification efforts are increased efficiency, standardization of work procedures, and ease of system control to name a few. Tasks which are designed only on scientific management principles may lead to dysfunctional outcomes for workers and organizations. Some of the problems that are attributed to work simplification are worker dissatisfaction, decreased productivity, and low motivation. To offset the negative outcome of work simplification, the recent focus of task design has been toward job enlargement or job enrichment. Job enrichment efforts are expected to increase motivation, satisfaction, and the level of productivity. In an early task design literature review, Hulin and Blood (1968) concluded that the task design-individual response linkage is not always a direct relationship. Almost half of the studies reviewed indicated existence of moderating variables in the relationship of task design and worker response. In a more recent review of task design literature, Pierce and Dunham (1976) concluded that, in spite of the ambiguities that exist due to methodological problems and other factors, sufficient evidence 1

is present to assume multi-dimensionality in task design. In addition Pierce and Dunham (1976) concluded that more work needs to be done in how the task dimensions combine and act. Hackman and Lawler (1971) developed and tested a conceptual framework concerning task design facilitating the development of "internal motivation for effective performance". The theory developed by Hackman and Lawler (1971) is based on expectancy theory and is exemplified by the following propositions. 1. If an individual believes an outcome of value can be obtained by engaging in a particular set of behaviors, the motivation to engage in the set of behaviors is enhanced. The outcome of value may be either extrinsic, e.g., remuneration, or intrinsic, e.g., feelings of accomplishment. 2. Outcomes are valued to an individual if they satisfy the needs of the individual. Needs can be either physiological or psychological in nature. The outcome(s) may not be in the best interests of the individual but, if the outcome is not seen as satisfying, the individual is not likely to attempt to achieve same. 3. If conditions at work can be arranged in such a manner that employees can satisfy their needs by working toward organizational goals, then employees will be motivated to work hard toward achievement of these goals (lylc Gregor, 1960).

3 4. most lower level needs, e.g., physical well being, security (lytaslow, 1970) are essentially well satisfied and therefore do not act as motivators. Only the higher level needs, e.g., personal growth, feelings of accomplishment, are available to act as motivators. It should be noted that not all individuals are motivated by higher level needs. This means that indiscriminate use of higher level needs as motivators may be inherently limited. 5. Individuals who are capable of higher order need satisfaction will achieve same when they learn they have accomplished something of personal value as a result of their efforts. "To establish conditions for internal work motivation, then, it appears that a job must: (a) allow workers to feel personally responsible for an identifiable and meaningful portion of the work, (b) provide work outcomes which are intrinsically meaningful or otherwise experienced as worthwhile, and (c) provide feedback about performance effectiveness." Hackman and Lawler (1971) go on to state: "Higher order need satisfaction, therefore, are seen both as (a) a result of (rather than a determinent of) effective performance (Lawler and Porter, 1967), and (b) an incentive for continued efforts to perform effectively."

4 Hackman and Lawler (1971) developed an instrument that was designed to measure, on an a priori basis, the dimensions pertinent to their theory. The Hackman and Lawler (1971) instrument was based, primarily, on the Requisite Task Attribute Index developed by Turner and Lawrence (1965). Using internal consistency values as reliability estimates, Hackman and Lawler (1971) reported the following reliabilities For the independent variable scales. Variety.90 Autonomy.77 Task Identity.77 Feedback.75 Hackman and Lawler (1971) tested the instrument in a midwestern telephone company with 208 employees in 13 job classifications. Testing the proposition that for a job high on all four core dimensions, employees who have strong higher order needs will be more satisfied, have higher levels of motivation to work, and will do higher quality work than will employees who have weak higher order needs. Hackman and Lawler (1971) concluded that, the data confirmed; the proposition. Hackman and Lawler (1971) also concluded that a sociological variable, i.e., urban versus rural background, was present and acting as a moderating variable to the relationship. Brief and Aldag (1975) performed a constructive replication of the Hackman and Lawler 1971 study. Using a shortened and slightly revised version of the Hackman and Lawler instrument coupled with the Job Descriptive Index Scales as measures of dependent variables in lieu of the specific satisfaction scales from Hackman and Lawler.

5 Brief and Aldag (1975) tested four specific propositions using 104. employees of a Division of Corrections group. 1. A worker's perceptions of a job's characteristics are positively related to the same worker's affective responses to the job, e.g., level of internal work motivation, job satisfaction, and job involvement. 2. Jobs high on all four core dimensions are associated with internal work motivation, job satisfaction, and job involvement. 3. Relationships between the perceived levels of the four core dimensions and the worker's affective responses are positively moderated by the worker's desire for higher order need graticication. 4. "Workers from rural backgrounds have greater higher order need strength than workers from urban backgrounds." Brief and Aldag (1975) concluded that their results generally supported all four propositions. Support for the urban versus rural background was in the predicted direction but weak. The proposition concerning worker's perceptions of job characteristics and the affective responses to the job had strong support. The proposition concerning the moderating effect of higher order need strength on the relationship between job characteristics and employees affective responses was supported with qualifications. Brief and Aldag (1975) indicate the relationship between job characteristics and affective responses may be more complex than originally hypothesized by Hackman and

6 Lawler (1971). Lawler, Hackman, and Kaufman (1973) redesigned jobs using the Job Diagnostic Survey and the model designed by Hackman and Lawler (1971). The results of this task redesign were mixed. IM'o increase in motivation or satisfaction as a result of the redesign was found. Training time was reduced and when coupled with other cost savings a large cost saving was realized. However, interpersonal relations were disrupted as a result of the redesign. Lawler, Hackman, and Kaufman (1973) concluded that no change in either motivation or satisfaction should be expected as tasks were enriched on only two of the four core dimensions. The Job Diagnostic Survey has reportedly become the most widely used and complete instrument for measuring perceived task design (Pierce and Dunham, 1976). Inconsistencies and apparent contradictions, Brief and Aldag (1975), have been found in some studies using the JDS. Questions have been raised concerning the validity of the dimensions as developed by Hackman and Lawler (1971), and concerning how the variables are best fitted for useful prediction. In an attempt to provide information concerning both areas, Dunham (1976) performed a factor analysis on the JDS Independent Variable items with a sample of 3610 subjects. All subjects were "exempt" personnel of a large merchandising corporation. Based on the outcome of the analyses performed, Dunham concluded that it would be wise to consider 1, 2, 4, and 5 factor solutions. But, the analysis indicated difficulty in retaining the 5 factor solutions. Using a

5 factor Dblimax oblique rotation Dunham (1976) Found three Feedback items loading on a single factor, three Task Identity items loading on a single factor, and two of three Task Significance items loading on a single factor. The six items making up the Skill Variety and Autonomy scales yielded scattered loadings across factors. Dunham, Aldag, and Brief (1977) performed a series of factor analyses of the JDS independent items using 5,945 subjects grouped into twenty subsamples of varying size. Dunham, Aldag, and Brief (1977) concluded that the dimensionality of tasks is not consistent across samples. The a priori five dimension structure was found to be appropriate for only two of the 20 subsamples. Dunham, Aldag, and Brief (1977) using relaxed criteria for the selection of factors, found that a 5 factor structure similar to that offered by Hackman and Oldham (1975) was most often identified. But solutions of lesser dimensionality, either 4, 3, or 2 factors, were found in 11 of the 20 subsamples. The authors suggest either redefining the JDS scales to conform with the structure of the sample being used or to use factor scores derived from the study sample.

PURPOSE Hackman and Lawler (1971) and Brief and Aldag (1975) used the preliminary version of The Job Diagnostic Survey (JDS) developed by Hackman and Lawler in 1971. Hackman and Oldham (1975) refined and developed the version of the JDS used in this study. The Job Diagnostic Survey (JDS) is designed to measure relative levels of the core dimensions of a job, relative levels of the critic psychological states (seen as mediating between job dimensions and work outcomes, and relative levels of worker satisfactions. The scales of the JD5 are designed to use the worker's perceived level of the variable(s) in question. A brief description of the scales used for the measurement of the job dimensions, affective responses, and growth need strength is given below. Job Dimensions (independent Variables) 1. Skill Variety The variety of activities required to do the job which involves a number of different talents and skills of the employee. 2. Task Identity The degree to which an employee completes a piece of work, for example, does the employee build a complete assembly or just add one or two components. 8

9 3. Task Significance The amount of impact the task has on the work or on other people. It may also be seen as the impact on the external environment. 4. Autonomy The amount of freedom the employee has to establish how and when the work shall be done. 5. Feedback from Job The amount of information given to the employee, by the job itself, as to how well the employee is doing the job. Affective Response (Dependent Variables) 1. General Satisfaction How satisfied and happy the employee is with the job. 2. Internal Work Motivation The level of self motivation the employee feels to do the job effectively. Growth Need Strength (Moderating Variable) 1. Would like format The scale was designed to measure how much an employee desires specific attributes such as, freedom to exercise independent thought and action.

2. Job choice format The scale was designed to measure growth needs by presenting hypothetical job pairs such as, a job which is routine versus a job which carries a high degree of risk. Hackman and Lawler (1971) reported intercorrelations of the independent variables to be relatively low to low with one exception. In the Hackman and Lawler (1971) instrument Variety was correlated with Autonomy at =.67. Hackman and Oldham (1975) reported Skill Variety to be correlated with Autonomy at =.51. The rest of the independent variable intercorrelations in the JDS (Hackman, Oldham, 1975) were relatively low. Administration of the Job Diagnostic Survey (JDS) does not present any significant problems. The JDS can be easily administered in group situations or individually. All scales of the JDS except one, range in value from one to seven. Items comprising each scale are designed in two ways. Approximately one-half of the items making up a scale are scored in a straight-forward manner. That is, a value of one represents a low or minimal level of the variable being measured. Seven represents a high or maximal level of the variable being measured with the scale values between one and seven representing intermediate levels of the variable being measured. Approximately one-half of the items comprising a scale are designed to be scored in reverse, i.e., a scale value of one represents a high or maximal level of the variable being measured. A scale value of seven then represents low or minimal levels of the variable being measured

11 with the intermediate scale values representing middle levels of the variable. The JDS also presents a formula to calculate the Motivating Potential Score (lylps). The iyips is not relevant to this study therefore it will not be presented.

PROPOSITIONS TD BE EXAMINED This study will examine the following propositions: 1. Higher order need strength will positively moderate the relationship between job core dimensions and employee's affective responses. For a given job high on the core dimensions employees who have high levels of higher order need strength will be more satisfied and have stronger internal work motivation drives than employees who have low levels of higher order need strength. 2. Education level will act as a moderating variable to the relationship between job core dimensions and employee's affective responses. 3. A demographic variable, i.e., urban versus rural location, will act to moderate the relationship between job core dimensions and employee's affective responses.

SAMPLE AND DATA COLLECTION The subjects making up the sample For this study are librarians working in two separate but similarly structured library associations Each association consists of a relatively large urban library and associated rural community libraries. Operating autonomy is maintained for each library in the area or city where the library is located. Questionnaires and an explanatory letter were sent to all subjec currently classified as librarians. The questionnaires were sent either by United States Mail or by an interlibrary delivery service operated by the association. Completed questionnaires were returned to the researcher via United States Mail in prepaid, preaddressed envelopes. In order to protect the anonymity of the respondents no one was requested to sign the questionnaire and no provision was made for signatures on the questionnaire. Of B9 questionnaires sent, 63 were completed and returned to the researcher. This represents a response rate of approximately 71%. The sample is predominantly female (59 out of 63 respondents). Education level of the sample group is masters degree = 41, bachelors degree = 6, and high school = 16. Table 1 contains the sociological data of the sample. 13

14 T a b le 1 Age, Sex, Education and lajork Experience of Sample Age (Median) 35 to 39 years Sex: Male 4 Female 59 Education: Masters 41 Bachelors 6 High School 16 Experience: Time with Organization (Mean) Time in Present Position (Mean) 7. 19 years 4. 43 years

RESULTS The means and standard deviations for the combined group are presented in Table 2. The mean For each independent variable is: Skill Variety 6.02, Task Identity 5.12, Task Significance 5.77, Autonomy 6.01, and Feedback from Job 5.30. The intercorrelation matrix for all scales of the JDS is presented in Table 3. Skill Variety versus Task Significance correlated at =.51*, Skill Variety versus Autonomy correlated at =.45*, and Task Significance versus Feedback from Job correlated at =.41*. In order to study proposition one (higher order need strength) in the same manner as Hackman and Lawler (1971), the group was separated into thirds using growth need strength scale scores as the determining variable. After separating the group in this fashion correlations between job core dimensions (independent variables) versus general satisfaction and internal work motivation (dependent variables) were calculated for the upper one-third and the lower one-third. The group sizes are unequal due to tied scores on the growth need strength scale. The mean and standard deviation of each independent and dependent variable for the upper one-third and the lower one-third of the group, based on need strength, is presented in Table 4. The mean for the upper group is 6.32 for Skill Variety, 4.74 for Task Identity, 6.03 for Task Significance, 6.14 for Autonomy, and 5.59 for Feedback from * Significant at the.05 level 15

Job. The mean for the lower group is 5.20 For Skill Variety, 5.03 for Task Identity, 5.35 for Task Significance, 5.95 for Autonomy, and 4.37 for Feedback from Job. The difference between the means of the upper and the lower group on the dimensions of Skill Variety and Task Significance are significant at the.05 level. On the Skill Variety variable the obtained jt = 3.79* and on the Task Significance variable the obtained t = 2.403*. Table 2 lyleans and Standard Deviations of the Independent and Dependent Variables; Overall Group Mean Standard Deviation Skill Variety 6.02.981 Task Identity 5.12 1.399 Task Significance 5.77.948 Autonomy 6.01.753 Feedback from Job 5.30 1.040 General Satisfaction 5.6B.788 Internal lalork Motivation 6.02.557 n = 63 The correlations of the independent versus the dependent variables for the high need strength group and the low need strength group are presented in Table 5. These data show the following relationship using General Satisfaction as a dependent variable. Skill Variety * Significant at the.05 level (df = 21)

T a b le 3 Intercorrelations Among the Job Diagnostic Survey (JDS) Scale Scores 1. motivating Potential Score - 2. Skill Variety.57 3. Task Identity.38.13-4. Task Significance.56.51.03-5. Autonomy.66.45.26.29-1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 6. Feedback from Job.84.37.19.41.24-7. Feedback from Agents.40.20.10.25.31.30-8. Dealing uuith Others.22.45 -.01.42.19.12.21-9. 10. 11. Experienced ffleaningfulness of work Experienced Responsibility of- work Knowledge of Results.54.25.54.57.16.25.23.19.14.64.14.36.41.27.46.35.15.42.21.03.32.17 -.15.07.46.41.20 12. General Satisfaction.44.18.22.30.40.22.33 -.03.48.05 13. Internal Work motivation.13.26.18.04.15.07.00 -.16.37.50 14. Pay Satisfaction -.02 -.00.15.18.10 -.10.07.02.24.07 15. Security Satisfaction -.03 -.14.17.01.09 -.12.22 -.09.06.13 16. Social Satisfaction.16,08 -.05.23.28.04.17.28.33.29 17. Supervisory Satisfaction.24.03.05.12.41.05.42 -.11.17.22 18. Growth Satisfaction.55.54.26.42.61.29.27.09.64.38 19. Growth Needs (Like).35.38.08.36.09.34.03.28.33.16 20. Growth Needs (Job Choice).31.32.30.27.36.10.08.23.39.40 _\ -n]

Table 3 continued 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 11. Knowledge of Results - 12. General Satisfaction.54-13. Internal lalork Motivation. 8.04-14. Pay Satisfaction.14.03-15. Security Satisfaction.02.16.00.38-15. Social Satisfaction.33.26.08 -.12.14-17. Supervisory Satisfaction.44.26.03.09.25.13-18. Growth Satisfaction.31.50.38.22.16.30.33-19. Growth Needs (Like).08.02.10 -.03 -.10.09 -.09.28-2D. Growth Needs (Job Choice).24 -.02.05.17 -.08.13.06.17.41 - All values above.25 are significant at.05 - n = 63 0 3

T a b le 4 iyleans and Standard Deviations of High Need Strength and Low Need Strength Groups High Need (1) lylean _ J x 1 -X7 ) Standard Deviation t Low Need (2) High Need Low Need Skill Variety 6.32 5.20 1.12.669 1.324 3.79* Task Identity 4.74 5.03 -.29 1.471 1.387 -.698 Task Significance 6.03 5.35.68.884 1.077 2.403* Autonomy 6.14 5.95.19.772.805.833 Feedback from Job 5.59 4.97.62 1.013 1.058 2.07 General Satisfaction 5.68 5.73.920.651 Internal Ulork IVlotivation 6.03 5.96.599.509 1 n = 26 2 n = 22 * Significant at the.05 level (df = 21) ID

T a b le 5 Correlations Between the Independent Variables and the Dependent Variables? High Need Strength Group and Low Need Strength Group General Satisfaction High (1) Need Low (2) Need Internal lalork lylotivation High Need Low Need Skill Variety,33.22.23.15 Task Identity.33.17.28.15 Task Significance.41*.20.43* -.06 Autonomy.59*.27 -.007.33 Feedback from Job.24.29 - c09.01 1 n = 26 2 n = 22 * Significant at the.05 level

21 versus General Satisfaction r_ =.33 for the high need group and the low need group at =.22. Using Autonomy versus General Satisfaction the high need group has a correlation =.59 while the low need group has a correlation =.27. Using Internal Work Motivation as the dependent variable versus Task Significance as the independent variable the high need group has a correlation =.43 and the low need group correlated at = -.06. These data (Table 5) show the same direction as Hackman and Lawler (1971) found with these exceptions. Using Autonomy as the independent variable versus Internal Work Motivation the low need group correlated =.33 uuith the high need group correlated = -.007. Using Feedback from Job versus Internal Work Motivation the high need group correlated = -.09 while the low need group correlated =.01. With Feedback from Job versus General Satisfaction the high need group has a correlation of =.24 and the low need group has a correlation of =.29. In order to study the question concerning higher order need strength moderating effects, the intercorrelations of the independent variables for each group are important. For the low need group, Skill Variety correlates with Task Identity at =.57*, Task Significance at =.57*, Autonomy at =.68*, and Feedback from Job at =.46*. Task Identity correlates with Autonomy at =.54*. Task Significance correlates with Autonomy at =.45* and Feedback from Job at =.48*. Comparing these figures to those of the high need group we find that this pattern * Significant at the.05 level

2 2 is not repeated. The independent variable intercorrelations are relatively low. The only correlation above r_ =.4 for this group is Skill Variety correlated with Task Significance at _r =.44*. Proposition two is concerned with the moderating effect of education level on the relationship between job core dimensions and affective responses. Therefore the group was separated into groups representing education level for analysis. Table 6, is disparate relative to education. The group, as shown in As a result of this disparaty the three levels represented, i.e., high school, bachelors, and masters, could not be compared to one another. The masters group (n = 42) was analyzed as a distinct group. The high school group (ri = 16) was analyzed as a separate group. The subgroup holding bachelors degrees is too small to be analyzed. This group was combined with the high school group; analyzed, and reported separately as information only. The means and standard deviations of the independent and dependent variables are presented in Table 6. These values are: Skill Variety of 6.19 for the masters group and 5.60 for the high school group. For Task Identity the masters group has a mean of 5.31 with the high school group being at 4.77. For Autonomy the masters group has a mean of 6.00 and the high school group has a mean of 6.06. The differences in means for the masters and high school groups on the independent variables did not achieve statistical significance. The correlations of the independent variables versus the dep * Significant at the.05 level

23 endent variables for the education groups are presented in Table 7. These data show: for Skill Variety versus General Satisfaction =.32* for the masters group and =.19 for the high school group. Using Task Identity versus General Satisfaction the masters group has an =.19 and the high school group has an r =.45. Using Autonomy versus General Satisfaction the masters group correlates at =.41* and for the high school group the correlation is =.57*. For Internal Work Motivation versus Skill Variety the masters group has a correlation Df =.32* and the correlation for the high school group is =.25. For Task Significance versus Internal Work Motivation the masters group correlates at =.16 and the high school group at = -.10, Using Feedback from Job versus Internal UJork Motivation the masters group correlates at =.001 and the high school group at =.35. The independent variable intercorrelations for the high school group yield the following values. For Skill Variety with: Task Significance, =.67*; Autonomy, =.62*; Feedback from Job, =.71*. For Task Identity with Autonomy, =.57*. For Task Significance with: Autonomy, =.42; with Feedback from Job, =.65*. For Autonomy with Feedback from Job, =.59*. These data for the masters level group are: for Skill Variety with: Task Significance, =.40*; Autonomy, r =.38*. All other independent variable intercorrelations for the masters groups are low. Proposition three is concerned with the moderating effect of * Significant at the.05 level

T a b le 6 Means and Standard Deviations of the Independent and Dependent Variables IY1A Level (1) for the Education Level Groups (flean Standard Deviation t HS Level (2) H5+BA Level.(31. CM X i \ X m Level HS Level HS+BA Level Skill Variety 5.19 5.50 5.68.59.694 1.471 1.347 1.926 Task Identity 5.31 4.77 4.74.54 1.402 1.533 1.349 1.35 Task Significance 5.82 5.83 5.66 -.01.811.996 1.193 -.39 Autonomy 6.00 6.05 6.05 -.06.786.658.701 -.272 Feedback from Job 5.39 5.06 5.13.33 1.041 1.069 1.040 1.07 General Satisfaction 5.58 5.56 5.87.795.680.752 Internal Work Motivation 6.01 5.90 6.04.545.712.594 1 n = 42 2 n = 16 3 n = 21 * Significant at the.05 level (_df = 15) M p-

T a b le 7 Correlations of the Independent Variables versus the Dependent Variables for the Education Levels General Satisfaction Internal Work Motivation Masters (1) High (2) High School (3) Masters High High School Degree School Bachelors Degree School Bachelors Degree Degree Skill Variety.32*.19.17 o32*.25.25 Task Identity.19.45.42.35* -.13 -.12 Task Significance.49*.02.10.16 -.10 -.10 Autonomy.41* 57*.40.13.19.18 Feedback from Job.29.10.16. 01.35.21 1 n = 42 2 n = 16 3 n = 21 * Significant at the.05 level K) on

26 work location on the relationship between job core dimensions and affective responses. To examine this proposition the group was separated into two groups. One group consists of respondents from the twd large urban libraries and the second group consists of the respondents from the smaller libraries in outlying areas. The means and standard deviations of the independent and dependent variables for these two groups are presented in Table 8. For Skill Variety the urban group has a mean of 6.24 with the rural group mean of 5.85. For Task Identity the urban group mean is 5.57 and the rural group mean is 4.76. For Autonomy the urban group mean is 5.99 with the rural group mean at 6.04. The difference in means on Task Identity for the urban and rural groups is significant at the.05 level (t. = 2.37, df = 27). None of the mean differences on the independent variables for these groups were statistically significant. The correlations between the independent and dependent variables for the location groups are presented in Table 9. These data show, using Skill Variety versus General Satisfaction, the urban group is correlated at r =.30 with the rural group at r =.15. Using Task Significance versus General Satisfaction the urban group correlation is =.18 with the rural group being =.36*. For Autonomy versus General Satisfaction the urban group correlates at =.32 with the rural group at =.44*. Using Skill Variety versus Internal Ulork Motivation the urban group shows a correlation of.42* and the rural group a correlation of =.19. For Autonomy versus Internal lalork * Significant at the.05 level

T a b le B lyleans and Standard Deviations of the Independent and Dependent Variables for the Urban and Rural Group Mean Standard Deviation t Urban (1] Rural (2) (X'i-X.?) Urban Rural Skill Variety 6.24 5.85.39.594 1.185 1.58 Task Identity 5.57 4.76.71 1.179 1.472 2.37* Task Significance 5.95 5.62.33.729 1.079 1.39 Autonomy 5.99 6.04 -.05.674.819 -.26 Feedback From Job 5.39 5.22.17 1.061 1.031 -.587 General Satisfaction 5.67 5.68.611.914 Internal Work Motivation 6.1D 5.95.493.602 1 n = 28 2 n = 35 * Significant at the.05 level (df := 27) M sj

T a b le 9 Correlations Between the Independent Variables and the Dependent Variables for the Urban Group and the Rural Group General Satisfaction Internal Work Motivation Urban (1) Rural (2) Urban Rural Skill Variety.30.15.42*.19 Task Identity.34.18.27.08 Task Significance.18.36*.09 -. 1 Autonomy»32.44* -. 2.24 Feedback from Job.19.25 -.003.10 1 n = 28 2 n = 35 * Significant at the.05 level M 03

Motivation the urban group has a correlation of = -.02 and the i 29 rural group a correlation of r =.24. Examining the independent variable intercorrelations we find a similar occurrence as before. For the rural (regional) group the correlations between Skill Variety: with Task Significance, =.56*; with Autonomy, =.60*; with Feedback from Job, =.56*. For Task Identity with Autonomy, =.37*. For Task Significance: with Autonomy, =.54*; with Feedback from Job, =.53*. For Autonomy with Feedback from Job, =.48*. Looking at the same data for the urban group we find Task Identity correlated with Task Significance, = -.35. All other intercorrelations between the independent variables for the urban group remain low. The inter-item correlation matrix for the JDS independent variables is presented in Table 10. These data show SKV1 (item one of the Skill Variety scale) to be correlated at =.3D with SKV2, r =.49 with SKV3, =.44 with TS1 (item one of the Task Significance scale), and =.44 with A2 (item two of the Autonomy scale). Other examples are: T51 correlated with 5KV3 at =.51: TS2 correlated with TS3 at =.10; and SKV2 correlated at =.42 with TS3. Results of the Varimax factor analysis utilizing a 5 factor solution are shown in Table 11. These data show SKV1, SKV2, & SKV3 loading on factor I at.62,.62, and.72 respectively. Task Identity loads on factor II at.56 for TI1,.58 for TI2, and.74 for TI3. T51 loads at.67 on factor I as well as FJ1 which loads at.61 on * Significant at the.05 level

30 is presented in Table 1Q. These data show SKV1 (item one of the Skill Variety scale) to be correlated at =.30 with 5KV2, =.49 with 5KV3, =.44 with TS1 (item one of the Task Significance scale), and =.44 with A2 (item two of the Autonomy scale). Other examples are: TS1 correlated with SKV3 at =.51; TS2 correlated with TS3 at =.10; and SKV2 correlated at =.42 with TS3. Results of the Varimax factor analysis utilizing a 5 factor solution are shown in Table 11. These data show SKV1, SKV2, & SKV3 loading on factor I at.62,.62, and.72 respectively. Task Identity loads on factor II at.56 for TI1,.58 for TI2, and.74 for TI3. TS1 loads at.67 on factor I as well as FJ1 which loads at.61 on factor I and.41 on factor III. A 5 factor solution was derived using a Varimax rotation. The results of this analysis are presented in Table 12. These values show: SKV1 loading on factor I at.42, factor IV at.45, and factor V at.46. SKV2 and 5KV3 loaded on factor I at.74 and.69 respectively. The Task Identity items loaded on factor II with TI1 at.80, TI2 at.65, and TI3 at.87. Two of the Autonomy items, A2 and A3 loaded on factor IV at.82 and.72 respectively. A1 loaded on factor II at.41, factor IV at.50, and factor V at.40.

31 m i 1 03 to 1 Is- CO <fr in Interitem Correlations, JDS Independent Variables (1) CM CM CO 03 v CM T"* 1 n- cn 03 CO V- co V T a e i cd 03 03 CO 03 cn <}* CM CM CD CD CTi 1 in CO CM n- in n- CD r- CM -vf t e CO a <1* a CM CO CO n- CM r- CM CM r o D- 1 03 CD CD n- CM CO CO LD CM CO s CO *; CM o * 03 LO CO n - in a 03 r - T cn CD a C3 CO CM V CM CD CM 0 o i in 1 a CD CO in IV 03 CO in O r~ r CM ^ CD a ^ * v f i 03 a cn CO CD CM cn 03 03 CO 03 CD CM CO CD CD CD 1 o CO in r- O- cn a 03 CO cn CM CO to ^ CM LO CM CM CN CM t CM * CM C'w 03 03 03 03 a CM 03 CD cn in CO 03 a a CD CO CM 't <r- CM CM CO CM e 1 a cn a n - cn CO <d- a cn in CO CM o o CM CM to CO CM V CD CM CO > > > CM CO t: CM CO r~ CM CO it:! 1 h-i cn tn LH t IN CO n n 3 CD cn cn 1 I h~ i V \ ex. ec <c Li- Ll- Lo All values.25 and above are significant at the.05 level CM CO in 03 C' CD cn a r ~ CM CO in

T a b le 11 Factor Analysis, JDS Independent Variables, 5 Factor Solution F actor Variable I II III IV V SKV1.62 -.02 -.45 -.003.09 SKV2.62 -.32 -.02 -.32 -.19 5KV3.72.005 -.22 -.38.06 TI1.43.56.22 -.42.13 TI2.34.58.17 -.01 -.25 TI3.40.74.32.02.06 TS1.67 -.24 -.19 -.22.25 TS2 CM -.31 -.07.25.53 TS3.53 -.35.07 -.38 ' -.36 A1.53.58 -.27.22.16 A2.51.14 -.49.43 -.17 A3.46.10 -.22.36 -.45 FJ1.62 -.15.41.26.24 FJ2.50 -.42.41.25 -.28 FJ3.49 -.12.66.20.05 Eigen Values n = 63 4.29 1.98 1.61 1.22 1.005 M

T a b le 12 Factor Structure, Varimax Rotation, Five Factor Solution, JDS Independent Variables Factor Variable I II III IV V 5KV1.42.09 -.09.45.46 SKV2.74.01.22.11.09 SKV3.69.30 -.03.18.34 TI1.26.80 -.02 -.12.09 TI2.04.65.10.27 -.20 TI3 -.11.87.17.13.04 TS1.59.06.10.10.53 TS2.07 -.14.28.07.72 TS3.77 -.02.26.06 -.11 A1.03.41 -.02.50.40 A2.09.06 -.01.82.23 A3.15.07.18.72 -.10 FJ1.13.18.70.08.40 FJ2.30 -.13.77.19 -.06 FJ3.09.23.81 -.07.11 n = 63

DISCUSSION The results of this study support the proposition that higher order need strength acts to moderate the relationship between job core dimensions and employee's affective responses. When General Satisfaction is used as the dependent variable, the high need group showed higher correlations than the low need group for four of the five independent variables. The one exception to this is on the Feedback from Job variable (Table 5). The high need group correlated at r -.24 while the low need group correlated at =.29.' When Internal Work lylotivation is used as the dependent variable, the high need group showed higher correlations than the low need group for three of the five independent variables (Table 5). The exceptions to this were on the Autonomy and Feedback from Job variables. For Autonomy versus Internal Work Motivation the high need group was correlated at =.007 and the low need group was correlated at =.33. For Feedback from Job versus Internal Ulork Motivation the high need group was correlated at = -.09 and the low need group was correlated at =.01. These results suggest the low need group perceived Autonomy to be more of a factor in their work motivation than did the high need group. These results also suggest that the high neod and low need groups did not perceive Feedback from Job to be of a major factor in work motivation. The proposition concerning education level as a moderating variable (proposition two) was neither supported nor denied. When General Satisfaction is used as the dependent variable the masters level group had higher correlations than the high school level group on three of 34

the five independent variables (Table 7). When Internal Work Motivation 35 is used as the dependent variable the masters level group had higher correlations than the high school level group on three Df the five independent variables (Table 7). The high school level group showed a stronger relationship than the master's level group for Autonomy versus each of the dependent variables (Table 7). In addition the correlations for the high school level group were low for Task Significance versus General Satisfaction =.02 and for Task Significance versus Internal Work Motivation = -.10. These results suggest the high school level group perceived Autonomy to be important but that the high school level group did not perceive Task Significance to be important to their satisfaction or to work motivation. The proposition concerning location of work as a moderating variable (proposition three) was neither supported nor denied. These results showed a similar pattern to those derived from the education groups in that half of the correlation pairs indicated stronger relationships for the urban group, while half indicated stronger relationships for the rural group. When General Satisfaction is used as the dependent variable the urban group indicated stronger relationships than the rural group for Skill Variety and Task Identity (Table 9). The rural group, however, indicated stronger relationships for Task Significance versus General Satisfaction =.35* and Autonomy versus General Satisfaction =.44*. When Internal Work Motivation is used as the dependent variable the urban group indicated a stronger relation * Significant at the.05 level

ship than the rural group on Skill Variety and Task Identity. The rural group indicated a stronger relationship than the urban group on the Autonomy variable (rural =.24 and urban = -.02). As was noted in the results section the intercorrelations of the independent variable across samples are important. Hackman and Lawler (1971) and Hackman and Oldham (1975) reported low intercorrelations among the independent variables. Hackman and Lawler (1971) reported one relationship between the independent variables strong enough to be of concern (Variety versus Autonomy =.67). This study did not find a similar pattern to that reported by Hackman and Lawler (1971). For all three groups, i.e., higher order need strength, education level, and location of work, the results indicated a change in the intercorrelations of the independent variables across groups. An examination of the intercorrelations of the independent variables for the need strength groups yielded these results. For the high need strength group one pair of independent variables was significantly correlated (Skill Variety versus Task Significance =.44*). Fdt the low need strength group seven significant correlations were found among the independent variables. Skill Variety was correlated with: Task Identity at =.57*, Task Significance at =.57*, Autonomy at =.68*, and Feedback from Job at =.46*. Task Significance was correlated with: Autonomy at =.45* and Feedback from Job at =.48*. Task Identity was correlated with Autonomy at =.54*. An examination of these intercorrelation data for the education * Significant at the.05 level

37 level and location of work groups yielded the following results. In the masters level group Skill Variety was correlated with Task Significance at =.40* and with Autonomy at =.38*. For the high school level Skill Variety was correlated with: Task Significance at =.67*, Autonomy at =.62*, and Feedback from Job at =.71*. Task Significance was correlated with: Autonomy at =.42 and Feedback from Job at =.65*. Autonomy was correlated with: Task Identity at =.57* and Feedback from Job at =.59*. In the rural group Skill Variety was correlated with: Task Significance at =.56*, Autonomy at =.60*, and Feedback from Job at =.56*. Task Significance was correlated with: Autonomy at =.54* and Feedback from Job at =.53*. For the urban group Task Identity was correlated with Task Significance at = -.35. In examining the composition of the groups utilized by this study one common factor was found. The high school level group was a mojor constituent of the rural group and the low need group. This may explain the change in the independent variable intercorrelations in the low need and the rural groups vis-a-vis the high need and urban groups. Whatever changes occur in the high school group will be likely to occur in any group the high school group is the major constituent. An examination of the independent variable means across groups yielded these results. For the need strength group the mean difference between the high need and the low need strength group was significant at the.05 level for the Skill * Significant at the.05 level

Variety and the Task Significance variables. The difference in means between the high and low need strength groups on the other three independent variables were not statistically significant. For the location of work group the difference in means of the urban versus the rural group on the Task Identity variable was significant at the.05 level. None of the differences in means on the independent variables reached statistical significance for the education level groups. The differences between the urban-rural groups and the education level gmups suggest several possible explanations. One is, the levels of jobs held by these people are different, i.e. the core dimensions of the job utilized for this study differ in spite of the single job classification used in this study. Second the perceptions of the job may vary as a function of education. Also the perceptions of the questions concerning levels of the core dimensions.may vary as a function of education and or iocation of work. For example the urban group, masters group, and the high need group perceived Skill Variety to be present and related to their feelings of satisfaction. The low need group, the rural group, and the high school group were found to perceive a lower level of Skill Variety and did not relate Skill Variety to satisfaction as strongly The rural and the high school group indicated lower mean scores on the Task Identity scale than did the other groups. The rural and high school groups did not relate Task Identity to satisfaction as strongly as did the other groups. On the other hand the rural and the high school groups had high mean scores on the Autonomy dimension. In addition the rural and high school groups had a strong relationship between job

39 satisfaction, internal ixiork motivation, and the Autonomy variable. It is possible that the rural libraries(where all of the high school level librarians worked) do, indeed, have more autonomy available to librarians than the urban libraries do. The possibility that the differences found on the Autonomy dimension were a result of difference in perception by the people involved in the study cannot be dismissed as an explanation. Feedback from Job variable. All groups scored relatively low on the One possible explanation is that the 'i tasks librarians do in the discharge of their duties do not contain much information that would constitute meaningful feedback. It seems unlikely, if the case were different,'..that the. groups would be as close to one another as the results indicated. Therefore it would seem that relevant feedback would have to come from areas other than the tasks themselves. An examination of the factor structure for this study (utilizing a varimax rotation) gave a five factor solution that did not fit the a priori dimensions reported by Hackman and Lawler (1971). study the following factor solution was derived (Table 12). For this Factor I contains two items from the Skill Variety variable and one item from the Task Significance variable. Factor II contains the three items comprising the Task Identity variable. Factor III contains the three items comprising the Feedback from Job variable. Factor IV contains two items from the Autonomy variable. Factor V contains one item which is from the Task Significance variable. The most parsimonious solution here would seem to be to assume a four factor structure for this group. If the relaxed criteria suggested by Dunham, Aldag, and

Brief (1977) which accepts a loading of.40 or more of any item on a factor, then a more complex solution was derived. The Skill Variety item SKV1 loaded at.42 on Factor I, at.45 on Factor IV, and at <>46 on Factor V. The Task Significance item TS1 loaded at.59 on Factor I and at.53 on Factor V. The Autonomy item A1 loaded at.41 on Factor II, at.50 on Factor IV, and at.40 on Factor IV. The Feedback from Job item loaded at.40 on Factor V. The results found in this study support the conclusion found by Dunham, Aldag, and Brief (1977). The factor structure is a complex one with some factors well defined but with scattered stray loadings. The factor structure found in this study may be related to the changes found in the intercorrelations of the independent variables across groups. It is beyond the scope of this study to either support or deny that possibility. One of the outcomes of this study that was disappointing was the low or relatively low magnitudes of the correlations between the independent and dependent variables across groups. Many of the correlations did not reach statistical significance (Tables 5,7, and 9). A possible explanation may be the high mean scores on the independent and dependent variables (Tables 2,4,6, and 8). If these mean scores are a result of restriction of range this would lead to low variability for these scores. This in turn would lead to reduced correlation coefficients. The low magnitude of the derived correlation coefficients plus the high mean scores suggest this is a reasonable explanation.

41 SUGGESTIONS FOR FUTURE RESEARCH Examine the relationships between the JDS independent variables in other groups utilizing varying education levels to determine if an education level-job core dimension level perception interaction exists. Investigate modification or recombination of the items comprising the JDS independent variables to achieve a constant factor structure across groups. This is in agreement with' the conclusion derived by Dunham, Aldag, and Brief (1977). Investigate changing the items of the JDS independent variables to reduce potential restriction of range of the scales.