UBC Theses and Dissertations

UBC Theses Logo

UBC Theses and Dissertations

Herzberg's theory of work motivation as it applies to University Librarians Gifford, Martin Nelson 1967

Your browser doesn't seem to have a PDF viewer, please download the PDF to view this item.

Item Metadata

Download

Media
831-UBC_1968_A8 G48.pdf [ 5.53MB ]
Metadata
JSON: 831-1.0104342.json
JSON-LD: 831-1.0104342-ld.json
RDF/XML (Pretty): 831-1.0104342-rdf.xml
RDF/JSON: 831-1.0104342-rdf.json
Turtle: 831-1.0104342-turtle.txt
N-Triples: 831-1.0104342-rdf-ntriples.txt
Original Record: 831-1.0104342-source.json
Full Text
831-1.0104342-fulltext.txt
Citation
831-1.0104342.ris

Full Text

HERZBERG1S THEORY OF WORK MOTIVATION AS IT.APPLIES TO.UNIVERSITY.LIBRARIANS by MARTIN NELSON GIFFORD A THESIS SUBMITTED IN PARTIAL FULFILMENT OF THE REQUIREMENTS FOR THE DEGREE OF MASTER OF ARTS i n the Department of Psychology We accept t h i s t h e s i s as conforming to the standard r e q u i r e d from candidates f o r the degree of MASTER OF ARTS Members of + h e Department of fjfs^/cholqfiv THE UNIVERSITY OF BRITISH COLUMBIA In p r e s e n t i n g t h i s t h e s i s in p a r t i a l f u l f i l m e n t of the requirements fo r an advanced degree at the U n i v e r s i t y of B r i t i s h Columbia, I agree that the L i b r a r y s h a l l make i t f r e e l y a v a i l a b l e for re fe rence and Study. I f u r t h e r agree that permiss ion fo r e x t e n s i v e copying of t h i s t h e s i s fo r s c h o l a r l y purposes may be granted by the Head of my Department or by h ils r e p r e s e n t a t i v e s . It i s understood that copying or p u b l i c a t i o n of t h i s t h e s i s fo r f i n a n c i a l gain s h a l l not be a l lowed wi thout my w r i t t e n p e r m i s s i o n . Department of Psychology  The U n i v e r s i t y of B r i t i s h Columbia Vancouver 8, Canada Date October 30, 1967 ABSTRACT i Statement of the Problem The object of t h i s study i s to t e s t the theory of determinants of job s a t i s f a c t i o n as proposed by Herzberg, Mausner and Snyderman i n The Motivation to Work (1959) by applying Herzberg's (1959) technique to female l i b r a r y em-ployees. The theory s t a t e s that the f a c t o r s causing job s a t i s f a c t i o n ( " s a t i s f i e r s " ) are q u a l i t a t i v e l y d i f f e r e n t from the f a c t o r s causing job d i s s a t i s f a c t i o n ( " d i s s a t i s f i e r s " ) . S a t i s f i e r s or motivators are mostly the f a c t o r s of "achieve-ment", " r e c o g n i t i o n " , " r e s p o n s i b i l i t y " , "growth", "advance-ment" and "the work i t s e l f " . The presence of these f a c t o r s acts p r i m a r i l y as a s a t i s f i e r . On the other hand d i s s a t i s -f i e r s are mainly made up of such matters as "pay", supplemen-t a l b e n e f i t s " , "company ( l i b r a r y ) p o l i c y and a d m i n i s t r a t i o n " , "behavior of s u p e r v i s i o n " , "working c o n d i t i o n s " and other f a c -t o r s which are p e r i p h e r a l to the task i t s e l f . The major c r i t i c i s m s of Herzberg's study ( B r a y f i e l d , I960) (Ewen, 1964) are that the area has not been widely r e -searched and that unwarranted g e n e r a l i z a t i o n s are made from the f i n d i n g s which only i n c l u d e (1) a few job c l a s s i f i c a t i o n s and (2) p r a c t i c a l l y no study of females (Herzberg et a l . , 1959; Myers, 1964). A t h i r d important c r i t i c i s m may be made which i s that no one, at the time t h i s study was made, had generated c a t e g o r i e s of s a t i s f a c t i o n and d i s s a t i s f a c t i o n using Herzberg's i i technique, without r e f e r r i n g to Herzberg's c a t e g o r i e s thus t e s t i n g t h e i r v a l i d i t y . T h i s study w i l l deal with these c r i t i c i s m s by t e s t i n g the a p p l i c a b i l i t y of Herzberg's t e c h -nique to female l i b r a r i a n s , l i b r a r y a s s i s t a n t s , and c l e r k s and by doing so w i l l : 1. generate c a t e g o r i e s of s a t i s f a c t i o n and d i s s a t i s f a c t i o n , without r e f e r e n c e to Herzberg's c a t e g o r i e s , and thereby t e s t the v a l i d i t y of Herzberg's c a t e g o r i e s , 2. t e s t the a p p l i c a b i l i t y of the Herzberg technique on female s u b j e c t s , and 3. t e s t the a p p l i c a b i l i t y of Herzberg's technique to the job c l a s s i f i c a t i o n s of l i b r a r i a n s , l i b r a r y a s s i s t a n t s and l i b r a r y c l e r k s . The Method Seventy-seven subjects who were employees of the Univer-s i t y of B r i t i s h Columbia L i b r a r y were interviewed i n d i v i d u a l l y ; 27 L i b r a r i a n s , 19 L i b r a r y A s s i s t a n t s and 31 C l e r k s . The Herzberg (1959) patterned i n t e r v i e w was used to e l i c i t from the subjects sequences of events which were s a t i s f y i n g and d i s s a t i s f y i n g . Categories of f i r s t - l e v e l and second-level " s a t i s f i e r s " and " d i s s a t i s f i e r s " were generated and compared with Herzberg's (1959) c a t e g o r i e s of f i r s t - l e v e l and second-l e v e l " s a t i s f i e r s " and " d i s s a t i s f i e r s " . The frequency of responses i n the f i r s t and s e c o n d - l e v e l s a t i s f y i n g and d i s s a t i s f y i n g c a t e g o r i e s i n t h i s study were compared with the frequency of responses i n the f i r s t and i i i s e c o n d - l e v e l s a t i s f y i n g and d i s s a t i s f y i n g c a t e g o r i e s i n Herzberg's (1959) study. A comparison of the duration of f e e l i n g s f o r f i r s t - l e v e l sequences between Herzberg's (1959) data and the data i n t h i s study was made. Conclusions This study g e n e r a l l y v a l i d a t e s the f i r s t and second-level c a t e g o r i e s generated by Herzberg (1959). V i r t u a l l y a l l Herzberg's (1959) c a t e g o r i e s were generated from the female l i b r a r y s u b j e c t s plus some extra s e c o n d - l e v e l c a t e g o r i e s which Herzberg d i d not f i n d . The concept of u n i l a t e r a l s a t i s f i e r s and d i s s a t i s f i e r s was g e n e r a l l y supported but the u n i l a t e r a l s a t i s f i e r s and d i s s a t i s f i e r s were not c o n s i s t e n t f o r a l l job c l a s s i f i c a t i o n s . There were no c o n s i s t e n t l y u n i l a t e r a l s a t i s f i e r s f o r a l l the job c l a s s i f i c a t i o n s and only two c o n s i s t e n t l y u n i l a t e r a l d i s -s a t i s f y i n g c a t e g o r i e s f o r the female l i b r a r y s u b j e c t s : "com-pany ( l i b r a r y ) p o l i c y and a d m i n i s t r a t i o n " and "working c o n d i -t i o n s " . Herzberg's (1959) f i r s t - l e v e l s a t i s f i e r s of long duration were f i r s t - l e v e l s a t i s f i e r s of short duration f o r the female l i b r a r y s u b j e c t s . The "work i t s e l f " was the only predominantly long duration f i r s t - l e v e l d i s s a t i s f i e r i n Herzberg's (1959) study which was al s o a long duration f i r s t - l e v e l d i s s a t i s f i e r f o r the female l i b r a r y s u b j e c t s . i v TABLE OF CONTENTS Page LIST OF TABLES .v> LIST OF FIGURES v i LIST OF APPENDICE5 v i i ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS v i i i CHAPTER I INTRODUCTION AND STATEMENT OF THE PROBLEM ( I n c l u d i n g arrangements w i t h the U n i v e r s i t y of B.C. L i b r a r y ) .... 1 CHAPTER I I HERZBERG'S "CRITICAL SATIS-FACTION" APPROACH TO JOB SATISFACTION: Background 3 CHAPTER I I I HERZBERG'S APPROACH TO WORK MOTIVATION AS IT APPLIES TO UNIVERSITY LIBRARIANS: Method ... 23 CHAPTER IV CRITICAL SATISFACTIONS STUDY OF LIBRARY EMPLOYEES: R e s u l t s and D i s c u s s i o n 36 CHAPTER V CONCLUSION 97 BIBLIOGRAPHY 104 APPENDICES 10 B V LIST OF TABLES TABLE 1. TABLE 2. TABLE 3. TABLE 4. TABLE 5. TABLE 6. TABLE 7. A l i s t of Herzberg's c a t e g o r i e s and subcategories with the number of r e -sponses e l i c i t e d from the l i b r a r y s u b j e c t s F i r s t - l e v e l s a t i s f i e r c a t e g o r i e s as a percentage of a l l s a t i s f i e r s f o r Herzberg's study, l i b r a r i a n s , l i -brary a s s i s t a n t s , c l e r k s and the t o t a l l i b r a r y study A comparison of the percentage of sec o n d - l e v e l s a t i s f i e r s i n Herzberg's study and the l i b r a r y study F i r s t - l e v e l d i s s a t i s f i e r categor-i e s as a percentage of a l l d i s s a t -i s f i e r s f o r Herzberg's study, l i b r a r i a n s , l i b r a r y a s s i s t a n t s , c l e r k s and the t o t a l l i b r a r y study A comparison of the percent of each se c o n d - l e v e l f a c t o r appearing i n d i s s a t i s f y i n g job sequences i n the Herzberg study and the l i b r a r y study A comparison of duration of f e e l -ings of f i r s t - l e v e l s a t i s f i e r s be-tween the Herzberg data, l i b r a r i a n s , l i b r a r y a s s i s t a n t s and c l e r k s ... A comparison of duration of f i r s t -l e v e l d i s s a t i s f i e r s between the Herzberg data, l i b r a r i a n s , l i b r a r y a s s i s t a n t s and c l e r k s Page 37 55 61 64 66 81 86 vio*. LIST OF FIGURES Page FIGURE 1. A comparison of the percentage of fa v o r a b l e and unfavorable f i r s t - l e v e l sequences of events f o r female l i b r a r i a n s 69 FIGURE 2. A comparison of the percentage of f a v o r a b l e and unfavorable f i r s t - l e v e l sequences of events f o r female l i b r a r y a s s i s t a n t s 70 FIGURE 3. A comparison of the percentage of f a v o r a b l e and unfavorable f i r s t - l e v e l sequences of events f o r female l i b r a r y c l e r k s 71 FIGURE 4. A comparison of the percentage of fa v o r a b l e and unfavorable s e c o n d - l e v e l f a c t o r s f o r female l i b r a r i a n s 77 FIGURE 5. A comparison of the percentage of f a v o r a b l e and unfavorable s e c o n d - l e v e l f a c t o r s f o r female l i b r a r y a s s i s t a n t s ....... 78 FIGURE 6. A comparison of the percentage of f a v o r a b l e and unfavorable s e c o n d - l e v e l f a c t o r s f o r female l i b r a r y c l e r k s 79 FIGURE 7. Second-level f a c t o r s a r i s i n g from the major p o s i t i v e and negative f i r s t -l e v e l f a c t o r s f o r female l i b r a r i a n s 92 FIGURE 8. Second-level f a c t o r s a r i s i n g from the major p o s i t i v e and negative f i r s t -l e v e l f a c t o r s f o r l i b r a r y a s s i s t a n t s 93 FIGURE 9. 5econd-level f a c t o r s a r i s i n g from the major p o s i t i v e and negative f i r s t -l e v e l f a c t o r s f o r l i b r a r y c l e r k s 94 v i i LIST OF APPENDICES Page APPENDIX A L e t t e r mailed to the subjects i n t r o d u c i n g the i n t e r v i e w e r and the research p r o j e c t 109 APPENDIX B - l The Patterned Interview used 110 APPENDIX B-2 The Rating Scale used i n the Interview 112 APPENDIX C The form used to record the interviewee's responses ..... 113 APPENDIX D The McBee Key Sort Card Code 114 v i i i ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS The author wishes to s i n c e r e l y thank the many i n d i v i -duals who made the prep a r a t i o n of t h i s t h e s i s p o s s i b l e . P r o f e s s o r E.S.W. Belyea of the Department of Psychology of the U n i v e r s i t y of B r i t i s h Columbia f o r his guidance, advice and encouragement throughout the e n t i r e p r e p a r a t i o n of t h i s study. Mr. S t u a r t Stubbs, Head L i b r a r i a n , M. B e l l , A s s o c i a t e L i b r a r i a n and Mr. Roth s t e i n , D i r e c t o r and P r i n c i p a l of the School of L i b r a r i a n s h i p of the U n i v e r s i t y of B r i t i s h Columbia l i b r a r y s t a f f f o r t h e i r co-operation and a s s i s t a n c e i n the i n t e r v i e w i n g of the l i b r a r y s t a f f and f o r t h e i r v a l u a b l e i n f o r m a t i o n on the f u n c t i o n i n g of the l i b r a r y i n general. A l l the l i b r a r i a n s , l i b r a r y a s s i s t a n t s and l i b r a r y c l e r k s who were interviewed, f o r t h e i r whole-hearted co-operation . The research p r o j e c t of which a part i s reported h e r e i n , was supported by a grant from the Research Fund of the Dean of Graduate Studies of the U n i v e r s i t y of B r i t i s h Columbia to E.S.W. Belyea: This support i s g r a t e f u l l y acknowledged. CHAPTER I INTRODUCTION AND STATEMENT OF THE PROBLEM The object of t h i s study was to t e s t the theory of determinants of job s a t i s f a c t i o n as proposed by Herzberg, Mausner and Snyderman i n The Motivation to Work (1959). The theory s t a t e s that the f a c t o r s causing job s a t i s f a c t i o n ( " s a t i s f i e r s " ) are q u a l i t a t i v e l y d i f f e r e n t from the f a c t o r s causing job d i s s a t i s f a c t i o n ( " d i s s a t i s f i e r s " ) . S a t i s f i e r s or motivators are mostly the f a c t o r s of "achievement", "recog-n i t i o n " , " r e s p o n s i b i l i t y " , "growth advancement" and "the work i t s e l f " . The presence of these f a c t o r s acts p r i m a r i l y as a s a t i s f i e r . On the other hand, d i s s a t i s f i e r s are mainly made up of such matters as "pay", "supplemental b e n e f i t s " , "com-pany p o l i c y and a d m i n i s t r a t i o n " , "behavior of s u p e r v i s i o n " , "working c o n d i t i o n s " and other f a c t o r s which are p e r i p h e r a l to the task i t s e l f . One of the major c r i t i c i s m s of the theory (Ewen, R.B. 1964) i s that i t has not been widely researched and that un-warranted g e n e r a l i z a t i o n s are made from the f i n d i n g s which only i n c l u d e the one study on engineers and accountants. Recently the number of jobs researched using t h i s technique has increased as a r e s u l t of s t u d i e s by Schwartz, J e n u s a i t i s , 1 2 and Stark (1963) and Myers (1964). Supervisors i n the u t i l i t y i n d u s t r y were i n v e s t i g a t e d i n the former and s c i e n -t i s t s , manufacturing s u p e r v i s o r s , male t e c h n i c i a n s and female assemblers i n the l a t t e r . However, the research i s s t i l l r a t h e r sketchy and i t i s intended that t h i s study of l i b r a r -i a n s , l i b r a r y a s s i s t a n t s and l i b r a r y c l e r k s w i l l f u r t h e r add inform a t i o n on which to b e t t e r assess t h i s theory of job s a t i s f a c t i o n . E s s e n t i a l l y the procedure explored by Herzberg, Mausner and Snyderman c o n s i s t e d of o b t a i n i n g , i n semi-structured i n -d i v i d u a l i n t e r v i e w s , examples of sequences of events which occurred on the job that gave the sub j e c t , a member of the job category under study, f e e l i n g s of high or low s a t i s f a c -t i o n . The sequences causing f e e l i n g s of high s a t i s f a c t i o n were c l a s s i f i e d as "motivators" and those causing d i s s a t i s -f a c t i o n were named " d i s s a t i s f i e r s " . Sequences i n i t i a t i n g changes of f e e l i n g l a s t i n g a long p e r i o d of time were marked "long d u r a t i o n " and those i n i t i a t i n g changes of f e e l i n g which l a s t e d a s p e c i f i e d short period of time were marked "short d u r a t i o n " . The f a c t o r s causing changes i n f e e l i n g s toward the job were c l a s s i f i e d as " f i r s t l e v e l f a c t o r s " and the r e -spondent's d e s c r i p t i o n s of what the sequence meant to him and why i t made him f e e l good or bad were grouped under "second-l e v e l f a c t o r s " . In order f o r these r e p o r t s of sequences to be acceptable they were r e q u i r e d to meet c e r t a i n c r i t e r i a . The sequence 3 must have been a f i r s t hand o b j e c t i v e report of a s p e c i f i c event and not a statement of o p i n i o n . I t must have been defined w i t h i n a d e f i n i t e time period and caused the subject's f e e l i n g s toward h i s job to be e i t h e r e x c e p t i o n a l l y high or e x c e p t i o n a l l y low. The high or low f e e l i n g s which the r e -spondent f e l t toward the job must have been caused by some f a c t o r or f a c t o r s r e l a t e d d i r e c t l y to the job. F i n a l l y , the respondent must have held the job i n question at the time he was s a t i s f i e d or d i s s a t i s f i e d . In the i n t e r e s t s of keeping the r e p o r t s of sequences of events from the subjects as ob-j e c t i v e as p o s s i b l e , any re p o r t from subjects not meeting these c r i t e r i a was disregarded. T h i s technique i s based on one assumption. This was that people can i d e n t i f y t h e i r own f e e l i n g s about t h e i r jobs, place them on a continuum and report the extreme s i t u a t i o n s to us. Herzberg et a l . ( 1 9 5 9 p . l 4 &. 15) report that v i r -t u a l l y none of the respondents had any d i f f i c u l t y i n doing t h i s and i n t h i s study i t was a l s o found that v i r t u a l l y a l l the s u b j e c t s could perceive t h e i r sources of s a t i s f a c t i o n and d i s s a t i s f a c t i o n , arrange them on a continuum and report them w i t h i n the c r i t e r i a mentioned with f a c i l i t y . Preparatory Arrangements with the U.B.C. L i b r a r y The Head L i b r a r i a n and As s o c i a t e L i b r a r i a n f o r the l i b r a r y were i n t e r e s t e d i n aims of the study and gave the p r o j e c t t h e i r f u l l support. Permission was given to i n t e r v i e w 4 a l l l i b r a r y employees i n the r e f e r e n c e d i v i s i o n s and the c i r c u l a t i o n d i v i s i o n during t h e i r working hours at a time convenient to the p a r t i c u l a r d i v i s i o n head and l i b r a r y em-ployee i n v o l v e d . A comfortable and p r i v a t e i n t e r v i e w room was provided i n the l i b r a r y . The i n t e r v i e w s were not compulsory f o r the employees but seventy-seven out of seventy-nine employees i n the r e f e r e n c e and c i r c u l a t i o n d i v i s i o n s took p a r t . The informa-t i o n gathered i n the i n t e r v i e w s was s t r i c t l y c o n f i d e n t i a l and i t was agreed upon by both the a d m i n i s t r a t i o n and the s t a f f that the study would only r e l e a s e i n f o r m a t i o n as a composite with no connection to i n d i v i d u a l s or d i v i s i o n s . CHAPTER II HERZBERG'S "CRITICAL SATISFACTIONS" APPROACH TO JOB SATISFACTION t BACKGROUND A Review of Techniques of Studying Job Satisfaction In reviewing the background of the " c r i t i c a l s a t i s f a c -tions" technique (Herzberg, at a l . , 1959) to studying job sat i s f a c t i o n i t i s appropriate to consider other techniques. There are basi c a l l y three; (1) scaled measures of attitudes and effects, (2) group studies and (3) observational studies. The scaled measure approach can be complicated by cer-tain factors. F i r s t l y , this approach requires a p r i o r i judgments of psychologists or managers as to the factors causing job s a t i s f a c t i o n . This could be misleading. The subjects may well be s a t i s f i e d or d i s s a t i s f i e d by factors not included in the scale and these would not be taken into ac-count . A second factor complicating the rating scale approach i s the assumption on which most rating scales are based, that i s , that the attitude extends from one extreme of s a t i s f a c t i o n , through zero, to an extreme d i s s a t i s f a c t i o n . Recent studies indicate that this assumption i s not va l i d (Friedlander, 1964; Herzberg et a l . , 1959; Myers, 1964; Schwartz et a l . . 1963). Friedlander (1964) studied 80 subjects i n a variety 5 6 of occupations and p o s i t i o n s and found there were s i g n i f i c a n t d i f f e r e n c e s between the importance that an employee as-c r i b e s to various job c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s as a source of s a t i s -f a c t i o n as opposed to these same job c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s as a source of d i s s a t i s f a c t i o n . Herzberg's (1959) study on engineers, Myers' (1964) study of s c i e n t i s t s , manufacturing s u p e r v i s o r s , male t e c h n i c i a n s and female assemblers, and the study of Schwartz e_ a l . (1963) on su p e r v i s o r s i n the u t i l i t y i n d u s t r y a l l s t r o n g l y support the p r o p o s i t i o n that s a t i s f a c -t i o n and d i s s a t i s f a c t i o n are not on a b i p o l a r continuum. The "halo e f f e c t " i s a l s o a common source of e r r o r i n the r a t i n g s c a l e approach (Flanagan, 1954; Thorndike (1920) as i t may bias each r a t i n g of an item. I f a subject was s t r o n g l y d i s s a t i s f i e d with h i s job because of the extremely uncomfortable working c o n d i t i o n s , t h i s i n t e n s e d i s s a t i s f a c -t i o n would c o l o r h i s r a t i n g s of other items which are very g e n e r a l l y s t a t e d and do not n e c e s s a r i l y preclude a subjec-t i v e r a t i n g . " S o c i a l acceptance" of the f a c t o r s being reported and unconscious motives a f f e c t r a t i n g s as w e l l . The high concep-t u a l l e v e l of ranking or r a t i n g f a c t o r s such as s o c i a l r e l a -t i o n s , s u p e r v i s i o n and s a l a r y would be g r e a t l y i n f l u e n c e d by the s o c i a l standards of the group. For example, i f the sub-j e c t came from a group i n which i t was unacceptable to value money h i g h l y i t i s u n l i k e l y that he would acknowledge wages 7 as a f a c t o r c o n t r i b u t i n g to h i s s a t i s f a c t i o n or d i s s a t i s -f a c t i o n when i n f a c t t h i s may be so. Unconscious motives could a f f e c t the r a t i n g i n a s i m i l a r manner, f o r example, a compulsive complainer might downgrade a l l h i s r a t i n g s so as to appear to be having many problems with h i s job. These d i s t o r t i o n s are reduced c o n s i d e r a b l y i f the sub-j e c t r e p o r t s about a c t u a l s p e c i f i c events when he f e l t es-p e c i a l l y s a t i s f i e d or d i s s a t i s f i e d r a t h e r than r a t i n g a l i s t of general f a c t o r s . I f these " c r i t i c a l s a t i s f a c t i o n s " are al s o obtained d i r e c t l y from respondents who have experienced them, there i s no charge of c a t e g o r i e s being added or deleted because of a p r i o r i judgments of management or p s y c h o l o g i s t s . The assumption of a b i p o l a r continuum s t r e t c h i n g from ex-treme s a t i s f a c t i o n through zero to extreme d i s s a t i s f a c t i o n i s of course not necessary i n the " c r i t i c a l s a t i s f a c t i o n s " technique: t h i s i s one of the p r i n c i p l e s i t i s t h e r e f o r e capa-ble of t e s t i n g . A second methodological approach to the study of job s a t i s f a c t i o n i s the group study technique, which compares the job s a t i s f a c t i o n i n groups f o r which some known measurable c h a r a c t e r i s t i c i s an independent v a r i a b l e . For example, groups of high and low p r o d u c t i v i t y , high and low turnover or high and low morale may be compared with regard to c e r t a i n c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s such as opportunity f o r advancement, or s a l -ary (Katz &. Kahn, 1951; Katz, Macoby &. Morse, 1951; Kerr, 1947; B S t o c k f o r d &. Kunzek, 1950; Wickert, 1951). The group study approach has two main drawbacks: the f i r s t i s that there i s often a c o n s i d e r a b l e lapse of time between the measures of the independent v a r i a b l e s which l e a d to the formation of the group and the c r i t e r i o n measure which s e r v i c e s as the dependent v a r i a b l e . For example, i t i s p o s s i b l e f o r i n d i v i d u a l s u b j e c t s i n a group which has high job s a t i s f a c t i o n over a peri o d of time to show very low job s a t i s f a c t i o n f o r a s p e c i f i c f a c t o r such as achievement because of circumstances which occur at the p a r t i c u l a r time t h i s f a c t o r i s measured. The second drawback p e r t a i n s to the kinds of measures used to determine the independent and dependent v a r i a b l e s . M u l t i - u n i t measures w i l l i n d i c a t e high job s a t i s f a c t i o n with a f a i r l y l a r g e number of agreements with p o s i t i v e statements about the job. However, the subject may be very d i s s a t i s f i e d because one of the f a c t o r s d i s s a t i s -f i e s him i n t e n s e l y and n u l l i f i e s any s a t i s f y i n g f a c t o r s causing him to f e e l d i s s a t i s f i e d i n general. The t h i r d technique - " o b s e r v a t i o n a l study" i s as the name suggests, observing subjects i n the work s i t u a t i o n and gathering data on t h e i r expressed job s a t i s f a c t i o n and d i s -s a t i s f a c t i o n . T h i s technique has been used to y i e l d v a l u a b l e s t u d i e s i n i n d u s t r i a l psychology (Wickert, 1951) but i t does have i t s p i t f a l l s . Although an i n t e r v i e w e r a f f e c t s a respon-dent's r e p o r t , an observer who remains i n contact with the 9 s i t u a t i o n he i s observing f o r a long period of time tends to exert a much more profound i n f l u e n c e (Mayo, 1933; R o e t h l i e b e r g e r et, a l . , 1939; Turner, 1933). Observational s t u d i e s have a l s o tended to be l i m i t e d by the smallness of t h e i r samples and a l s o by the l i m i t e d observation p o s s i b l e because of the expense of t h i s technique. In c o n t r a s t , the r e l a t i v e f a c i l i t y with which inf o r m a t i o n can be c o l l e c t e d by the " c r i t i c a l s a t i s f a c t i o n s " technique permits the use of l a r g e r samples. Maslow's and Herzberg's Theories of Motivation Compared As many observers of employee motivation adopt Maslow's theory (Maslow, 1954; Maslow, 1959) of motivation, i t i s worthwhile here to discuss i t b r i e f l y and draw a comparison with the Herzberg theory (Herzberg et a l . , 1959). Maslow's theory i s that people are always i n a motivated s t a t e , but the nature of the motivation i s f l u c t u a t i n g . When one need i s s a t i s f i e d , the next prepotent need emerges and r e p l a c e s i t , as s a t i s f i e d needs are not motivators. The h i e r a r c h y of needs begins with the p h y s i o l o g i c a l needs as the most pre-potent i n the m o t i v a t i o n a l schema. They are followed i n pre-potency by the s a f e t y needs, concerned with p r o t e c t i o n from danger, t h r e a t and d e p r i v a t i o n . Next i n prepotency are the s o c i a l needs of belonging, a s s o c i a t i o n and love and the ego needs or those r e l a t i n g to self-esteem, s e l f - c o n f i d e n c e , competence, r e c o g n i t i o n , s t a t u s , and r e p u t a t i o n , and f i n a l l y the s e l f a c t u a l i z a t i o n needs of s e l f - f u l f i l l m e n t or s e l f -development . 10 It f o l l o w s from Maslow's theory that the worker may never be s a t i s f i e d with h i s job but w i l l have a continuously evolv-ing set of needs. When one need i s s a t i s f i e d i t i s no longer a motivator as g r a t i f i e d needs are not a c t i v e motivators. The next prepotent need emerges, to dominate the i n d i v i d u a l ' s be-havior and so the u n s a t i s f i e d needs evolve according to the theory. The Herzberg (1959) theory proposes that there i s one group of s a t i s f i e r s and a d i f f e r e n t group of d i s s a t i s f i e r s and that they act i n separate and d i s t i n c t ways. The removal of a negative f a c t o r would r e l i e v e d i s s a t i s f a c t i o n but not n e c e s s a r i -l y c r e a t e a happy employee. On the other hand, the presence of a f a c t o r c r e a t i n g s a t i s f a c t i o n serves only to i n c r e a s e s a t i s f a c t i o n beyond a n e u t r a l point but an absence of t h i s f a c -t o r w i l l not cause d i s s a t i s f a c t i o n . There i s a p o s s i b i l i t y that a r e v o l v i n g "need h i e r a r c h y " e x i s t s w i t h i n the s a t i s f i e r s as there i s not s u f f i c i e n t evidence to date to a f f i r m or r e f u t e t h i s theory. The Herzberg technique (Herzberg et_ _ a l . , 1959) has r e -s u l t e d i n f i n d i n g s which p a r t i a l l y remove the bleakness of the Maslow theory (Maslow, 1954) which suggested that no secure c o n c l u s i o n s can be drawn from a study of the needs people have f u l f i l l e d i n t h e i r j o b s . E v o l u t i o n of the " C r i t i c a l S a t i s f a c t i o n s " technique Herzberg's (1959) method of c o l l e c t i n g " c r i t i c a l s a t i s f a c -t i o n s " evolved d i r e c t l y from the " c r i t i c a l i n c i d e n t " technique 11 of Flanagan (1954). Flanagan's procedure f o r d e f i n i n g c r i t i c a l requirements of a job c o n s i s t e d of c o l l e c t i n g i n f o r m a t i o n on i n c i d e n t s which r e s u l t s i n s u c c e s s f u l or uns u c c e s s f u l p e r f o r -mance of the job, from people i n the job under study and from members of a group who were d i r e c t l y a s s o c i a t e d with the job and q u a l i f i e d to assess i t . The in f o r m a t i o n was c o l l e c t e d i n a semi-structured personal i n t e r v i e w of group i n t e r v i e w s (Dtke, 1958) emphasizing to the su b j e c t s that a l l i n c i d e n t s reported must have a c t u a l l y happened and must have been d i r e c t l y ob-served by the person r e p o r t i n g . These r e p o r t s were c a l l e d " c r i t i c a l i n c i d e n t s " i f they met the b a s i c c r i t e r i a (Flanagan, 1954). The a c t u a l behavior must be reported and i t must have been observed by the r e p o r t e r . A l l r e l e v a n t f a c t o r s i n the s i t u a t i o n must be given. F i n a l l y the observer must make a judgment regarding the c r i t i c a l n e s s of the behavior and the observer must make i t c l e a r j u s t why he b e l i e v e s the behavior was c r i t i c a l . F ollowing the c o l l e c t i o n of " c r i t i c a l i n c i d e n t s " they were grouped i n t o s i m i l a r c a t e g o r i e s or s i m i l a r behaviours and the category headings became the " c r i t i c a l requirements" or the c h a r a c t e r i s t i c behavior on the job which c o n s t i t u t e d a high or low l e v e l of e f f e c t i v e performance of the job. The f i r s t step i n f o r m u l a t i n g the c a t e g o r i e s was d i v i d i n g the i n c i d e n t s i n t o s u c c e s s f u l or e f f e c t i v e i n c i d e n t s and unsuc c e s s f u l or i n e f f e c t -i v e i n c i d e n t s . Each i n c i d e n t was then s t u d i e d and each behavior which c o n t r i b u t e d to the e f f e c t i v e n e s s or i n e f f e c t i v e n e s s of 12 the i n d i v i d u a l i n the i n c i d e n t was e x t r a c t e d and recorded. Following t h i s , c a t e g o r i e s were formed based on these behav-i o r s . The c a t e g o r i e s were then examined and when two or more d e s c r i p t i v e c a t e g o r i e s were c l o s e l y r e l a t e d , they were combined under a heading which encompassed both c a t e g o r i e s . The " c r i t i c a l requirement" was f i n a l l y formed when the group com-ponents were reviewed and r e w r i t t e n so as to be a c c u r a t e l y des-c r i p t i v e of the c r i t i c a l behaviours wi t h i n the category and d i s t i n c t from the other c a t e g o r i e s . The c r i t i c a l i n c i d e n t s technique has been used e x t e n s i v e l y and i n f o r m a t i o n has been c o l l e c t e d on such jobs as m i l i t a r y personnel ( V a l l a n c e , 1948; Smith, 1954), bookkeepers i n s a l e s companies (Nevins, 1949), i n d u s t r i a l foremen ( F i n k l e , 1950), d e n t i s t s (Wagner, 1950) p i l o t i n s t r u c t o r s (Krum, 1952) general psychology i n s t r u c t o r s (Smit, 1952), t r o l l e y - b u s operators (Stoyva, 1956), r e a l e s t ate salesmen (Devries, 1957) and f i r s t -l i n e s u p e r v i s o r s ( B a r r e t t , 1958). 1 The d i f f e r e n c e between the use of the technique by Flanagan (1954) and that by Herzberg e_t al. (1959) i s that the former i s used to determine an e v a l u a t i n g of job performance and the l a t e r job s a t i s f a c t i o n . Flanagan's work i s based on s p e c i f y i n g e f f e c t i v e or i n e f f e c t i v e behavior i n the job and from t h i s a device f o r e v a l u a t i o n of job performance or s e l e c -t i o n i s developed. These c r i t e r i a are e x t e r n a l to the Since 1960 a l a r g e number of r e p o r t s of the employment of the c r i t i c a l Incident Technique have appeared. It may now be regarded as a standard technique of j o b - a n a l y s i s . 13 p s y c h o l o g i c a l processes of the i n d i v i d u a l r e p o r t i n g . On the other hand, i n the job s a t i s f a c t i o n approach the choice of i n c i d e n t s i s based on the job holders judgment of h i s psycho-l o g i c a l s t a t e during the events and t h i s i s an i n t e r n a l c r i t e r i o n . Herzberg's technique (1954) was f i r s t a p p l i e d to the study of job s a t i s f a c t i o n i n a very rough form by asking su b j e c t s who were completing f i v e - p o i n t s c a l e q u e s t i o n n a i r e s on job s a t i s f a c t i o n to provide w r i t t e n comments on those f a c -t o r s f o r which they had the strongest f e e l i n g s . The i n s t r u c -t i o n s to the employees were to choose f i v e items about which they had the strongest f e e l i n g s ( f a v o r a b l e or unfavorable) and to e x p l a i n t h e i r f e e l i n g s i n w r i t i n g g i v i n g s p e c i f i c i n c i d e n t s or " f o r i n s t a n c e s " to support t h e i r general s t a t e -ments. T h i s " i n c i d e n t " part of the requested comments was p a r t i c u l a r l y s t r e s s e d i n the i n s t r u c t i o n s . This was not a t r u e " c r i t i c a l s a t i s f a c t i o n s " approach because d e f i n i t e ideas were put i n the s u b j e c t ' s mind by the survey questions which might not have been there otherwise. Caplow and McGee (1958), i n t h e i r i n v e s t i g a t i o n of academics, used a technique s i m i l a r to Herzberg's (1959). They interviewed a number of u n i v e r s i t y personnel and gathered a l l p o s s i b l e i n f o r m a t i o n about the circumstances surrounding turnover. They a l s o used a u n i t c a l l e d a "sequence of events" which r e f e r r e d to the events connected with an i n s t a n c e of turnover. Although these were the only 14 s i m i l a r i t i e s , i t i s an example of another study using some of the fundamentals of t h i s approach. Caplow and McGee's book was published a f t e r Herzberg's (1959) study was under-way so the s i m i l a r i t y i n method and terminology of the two s t u d i e s was c o i n c i d e n t a l . Herzberg's " C r i t i c a l S a t i s f a c t i o n s " technique Herzberg e_t a_l. (1959) i s the b a s i c o r i g i n a l study using the i n t e r v i e w technique to e l i c i t c r i t i c a l sequences of events causing s a t i s f a c t i o n and d i s s a t i s f a c t i o n , and analyzing the responses i n terms of length of duration of f e e l i n g and the length of time of the sequence of events. They a l s o determined from the subject why he was d i s s a t i s -f i e d or s a t i s f i e d with the i n c i d e n t or " f i r s t - l e v e l f a c t o r " , and l a b e l l e d t h i s the "second-level f a c t o r " . F i n a l l y , the s u b j e c t ' s assessment of the " e f f e c t " these f e e l i n g s had on h i s work performance was recorded. The " e f f e c t " was defined as the impact people's a t t i t u d e s had on the way i n which they behave i n the work s i t u a t i o n . There were 203 male accountants and engineers interviewed and 476 sequences were c o l l e c t e d g i v i n g an average of 2.4 per s u b j e c t . In the i n t e r v i e w s each subject was asked "think of a time when you f e l t e x c e p t i o n a l l y good or e x c e p t i o n a l l y bad about your job, e i t h e r your present job or any other job you have had (Herzberg et a l . 1959, p. 141-142). This can be e i t h e r the 'long-range' or the 'short-range' kind of s i t u a t i o n as I have described i t . T e l l me what happened." A f t e r an 15 employee's d e s c r i p t i o n of a f a v o r a b l e sequence of events he was asked f o r an unfavorable one or v i c e - v e r s a . Questions were i n t e r j e c t e d during the i n t e r v i e w to obtain the neces-sary d e t a i l s , f o r i n s t a n c e , the question "what did these events mean to you" was asked to gain s e c o n d - l e v e l f a c t o r i n f o r m a t i o n as to why the subject f e l t he reacted f a v o r a b l y or unfavorably to a sequence of events. Also the question "Can you give me a s p e c i f i c example of the way i n which your performance on the job was a f f e c t e d " , was asked to determine the " e f f e c t " on the job. So that the r e q u i r e d i n f o r m a t i o n would be a c c u r a t e l y recorded, notes were taken during the i n t e r v i e w s . An a_ p o s t e r i o r i approach was taken and the c a t e g o r i e s were ex t r a c t e d from the m a t e r i a l i t s e l f r a t h e r than an a p r i o r i approach where a p r e v i o u s l y defined and o u t l i n e d schema i s used\{Flanagan, 1954). The sequences were broken down i n t o "thought u n i t s " or statements about a s i n g l e event or c o n d i t i o n that l e d to f e e l i n g s of s a t i s f a c t i o n or d i s s a t i s -f a c t i o n . The thought u n i t s were then grouped i n t o c a t e g o r i e s by two of the researchers i n the r e s p e c t i v e s t u d i e s generated a schema of c a t e g o r i e s (Herzberg et. aJL. 1959, p. 143-150). Herzberg e_t _al. (1959) found that "achievement", "recog-n i t i o n " , " r e s p o n s i b i l i t y " , " p o s s i b i l i t y of growth", "advance-ment" and the "work i t s e l f " appeared much more f r e q u e n t l y as s a t i s f i e r s than d i s s a t i s f i e r s and t h e r e f o r e are more l i k e l y 16 to cause s a t i s f a c t i o n than d i s s a t i s f a c t i o n . He t h e r e f o r e r e f e r s to these as " s a t i s f i e r s " . "Pay", " s u p e r v i s i o n " , "working c o n d i t i o n s " , " s t a t u s " , "job s e c u r i t y " , "company p o l i c y and a d m i n i s t r a t i o n " , and "peer r e l a t i o n s h i p s " , on the other hand, were found to be d i s s a t i s f i e r s more than s a t i s f i e r s by Herzberg, e_ a l . (1959). He t h e r e f o r e r e f e r s to these as " d i s s a t i s f i e r s " . The f i r s t - l e v e l f a c t o r s or sequences of events l e a d i n g to high or low job s a t i s f a c t i o n r e v e a l only part of the st o r y ; the s e c o n d - l e v e l f a c t o r s which were the responses of subject t e l l i n g why the sequence of events made them f e e l good or bad, revealed why the subject f e l t s a t i s f i e d or d i s -s a t i s f i e d . In Herzberg's study, twelve s e c o n d - l e v e l f a c t o r s r e s u l t e d ; " f e e l i n g s of achievement", " f e e l i n g s of r e c o g n i -t i o n " , " f e e l i n g s toward the work i t s e l f " , " f e e l i n g s of f a i r -ness", "group f e e l i n g " , " r e s p o n s i b i l i t y " , " f e e l i n g s of a p o s s i b i l i t y of growth", " f e e l i n g s about pay", " f e e l i n g s about job s e c u r i t y " , " f e e l i n g s of p r i d e " , " f e e l i n g s of s t a t u s " , and " f e e l i n g s of advancement". Fiv e of these, " f e e l i n g s of r e -c o g n i t i o n " , " f e e l i n g s of achievement", " f e e l i n g s of advance-ment", "group f e e l i n g " and " f e e l i n g s toward the work i t s e l f " were predominantly s a t i s f i e r s , (the d i f f e r e n c e s i n the high and low t o t a l s were s t a t i s t i c a l l y s i g n i f i c a n t at the .01 l e v e l of c o n f i d e n c e ) . 17 F i n a l l y , Herzberg e_t a_l. (1959) asked the subjects how t h i s s a t i s f y i n g or d i s s a t i s f y i n g experience a f f e c t e d t h e i r performance on the job and t a b u l a t e d these " e f f e c t s " . From t h i s he found s i x c a t e g o r i e s of e f f e c t s , performance e f f e c t s , turnover e f f e c t s , mental-health e f f e c t s , i n t e r p e r s o n a l r e l a -t i o n s e f f e c t s , a t t i t u d i n a l e f f e c t s and miscellaneous e f f e c t s . M. Scott Myers (1964) used the Herzberg techniques i n an extensive study of a number of c a t e g o r i e s of workers i n a l a r g e company manufacturing e l e c t r i c a l components and de-v i c e s . He c o l l e c t e d 715 sequences from 230 male s c i e n t i s t s , engineers, manufacturing engineers and hourly t e c h n i c i a n s and 52 female hourly assemblers y i e l d i n g an average of 2.4 se-quences per s u b j e c t . As was done i n Herzberg's study (1959), f i r s t and s e c o n d - l e v e l f a c t o r s were c o l l e c t e d but Myers d i d not examine the " e f f e c t s " or performance r e s u l t i n g from s a t i s f a c t i o n and d i s s a t i s f a c t i o n . At the time the present study was undertaken t h i s was the only other study to use Herzberg's approach per se. Myers (1964) data f a i l to c l a r i f y one very important po i n t ; that i s whether he generated h i s c a t e g o r i e s indepen-dently of Herzberg's (1959) c a t e g o r i e s or, i n f a c t , s o r t e d h i s data i n t o Herzberg's e x i s t i n g c a t e g o r i e s . As h i s study (1964) does not s p e c i f i c a l l y s t a t e that he generated his own c a t e g o r i e s we must assume that he d i d not. A d i r e c t l e t t e r of i n q u i r y to Myer's f a i l e d to evoke c l a r i f i c a t i o n of t h i s 18 point of procedure. Myers (1914) found the same " s a t i s f i e r s " as Herzberg et a l . (1959) f o r s c i e n t i s t s and engineers; "achievement", " r e c o g n i t i o n " , " r e s p o n s i b i l i t y " , " p o s s i b i l i t y of growth", "advancement" and "the work i t s e l f " . He a l s o found a s i m i l a r pattern f o r manufacturing s u p e r v i s o r s ex-cept that one category, "work i t s e l f " , was reported very l i t t l e by the s u p e r v i s o r s . S i m i l a r s a t i s f i e r s were a l s o found f o r hourly male t e c h n i c i a n s and female assemblers except that i n both these cases, the "work i t s e l f " was more of a d i s s a t i s -f i e r than a s a t i s f i e r . Myers (1964) a l s o l i s t s the same se c o n d - l e v e l f a c t o r s as Herzberg; " f e e l i n g s of achievement", " f e e l i n g s of r e c o g n i -t i o n " , " f e e l i n g s toward work i t s e l f " , " f e e l i n g s of f a i r n e s s " , "group f e e l i n g " , " f e e l i n g s of s t a t u s " and " f e e l i n g s of ad-vancement". He a l s o found that g e n e r a l l y the same second-l e v e l f a c t o r s were " s a t i s f i e r s " i n h i s study as i n Herzberg's (1959): " f e e l i n g s of achievement", " f e e l i n g s of r e c o g n i t i o n " , " f e e l i n g s toward work i t s e l f " , "group f e e l i n g " and " f e e l i n g s of r e s p o n s i b i l i t y " . Myers (1964) did not i n v e s t i g a t e " e f f e c t s " i n h i s study. It i s assumed that he f e l t , as B r a y f i e l d (I960) and we i n t h i s study f e l t , that Herzberg's (1959) data on " e f f e c t s " are r a t h e r tenuous as they r e q u i r e d the subject to do some-th i n g extremely d i f f i c u l t , i . e . to assess the impact h i s " s a t i s f a c t i o n " or " d i s s a t i s f a c t i o n " has on h i s own work per-19 formance. One study (Aikenhead, I960) on teacher s a t i s f a c t i o n p ublished subsequent to Herzberg's (1959) study used a some-what s i m i l a r technique. A f t e r the subjects had completed an anonymous q u e s t i o n n a i r e , they were asked to r e l a t e t h e i r most pleasant experience and sharpest discouragement. Care was taken to d i f f e r e n t i a t e between a temporary disappointment and a genuine discouragement but the long and short duration and sequence of events c r i t e r i a were not used and i t i s d i f f i c u l t to compare the f i n d i n g s with the Herzberg (1959) and Myers (1964) s t u d i e s . Another study of job s a t i s f a c t i o n (Schwartz, Jenunites &, Stark, 1963), o b l i q u e l y r e l a t e d to the Herzberg technique, requested the subjects who were s u p e r v i s o r s i n the u t i l i t y i n d u s t r y , to w r i t e , r a t h e r than report o r a l l y , two experiences; one experience causing them extreme s a t i s f a c t i o n and ano-ther causing extreme d i s s a t i s f a c t i o n . Only f i r s t - l e v e l f a c -t o r s or examples of i n c i d e n t s causing s a t i s f a c t i o n were gathered and no in f o r m a t i o n on e i t h e r s e c o n d - l e v e l f a c t o r s or e f f e c t s on job performance was c o l l e c t e d . The duration of f e e l i n g s of s a t i s f a c t i o n or d i s s a t i s f a c t i o n was not considered i n t h i s study but there were, however, two independent v a r i a -b l e s added. The Edwards Personal Preference Schedule con-s i s t i n g of 15 s c o r i n g c a t e g o r i e s , was used f o r an outside ob-j e c t i v e measure of need, p e r m i t t i n g a d i r e c t comparison of the two sets of m o t i v a t i o n a l c o n s t r u c t s . The second a d d i t i o n 20 was a set of v a r i a b l e s c o n s i s t i n g of s i x non-test items; age, job c l a s s i f i c a t i o n , education, p e r s o n a l i t y c h a r a c t e r -i s t i c s , d e s c r i b i n g the background and s t a t u s of the s u b j e c t . The f i n d i n g s supported the Herzberg (1959) study i n that most pleasant experiences were found to be r e l a t e d to con-d i t i o n s of the job i t s e l f , and, conversely, unpleasant ex-periences went together with f a c t o r s i n the work environment. The r e s u l t s of the comparison of the job a t t i t u d e f a c t o r s with the " c r i t e r i o n " v a r i a b l e s , Edwards Personal Preference Schedule, and the s i x back-ground items, were not s i g n i f i c a n t . These are the s t u d i e s i n t h i s area to the date upon which the present study was undertaken. To give a b e t t e r i n s i g h t i n t o t h i s work, three reviews of Herzberg's book (1959) should be d i s c u s s e d . Robert T. Kahn (1961) i n h i s r e -view says that i n i t i a l l y he was s k e p t i c a l of the u n d i l u t e d r e l i a n c e on each subject's r e t r o s p e c t i v e s e l e c t i o n of a time of high and a time of low job s a t i s f a c t i o n and h i s i d e n t i f i -c a t i o n of the f a c t o r s which caused these periods, but the consistency of Herzberg's f i n d i n g s caused him to view the work with much more r e s p e c t . He f e e l s the most important f e a t u r e of the study i s that s a t i s f a c t i o n and d i s s a t i s f a c t i o n are caused by d i f f e r e n t f a c t o r s and expresses hope that t h i s f i n d i n g w i l l be f u r t h e r t e s t e d to see i f the r e s u l t s are s p e c i a l c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s of the P i t t s b u r g h companies i n v e s t i -gated or of accountants and engineers or i f the f i n d i n g s i n -d i c a t e major new f a c t s about the i n t e r a c t i o n of workers and 21 t h e i r environments g e n e r a l l y . An a r t i c l e by Robert E. Ewen (1964) on the g e n e r a l i t y of Herzberg's theory brings some worthwhile c r i t i c i s m s to l i g h t . He suggests that a very narrow range of jobs were s t u d i e d and that the r e s u l t s should not be g e n e r a l i z e d be-yond t h i s s i t u a t i o n . The work of M. Scott Myers (1964) at Texas Instruments has given more support to Herzberg's (1959) theory but t h i s c r i t i c i s m i s s t i l l a v a l i d one. Arthur H. B r a y f i e l d (I960) described Herzberg's study as u t i l i z i n g a unique combination of techniques to t e s t a s i g n i f i c a n t hypothesis and o f f e r i n g some s t i m u l a t i n g and t h e o r i z i n g d i s c u s s i o n . He suggests, however, that Herzberg's study needs to be checked at other o c c u p a t i o n a l l e v e l s . In the a r t i c l e , the tenuous nature of the data on " e f f e c t s " i s dis c u s s e d . It i s pointed out that Herzberg says " t h e i r ( e f f e c t s ) should not be considered d i r e c t evidence of the be-havior of our respondents but r a t h e r i n d i c a t i o n s that t h i s behavior had a high degree of p r o b a b i l i t y and that observa-t i o n or other o b j e c t i v e measures of behaviour would be l i k e l y to y i e l d the same r e s u l t s " . B r a y f i e l d c a l l s t h i s s l i g h t l y convoluted l o g i c and h i n t s that he i s i n c l i n e d to discount some of the p o s i t i v e r e l a t i o n s h i p s found i n t h i s part of the study. Myers (1964) may have concurred i n B r a y f i e l d ' s c r i -t i c i s m of the " e f f e c t s " , as he did not i n c l u d e them i n h i s study. 22 The present study seeks to shed l i g h t on an aspect of Herzberg's (1959) study which has been subject to c r i t i c i s m . Herzberg drew some sweeping co n c l u s i o n s regarding human work motivation from one research based upon a l i m i t e d sample of male workers i n two r a t h e r c l o s e l y s i m i l a r jobs. The three l e v e l s of l i b r a r i a n s who are the sub j e c t s of the present study are i n a d i f f e r e n t job area, i n a d i f f e r e n t kind of employment s e t t i n g . The sample i s predominantly female, and hence, taken i n conjunction with Myers (1964) study, which s i m i l a r l y i n c l u d e d females, may provide a u s e f u l extension of Herzberg's theory to both sexes. In that Myers (1964) study appears to have been c a r r i e d out using the f i r s t and se c o n d - l e v e l c a t e g o r i e s of sequences generated by Herzberg, some doubt e x i s t s as to the v a l i d i t y of Herzbergs c a t e g o r i z a t i o n . The present study, by generating c a t e g o r i e s de_ novo, ought to provide a u s e f u l check upon Herzberg's schema. Since t h i s study was c a r r i e d out, Herzberg (1966) has w r i t t e n a new book, Work and the Nature of Man i n which he expands h i s hypothesis i n The Motivation to Work to a gen-e r a l theory. In Work and the Nature of Man Herzberg d i s -cusses h i s general theory of motivation as i t r e l a t e s to mental hygiene and secondly he reviews the follow-up s t u d i e s on h i s theory of mot i v a t i o n . In h i s review and d i s c u s s i o n of the s t u d i e s performed subsequent to 1959 he notes that there i s a strong concurrence of f i n d i n g s supporting h i s theory thus m i t i g a t i n g the c r i t i c i s m that the theory may not be a p p l i e d g e n e r a l l y . A l a r g e p o r t i o n of the book develops a mental hygiene theme which i s not d i r e c t l y r e l a t e d to t h i s study. CHAPTER III HERZBERG'5 APPROACH TO WORK MOTIVATION AS  IT APPLIE5 TO UNIVERSITY LIBRARIANS: METHOD The purpose of t h i s study was to apply Herzberg's theory of motivation to U n i v e r s i t y L i b r a r i a n s . The method used was, i n general, i d e n t i c a l to Herzberg's. One p o r t i o n of Herzberg's study was not undertaken, how-ever. " E f f e c t s " were not s t u d i e d . The reason t h i s was de-l e t e d was that i t r e q u i r e d the subject not only to report h i s f e e l i n g s toward the job but a l s o to estimate the e f f e c t these f e e l i n g s had upon his own performance. It was f e l t that t h i s was asking too much of a subject and:that h i s estimates of the e f f e c t upon h i s job would be questionable. As has a l -ready been mentioned, Myers (1964) s i m i l a r l y omitted the c o l l e c t i o n of " e f f e c t s " , apparently f o r the same reason. A r e l a t e d study (McGilvery, 1967) of the c r i t i c a l r e -quirements of the job of l i b r a r i a n , conducted c o n c u r r e n t l y with the present r e s e a r c h , and using the same sample of l i b r a r -i a n s , may shed some l i g h t upon the e f f e c t s of t h e i r s a t i s f a c -t i o n s and d i s s a t i s f a c t i o n s . However, the procedure i s d i f f e r -ent from that of Herzberg, a n d c o l l e c t i n g the data from the two sources does not form part of the present r e p o r t . A. S e l e c t i o n of Respondents and the S i z e of the Sample The c r i t e r i a f o r the s e l e c t i o n of respondents was that 23 24 they be working i n a U n i v e r s i t y l i b r a r y and that they were l i s t e d under one of the f o l l o w i n g job c l a s s i f i c a t i o n s : 1. L i b r a r i a n 2. L i b r a r y A s s i s t a n t 3. Clerk A l l employees l i s t e d under these c a t e g o r i e s working i n a r e f e r e n c e d i v i s i o n or i n the c i r c u l a t i o n d i v i s i o n of the U n i v e r s i t y of B r i t i s h Columbia l i b r a r y were approached and asked to be i n t e r v i e w e d . Seventy-seven employees out of a p o s s i b l e seventy-nine were int e r v i e w e d . Two employees chose not to take p a r t . In order to be c l a s s i f i e d as a " l i b r a r i a n " an employee must have a l i b r a r y Science degree from a recognized u n i v e r -s i t y . " L i b r a r y A s s i s t a n t s " had e i t h e r a u n i v e r s i t y degree or some u n i v e r s i t y t r a i n i n g plus experience working i n a l i b r a r y . " C l e r k s " are r e q u i r e d to have a High School Diploma. The seventy-seven su b j e c t s interviewed were d i s t r i b u t e d among the three job c a t e g o r i e s i n the f o l l o w i n g way: L i b r a r -ians 27, L i b r a r y A s s i s t a n t s , 19, C l e r k s , 31. The names and numbers of employees were obtained from the Personnel O f f i c e at the U n i v e r s i t y of B r i t i s h Columbia L i b r a r y . B. L e t t e r to interviewees A p r e l i m i n a r y l e t t e r was sent to a l l employees approxi-mately two to three weeks before they were approached person-a l l y about the i n t e r v i e w . The purpose of the l e t t e r was to 25 f a m i l i a r i z e the s u b j e c t s with the p r o j e c t and to e s t a b l i s h good rapport. The l e t t e r introduced the i n t e r v i e w e r and b r i e f l y d e scribed the purpose of the research p r o j e c t . They were t o l d that the i n t e r v i e w would take approximately 45 minutes and that the l i b r a r y a d m i n i s t r a t i o n had been approached and had given them time o f f i n order to be interviewed. It was s t r e s s e d i n the l e t t e r that the data c o l l e c t e d would be used f o r research purposes only and would not be a v a i l a b l e to the L i b r a r y a d m i n i s t r a t i o n . The l e t t e r d i f f e r e d from that of Herzberg (1959) i n that the s p e c i f i c i n f o r m a t i o n r e -quired i n the i n t e r v i e w was not d i s c u s s e d . There i s one advantage i n t e l l i n g the respondents e x a c t l y what w i l l be r e -quired and that i s they w i l l be prepared f o r the i n t e r v i e w and have a good chance to have m a t e r i a l organized and ready. However, i t was f e l t i n the present study that there was a p o s s i b i l i t y that employees would discuss sequences of events causing s a t i s f a c t i o n or d i s s a t i s f a c t i o n with one another and that t h i s would be l i k e l y to b i a s the r e p o r t s i n the i n t e r -view. Appendix "A" contains a copy of the l e t t e r mailed to the s u b j e c t s . C. Interview A l l s u b j e c t s were interviewed i n d i v i d u a l l y . Previous plans to organize a group i n t e r v i e w were abandoned, because the i n d i v i d u a l i n t e r v i e w s were y i e l d i n g a greater number of responses than those of Herzberg (1959) and Myers (1964). It 26 was f e l t that the i n d i v i d u a l i n t e r v i e w approach was s u p e r i o r to the e a r l i e r considered group i n t e r v i e w approach f o r three reasons: (1) i t permitted i n t e r j e c t i o n of questions to c l a r i f y interviewees responses, (2) a more c o n f i d e n t i a l rap-port was e s t a b l i s h e d and (3) the number of responses given by each interviewee would not be a f f e c t e d by the number given by others i n the group. In arranging f o r the i n t e r v i e w , the head of each d i v i -s i o n was approached f i r s t and a s u i t a b l e time f o r the i n t e r -views f o r the d i v i s i o n was e s t a b l i s h e d . A f t e r t h i s , at times which the head of the d i v i s i o n suggested as being con-venient, appointments were arranged with the employees i n the d i v i s i o n . In most cases, the employees were taken, at t h e i r appointment time, to a room i n the S p e c i a l C o l l e c t i o n s d i v i -s i o n which was q u i e t , s u i t a b l y f u r n i s h e d , p r i v a t e , w e l l l i g h t e d , w e l l heated and v e n t i l a t e d . A l l but f i v e of the s u b j e c t s were interviewed i n t h i s room; the f i v e who were not, were interviewed i n the p r i v a c y of t h e i r own o f f i c e s . P r i o r to the f i r s t i n t e r v i e w with the l i b r a r y s u b j e c t s , a p i l o t study was c a r r i e d out with 15 l i f e g u a r d s . The pur-pose of t h i s p i l o t study was t h r e e f o l d : (1) to develop the i n t e r v i e w e r s competence, (2) to check on the e f f e c t i v e n e s s of the communication of Herzberg's (1959) i n t e r v i e w and (3) to t r y any p o s s i b l e variance on Herzberg's (1959) wording. This r e s u l t e d i n one major change i n Herzberg's i n t e r v i e w . One 27 sentence was added to Herzberg's (1959) i n t e r v i e w i n question number f i v e . "What was i t that made you f e e l e x c e p t i o n a l l y s a t i s f i e d (or d i s s a t i s f i e d ) with t h i s occurrence?" preceded the question "Explain what these events meant to you". The p i l o t study on l i f e g u a r d s had shown that when t h i s question preceded the Herzberg (1959) question, the subjects under-stood more c l e a r l y the type of response d e s i r e d . The L i b r a r y i n t e r v i e w opened with a question asking the subject i f he or she r e c e i v e d a l e t t e r d i s c u s s i n g the p r o j e c t and i f so, did they have any questions about i t . The general nature of the p r o j e c t was reviewed and then he or she was i n -formed of the general o b j e c t i v e s of the i n t e r v i e w . The subject was t o l d that the i n t e r v i e w e r was i n t e r e s t e d i n hearing of a c t u a l experiences which were sources of s a t i s -f a c t i o n or d i s s a t i s f a c t i o n . It was explained that the reason f o r t h i s type of approach was to keep the c o l l e c t i o n of data as o b j e c t i v e as p o s s i b l e . The long-range and short-range se-quences of events were then d e f i n e d . A short-range sequence of events was defined as a sequence of events l a s t i n g up to one month during which the subjects o v e r a l l f e e l i n g s were e i t h e r high or low. A long-range sequence of events was defined as a sequence of events l a s t i n g longer than one month and up to f i v e years, causing f e e l i n g s which were e i t h e r c o n s i s t e n t l y high or low over t h i s time. The body of the i n t e r v i e w c o n s i s t e d of a general i n t r o -ductory question followed by a number of questions designed 28 to c l a r i f y and expand on the answer given to the f i r s t ques-t i o n . D e t a i l s of the questions are given i n Appendix B - l . The respondent was asked, f i r s t , to think of a time when she f e l t e x c e p t i o n a l l y good or e x c e p t i o n a l l y bad about her job, e i t h e r her present job or any other job she had had i n a l i -b r ary. She was t o l d that i t could be e i t h e r a "long-range" or "short-range" kind of s i t u a t i o n . The subject was then asked how long ago the sequence of events took place and how long her f e e l i n g s l a s t e d . She was asked i f t h i s was t y p i c a l of what was going on at the time and i f a s i m i l a r s i t u a t i o n could a r i s e again f o r the same reasons i n the f u t u r e . 5he was then requested to t e l l of the sequence of events and to t e l l what they meant to her and al s o i f i t a f f e c t e d the way she f e l t about working at the l i b r a r y or i f i t merely made her f e e l good or bad about the occurrence i t s e l f . The subject was al s o given a r a t i n g s c a l e (see example i n Appendix B-2) on which she was to ra t e how s e r i o u s l y her f e e l i n g s had been a f f e c t e d by what happened. P o s i t i o n "1" was to be used f o r a sequence which hardly a f f e c t e d her f e e l i n g s at a l l and p o s i t i o n "9" was to be used f o r a seq-uence that a f f e c t e d her f e e l i n g s as s e r i o u s l y as the most important events i n her working experience. The subjects found i t d i f f i c u l t to r a t e t h e i r f e e l i n g s on the s c a l e , many of them saying "I j u s t cannot do i t " . Consequently these data were not analyzed. 29 When the answers to a l l these questions were c l e a r l y understood by the i n t e r v i e w e r , the interviewee was i n v i t e d to t e l l of another sequence of events. I f she had p r e v i o u s l y r e l a t e d a sequence r e s u l t i n g i n d i s s a t i s f a c t i o n she was asked to r e c a l l a s a t i s f y i n g experience and v i c e versa; i f she had p r e v i o u s l y given a short-range sequence, she was asked f o r a long-range one and v i c e v e r s a . At the c l o s e of the in t e r v i e w , the subject was asked what she thought of the i n t e r v i e w and to comment on the in t e r v i e w or the re s e a r c h . When the sub-j e c t s were l e a v i n g , they were thanked f o r t h e i r cooperation and a s s i s t a n c e and were reminded to "please not discuss the in t e r v i e w with anyone." The s t r u c t u r e of the i n t e r v i e w was b a s i c a l l y the same as that used by Herzberg (1959), but any questions p e r t a i n i n g to " e f f e c t s " i n h i s i n t e r v i e w were e l i m i n a t e d because t h i s study focussed on f i r s t and se c o n d - l e v e l f a c t o r s only. As was mentioned p r e v i o u s l y , one sentence was added to Herzberg's (1959) i n t e r v i e w i n question number f i v e , "What was i t that made you f e e l e x c e p t i o n a l l y s a t i s f i e d (or d i s s a t i s f i e d ) with t h i s occurrence?" preceeded the question, " E x p l a i n what these events meant to you". The p i l o t study on l i f e g u a r d s to assess the c l a r i t y of the questions i n the i n t e r v i e w had shown that when t h i s question preceeded the Herzberg (1959) question the su b j e c t s understood more c l e a r l y the type of r e -sponse d e s i r e d . 30 The interviewee's responses were recorded on an i n t e r -view response sheet (see example i n Appendix C) which was se c t i o n e d o f f , each s e c t i o n numbered according to the c o r -responding i n t e r v i e w q uestion. Enough space was a l l o t t e d f o r the response from the i n t e r v i e w question to be w r i t t e n i n . At the top of the sheet were recorded the subject's age, sex, length of l i b r a r y experience and job held at the time of the sequence of events as w e l l as the number of the i n t e r -view . Eight i n t e r v i e w s were recorded on tape i n order to have d e t a i l s of how the i n t e r v i e w s were conducted. In each of these i n t e r v i e w s the subject was asked i f she objected to having the i n t e r v i e w recorded; ten subjects were asked and two requested that the tape recorder not be used. Four other su b j e c t s were asked i f they would mind i f the i n t e r v i e w was taped. They di d not o b j e c t , however, due to a malfunctioning of the tape recorder these four tapes were not understandable and they were not kept on r e c o r d . D• Screening of Sequences of Events Before a sequence of events was accepted i n the i n t e r -view, i t had to meet the f o l l o w i n g c r i t e r i a (Herzberg e_t a l . , 1959): 1. The sequence must be o b j e c t i v e and not a statement of o p i n i o n . 2. The sequence must be defined w i t h i n a d e f i n i t e time p e r i o d . 31 3. The sequence o f e v e n t s must have o c c u r r e d when t h e s u b j e c t ' s f e e l i n g s t oward h i s j o b were e i t h e r e x c e p t i o n a l l y h i g h o r e x c e p t i o n a l l y low. 4. The h i g h o r low f e e l i n g s which t h e r e s p o n d e n t f e l t t o w a r d t h e j o b must have been c a u s e d by some f a c t o r or f a c t o r s d i r e c t l y r e l a t e d t o t h e j o b . 5. The r e s p o n d e n t must have h e l d t h e j o b i n q u e s t i o n at t h e t i m e he was s a t i s f i e d o r d i s s a t i s f i e d . Any s e q u e n c e s not me e t i n g t h e s e c r i t e r i a were d i s r e g a r d e d . When a l l s u b j e c t s had been i n t e r v i e w e d , t h e r e s p o n s e s were b r o k e n down i n t o f i r s t and se c o n d l e v e l t h o u g h t u n i t s . A f i r s t - l e v e l f a c t o r i s d e f i n e d as t h e o b j e c t i v e s i t u a t i o n i n which t h e r e s p o n d e n t f o u n d a s o u r c e o f e x c e p t i o n a l s a t i s -f a c t i o n or d i s s a t i s f a c t i o n . A s e c o n d - l e v e l f a c t o r i s t h e sub-j e c t ' s i n t e r p r e t a t i o n o f what t h e f i r s t - l e v e l f a c t o r meant t o him; t h i s was t h e r e s p o n s e t o t h e i n t e r v i e w q u e s t i o n , "What d i d t h e s e e v e n t s mean t o y o u ? " A t h o u g h t u n i t was d e f i n e d as a s t a t e m e n t about a s i n g l e o c c u r r e n c e or sequence o f e v e n t s t h a t c a u s e d a f e e l i n g , o r a d e s c r i p t i o n o f a f e e l i n g . The f o l l o w i n g example w i l l h e l p t o c l a r i f y t h e meanings o f t h e s e t e r m s : e.g. a. My s u p e r v i s o r a s k e d me t o c o m p i l e an i m p o r t a n t r e p o r t and t h i s made me f e e l v e r y s a t i s f i e d , b. He r e c o g n i z e d my a b i l i t y t o do t h i s t y p e o f work. 32 "a" i s a f i r s t - l e v e l thought u n i t which describes an objec-t i v e s i t u a t i o n i n which the respondent was e x c e p t i o n a l l y s a t i s f i e d with the occurrence; i t t h e r e f o r e q u a l i f i e s as a f i r s t - l e v e l f a c t o r . The second statement "b" would be a sec o n d - l e v e l f a c t o r ; the s u b j e c t ' s i n t e r p r e t a t i o n of what the f i r s t - l e v e l f a c t o r meant to him. Both of these s t a t e -ments are thought u n i t s ; "a" being a statement about a s i n g l e occurrence or sequence of events and "b" being a d e s c r i p t i o n of f e e l i n g about the f i r s t - l e v e l f a c t o r . These f i r s t and se c o n d - l e v e l f a c t o r s were then t r a n s -f e r r e d from the i n t e r v i e w response forms to McBee Key Sort cards. The f i r s t - l e v e l f a c t o r was typed i n the upper center of the keysort card and the se c o n d - l e v e l f a c t o r was typed a t y p e w r i t e r double space d i s t a n c e below the f i r s t - l e v e l f a c -t o r . There was a carbon copy made f o r each card so that there would be a group of cards which could be s o r t e d f o r sec o n d - l e v e l f a c t o r s alone and a group of cards which could be sorted f o r f i r s t - l e v e l f a c t o r s alone. In some cases, there were two or more s e c o n d - l e v e l f a c t o r s r e s u l t i n g from a s i n g l e f i r s t - l e v e l f a c t o r . When t h i s happened two or more carbon copies were made so that there would be a card f o r each se c o n d - l e v e l f a c t o r . The sec o n d - l e v e l f a c t o r which the card represented was underlined i n red. There were a l s o cases i n which there were two or more f i r s t - l e v e l f a c t o r s causing a s i n g l e s e c o n d - l e v e l f a c t o r and when t h i s happened, 33 the same procedure was fo l l o w e d . Extra carbon copies were made so that each separate f i r s t - l e v e l f a c t o r would have a card and the f i r s t - l e v e l f a c t o r which the card represented was underlined i n red. The various f i e l d s of holes on the keysort cards were assigned to represent i n f o r m a t i o n which would be needed f o r subsequently a n a l y z i n g the data. The McBee Keysort Card Code i s o u t l i n e d i n Appendix "D". When a l l the f i r s t and s e c o n d - l e v e l responses were typed on the cards, the info r m a t i o n was punched i n , then the f i r s t - l e v e l s o r t was made. In performing the s o r t the i n v e s -t i g a t o r d e l i b e r a t e l y endeavoured to ignore Herzberg's c a t e g o r i e s . The s o r t was done i n a s i m i l a r way to that of the c r i t i c a l i n c i d e n t technique with s a t i s f i e r s and d i s s a t i s -f i e r s s i m i l a r i n nature grouped together. I n i t i a l l y there were many c a t e g o r i e s , but then s i m i l a r groups of sequences were grouped together u n t i l the present number of f i r s t - l e v e l c a t e g o r i e s was formed. The s e c o n d - l e v e l s o r t was c a r r i e d out i n e x a c t l y the same manner. Upon completion of the two s o r t s the c a t e g o r i e s were compared with Herzberg's c a t e g o r i e s . The c a t e g o r i e s which emerged i n t h i s study were not a l l l a b e l l e d i n e x a c t l y the way i n which Herzberg's were but on examination i t was e v i -dent that many corresponded i n substance to h i s c a t e g o r i e s . 34 It was then decided to adopt Herzberg's category l a b e l head-ings where p o s s i b l e f o r these same groups of sequences. This f a c i l i t a t e d the comparison of data of t h i s study with that of Herzberg. The category and subcategory numbers were then punched on the McBee cards. The f i r s t - l e v e l a n a l y s i s of the McBee cards c o n s i s t e d of breaking a l l the f i r s t and second l e v e l c a t e g o r i e s i n t o p o s i t i v e - n e g a t i v e , long range-short-range, long d u r a t i o n - s h o r t d u r a t i o n , job c l a s s i f i c a t i o n , sex and f i r s t - l e v e l - s e c o n d - l e v e l and counting and r e c o r d i n g the num-ber of cards f o r each group. E. Comparison with Herzberg's Data A l l f i r s t - l e v e l and s e c o n d - l e v e l c r i t i c a l s a t i s f a c t i o n s and d i s s a t i s f a c t i o n s were itemized according to category and subcategory. These were broken down i n t o job c l a s s i f i c a t i o n as i s shown i n Appendix "D". The new c a t e g o r i e s andssubcate-g o r i e s formulated i n t h i s study were u n d e r l i n e d . C e r t a i n Herzberg c a t e g o r i e s d i d not r e c e i v e response i n t h i s study: they are shown thus i n Table 1 (p. 37 )• In order to determine i f the same frequency of s a t i s -f i e r s and d i s s a t i s f i e r s occurred f o r Herzberg's data and the three job c l a s s i f i c a t i o n s i n t h i s study, the " f i r s t - l e v e l " percentage of sequences i n each category was compared between Herzberg's (1959) data, l i b r a r i a n s , l i b r a r y a s s i s t a n t s and 35 c l e r k s . A s i m i l a r a n a l y s i s was made of the " s e c o n d - l e v e l f a c t o r s . CHAPTER IV CRITICAL SATISFACTIONS STUDY QF LIBRARY  EMPLOYEES: RE5ULT5 AND DISCUSSION Seventy-seven su b j e c t s were interviewed; 69 female sub-j e c t s and 8 male s u b j e c t s . . The 34 sequences of events given by the 8 males were insp e c t e d b r i e f l y and found to be s i m i l a r to the female l i b r a r i a n s data but as there was not a s u f f i -c i e n t number of male sequences of events they were not ana-l y z e d . Of the 69 subjects s t u d i e d , there were 21 l i b r a r i a n s , 17 l i b r a r y a s s i s t a n t s and 31 l i b r a r y c l e r k s . A t o t a l of 326 f i r s t - l e v e l sequences of events and 416 sec o n d - l e v e l f a c t o r s were c o l l e c t e d . This i s an average of 5 f i r s t - l e v e l sequences of events per subject as opposed to 2.2 per subject obtained by Herzberg. This d i f f e r e n c e i s probably due to a d i f f e r e n c e i n i n t e r v i e w i n g techniques. Herzberg asked only f o r one long range and one short-range sequence of events but i n some cases, the sub j e c t s would con-t i n u e . In our i n t e r v i e w s , the subjects were not given the impression that only two sequences were r e q u i r e d but were asked to give as many as they f e l t were e x c e p t i o n a l l y s a t i s -f y i n g or d i s s a t i s f y i n g . It was f e l t that t h i s technique would not b i a s the number of long or short-range sequences e l i c i t e d . Table 1 shows the number of responses e l i c i t e d from the l i b r a r y s u b j e c t s f o r each of the subca t e g o r i e s . The t a b l e i s 36 37 Table 1 A Table of the Number of Responses E l i c i t e d from the  L i b r a r y Subjects L i s t e d i n Categories and S u b c a t e g o r i e s 1 L i b r a r y Subjects Recognition - f i r s t - l e v e l 0. Not mentioned 1. Work p r a i s e d - no reward (Supervisor p r a i s e ) 2. Work p r a i s e d - reward given (by the sup e r v i s o r ) 3. Work n o t i c e d - no p r a i s e ( n o t i c e d by the su p e r v i s o r ) 4. Work not n o t i c e d (by the s u p e r v i s o r ) 5. Good ideas not accepted (by the s u p e r v i s o r ) 6. Inadequate work blamed or c r i t i c i z e d - no punishment given ( i n s t r u c t o r s and students) 7. Inadequate work blamed or c r i t i c i z e d - punishment given Females Males LA C L LA Table 1 i s based an Herzberg's (1959, p. 143-148) t a b l e . A l l of Herzberg's c a t e g o r i e s are shofj although c e r t a i n of them were not present i n the data. New c a t e g o r i e s and subcategor-i e s generated by the present data have been added and are i n -dic a t e d by underlined category and subcategory numbers. 38 Females Males L LA C L LA 8. S u c c e s s f u l work blamed or c r i t i c i z e d - no punishment given - - -9. S u c c e s s f u l work blamed or c r i t i c i z e d - punishment given - - - - -10. C r e d i t by work taken by su p e r v i s o r or other - - - - -11. Idea accepted by company - - - - -12. Work p r a i s e d - no reward (p r a i s e d by i n s t r u c t o r s and students) 9 - 6 - -13. Work p r a i s e d - no reward (p r a i s e d by the ad m i n i s t r a -t i o n ) 2 - - - -14. Work p r a i s e d - no reward (p r a i s e d by subordinates) 1 - - -Achievement - f i r s t - l e v e l 0. Not mentioned - - - -1. S u c c e s s f u l completion of job, or aspect of i t 17 9 20 6 4 2. The having of a good idea -a s o l u t i o n to a problem - - - -3. Made money f o r the company - - - - -4. V i n d i c a t i o n - demonstration of r i g h t n e s s to doubters or c h a l l e n g e r s - - - -5. F a i l u r e i n job, or aspect of i t 5 6 3 4 -6. Seeing the r e s u l t s of work 4 3 - 1 -7. Not seeing r e s u l t s of work 1 2 - - -39 Females Hales L LA C L LA P o s s i b i l i t y of growth - f i r s t l e v e l 0. Not mentioned 1. Growth i n s k i l l s -o b j e c t i v e evidence 5 1 2. Growth i n statu s (advancement) - o b j e c t i v e evidence - - - -3. Lack of opportunity f o r growth - o b j e c t i v e evidence - -Advancement - f i r s t l e v e l 0. Not mentioned - - -1. Received unexpected advancement - - 2 -2. Received advancement (expected or expectation not mentioned) 1 - 2 1 3. F a i l e d to r e c e i v e expected advancement - - 1 1 4. Demotion - 1 - -Sala r y - f i r s t l e v e l 0. Not mentioned - - -1. Received wage i n c r e a s e (expected or expectation not mentioned - - - -2. Received unexpected wage in c r e a s e - - 1 3. Did not r e c e i v e expected i n c r e a s e - - - -40 Females LA ( Males LA 4. Received wage i n c r e a s e l e s s or l a t e r than ex-pected - - -5,. Amount of s a l a r y 1 1 -6. Wages compare f a v o r a b l y with others doing s i m i l a r or same job -7. Wages compare unfavorably with others doing s i m i l a r or same job - - 1 8.. 5al a r y payments should be bimonthly r a t h e r than monthly - - 2 6. I n t e r p e r s o n a l r e l a t i o n s - s u p e r v i s o r f i r s t l e v e l 0. Not mentioned - - -1. F r i e n d l y r e l a t i o n s with s u p e r v i s o r 2. U n f r i e n d l y r e l a t i o n s with s u p e r v i s o r 3. Learned a great deal from s u p e r v i s o r 4. Supervisor went to bat f o r him with management 5. Supervisor d i d not support him with management 6. Supervisor honest 7. Supervisor dishonest 8. Supervisor w i l l i n g to l i s t e n to suggestion 9. Supervisor u n w i l l i n g to l i s -ten to suggestions 1 2 Females Males L LA C L 10. Supervisor gave c r e d i t f o r work done - - - -11. Supervisor withheld c r e d i t -12. Supervisor supervised too c l o s e l y 1 2 2 -13. Supervisor supervised l e s s c l o s e l y than normal 1 - 1 14. Supervisor d i s t r u s t s subor-dinate - 1 -15. Supervisor c o n s i d e r a t e - 2 - -16. Supervisor d i s c i p l i n e d unreasonable 2 3 12 -17. Supervisor has depressing negative a t t i t u d e 1 - - -I n t e r p e r s o n a l r e l a t i o n s - subordinates - f i r s t l e v e l 0. Not mentioned -1. Good working r e l a t i o n s h i p with subordinates 2 1 -2. Poor working r e l a t i o n s h i p with subordinates 1 2 - 1 3. Good personal r e l a t i o n s h i p with subordinates - - - 1 4. Poor personal r e l a t i o n s h i p with subordinates 1 1 - -I n t e r p e r s o n a l r e l a t i o n s - peers - f i r s t l e v e l . 0. Not mentioned - - - -1. Liked people he worked with 4 4 1 2. Did not l i k e people he worked with - 2 4 Females L LA C 3. Cooperation of people he worked with 2 - 3 4. Lack of cooperation with people he worked with 2 3 2 5. Was part of a cohesive group -6. Was i s o l a t e d from group - - -In t e r p e r s o n a l r e l a t i o n s - i n s t r u c t o r s and students  f i r s t - l e v e l 0. Not mentioned -1. F r i e n d l y r e l a t i o n s with i n s t r u c t o r s and students 4 2 4 2. U n f r i e n d l y r e l a t i o n s with i n s t r u c t o r s and students 10 3 10 Super v i s i o n t e c h n i c a l 0. Not mentioned -1. Supervisor competent -2. Supervisor incompetent - 1 4 3. Supervisor t r i e d to do everything himself - 1 -4. Supervisor delegated work w e l l 1 5. Supervisor c o n s i s t e n t l y c r i t i c a l - - 1 6. Supervisor showed f a v o r -tism - - 1 J_. Supervisor makes unreason-able demands - - 3 8. Supervisor was h e l p f u l 1 1 1 43 Females Males L LA L L LA 9_. Supervisor does not delegate work w e l l 1 - 2 - -11. R e s p o n s i b i l i t y - f i r s t l e v e l 0. Not mentioned - - - - -1. Allowed to work without s u p e r v i s i o n - - - - -2. Responsible ( f o r h i s own e f f o r t s ) 1 - 5 2 1 3. Given r e s p o n s i b i l i t y f o r the work of others 1 - - -4. Lack of r e s p o n s i b i l i t y - 2 - 1 -5. Given new r e s p o n s i b i l i t y -no formal advancement 1 - 2 1 -12. Company ( L i b r a r y ) p o l i c y and a d m i n i s t r a t i o n - f i r s t l e v e l 0. Not mentioned - - - -1. E f f e c t i v e o r g a n i z a t i o n of work - 1 - 1 -2. B e n e f i c i a l personnel p o l i c i e s 4 2 1 1 -3. Harmful or i n e f f e c t i v e o r g a n i z a t i o n of work 4 2 4 1 -4. Harmful personnel p o l i c i e s 3 5 8 2 1 5. Agreement with company ( l i b r a r y ) goals 1 - - - -6. Disagreement with company ( l i b r a r y ) goals 2 - - - -7. High company ( l i b r a r y ) s t a t u s - - - - -8. Low company ( l i b r a r y ) s t a t u s - - - - -44 £. Lack of communication 10. Lack of funds f o r books 13. Working c o n d i t i o n s - f i r s t l e v e l 0. Not mentioned 1. Work i s o l a t e d 2. Work i n s o c i a l surroundings 3. Good p h y s i c a l surroundings 4. Poor p h y s i c a l surroundings 5. Good f a c i l i t i e s 6 . Poor f a c i l i t i e s 7. Right amount of work 8. Too much work 9. Too l i t t l e work 10. Working c o n d i t i o n s to be improved upon 11. Poor working days 14. Work I t s e l f 0. Not mentioned 1. Routine 2. Varied 3. C r e a t i v e ( c h a l l e n g i n g , i n t e r e s t i n g ) 4. Too easy 5. Too d i f f i c u l t 6 . Opportunity to do a whole job - a l l phases L 9 1 Females LA L 2 2 Males L LA 1 2 2 1 10 1 2 2 1 1 3 1 2 5 2 5 2 7 1 6 3 3 3 1 45 Females Males L LA C L LA 7.. Unable to do a job, - a l l phases 1 - 5 - -8_. Serving students and i n -s t r u c t o r s or employees 10 8 14 - -15. Factors i n personal l i f e - f i r s t l e v e l 0. Not mentioned - - - - -1. Family problems - - - -2. Community and other outside s i t u a t i o n s - - - - -3. Family needs and a s p i r a t i o n s 1 - - - -_. Hobby, research or other outside i n t e r e s t s connected with work - 1 - - -16. Status 0. Not mentioned - - - -1. Signs or appurtenances of st a t u s - - - - -2. Having a given s t a t u s 1 - 1 - -3. Not having a given s t a t u s - 1 - - -17. Job s e c u r i t y - f i r s t l e v e l (There were no sequences of events reported under t h i s category) 0. Not mentioned 1. Tenure or other o b j e c t i v e signs of job s e c u r i t y 2. Lack of o b j e c t i v e signs of s e c u r i t y ( i . e . , company i n s t a b i l i t y ) 4 6 F e m a l e s M a l e s L L A C L L A 1 . R e c o g n i t i o n - s e c o n d l e v e l 0 . N o t m e n t i o n e d -1 . F i r s t - l e v e l f a c t o r s p e r c e i v e d a s s o u r c e o f f e e l i n g s o f r e c o g n i t i o n 1 2 2 . F i r s t - l e v e l f a c t o r s p e r c e i v e d a s s o u r c e o f f a i l u r e t o o b t a i n r e c o g n i t i o n 3 3 . F i r s t - l e v e l f a c t o r s p e r c e i v e d a s s o u r c e o f d i s a p p r o v a l -2 . A c h i e v e m e n t - s e c o n d l e v e l 0 . N o t m e n t i o n e d 1 . F i r s t - l e v e l f a c t o r s p e r c e i v e d a s s o u r c e o f a c h i e v e m e n t 4 0 2 . F i r s t - l e v e l f a c t o r s p e r c e i v e d a s s o u r c e o f f a i l u r e 2 0 3 . P o s s i b l e g r o w t h - s e c o n d l e v e l 0 . N o t m e n t i o n e d 1 . F i r s t - l e v e l f a c t o r s p e r c e i v e d a s l e a d i n g t o p o s s i b l e g r o w t h 2 - 3 2 . F i r s t - l e v e l f a c t o r s p e r c e i v e d a s b l o c k t o g r o w t h 2 1 2 3 . F i r s t - l e v e l f a c t o r s p e r c e i v e d a s e v i d e n c e o f a c t u a l g r o w t h 1 - 1 4 . A d v a n c e m e n t - s e c o n d l e v e l 0 . N o t m e n t i o n e d -- 1 2 3 1 _ 4 - -1 1 -1 9 2B 2 1 3 9 1 3 4 -1 . F e e l i n g s o f a d v a n c e m e n t d e -r i v e d f r o m c h a n g e s i n j o b s i t u a t i o n 1 1 47 Females Males L L A C L LA 2. F e e l i n g s of demotion derived from changes i n job s i t u a t i o n 1 -R e s p o n s i b i l i t y - second l e v e l - . 0. Not mentioned - -1. F i r s t - l e v e l f a c t o r s l e a d i n g to f e e l i n g s of r e s p o n s i b i l i t y (which are d e s i r e d by the i n d i v i d u a l ) 2 1 9 2. F i r s t - l e v e l f a c t o r s as source of f e e l i n g s of lack of r e -s p o n s i b i l i t y or diminished r e s p o n s i b i l i t y 2 3 3 3. F i r s t - l e v e l f a c t o r s l e a d i n g to f e e l i n g s of r e s p o n s i b i l i t y (not d e s i r e d by the i n d i v i -dual) - - 1 Group f e e l i n g - second l e v e l 0. Not mentioned -1. F e e l i n g s of b e l o n g i n g - s o c i a l 1 1 2 2. F e e l i n g s of i s o l a t i o n - s o c i a l -3. F e e l i n g s of belonging-socio t e c h n i c a l 1 2 1 4. F e e l i n g s of i s o l a t i o n - s o c i o t e c h n i c a l - - -5. P o s i t i v e f e e l i n g s toward group 2 4 5 6. Negative f e e l i n g s toward group - - -Work I t s e l f - second l e v e l 0. Not mentioned -1. F i r s t - l e v e l f a c t o r s l e a d i n g to i n t e r e s t i n performance of the job 27 18 27 48 Females LA ( Males LA 16 22 2. F i r s t - l e v e l f a c t o r s l e a d i n g to l a c k of i n t e r e s t i n per-formance of the job 8. Status - second l e v e l 0. Not mentioned - -1. F i r s t - l e v e l f a c t o r s as source of f e e l i n g s of increased s t a t u s 1 - 3 2. F i r s t - l e v e l f a c t o r s as source of f e e l i n g s of decreased s t a t u s - 1 1 9. S e c u r i t y - second l e v e l 0. Not mentioned - - -1. F i r s t - l e v e l f a c t o r s as source of f e e l i n g s of s e c u r i t y 1 - 1 2. F i r s t - l e v e l f a c t o r s as source of f e e l i n g s of i n s e c u r i t y - 2 2 10. F e e l i n g s .of f a i r n e s s or unf a i r n e s s - second l e v e l 0. Not mentioned - -1. F i r s t - l e v e l f a c t o r perceived as f a i r 1 - -2. F i r s t - l e v e l f a c t o r perceived as u n f a i r 3. F i r s t - l e v e l f a c t o r perceived as source of f e e l i n g s of disappointment i n others 11• F e e l i n g s of p r i d e or shame 0. Not mentioned 1. F i r s t - l e v e l f a c t o r s as source of f e e l i n g s of p r i d e 2. F i r s t - l e v e l f a c t o r s as source of f e e l i n g s of shame 10 49 Females Males L LA C L LA 3. F i r s t - l e v e l f a c t o r s as source of f e e l i n g s of diminished p r i d e - - -12. S a l a r y - second l e v e l 0. Not mentioned - - -1. F i r s t - l e v e l f a c t o r s perceived as source of a b i l i t y to improve wel l - b e i n g - - -2. F i r s t - l e v e l f a c t o r s perceived as source of lack of a b i l i t y to improve well-being - - - - -3. F i r s t - l e v e l f a c t o r s perceived as source of more money (need undetermined.) - - 1 1 -4. F i r s t - l e v e l f a c t o r s perceived as source of lack of money (need undetermined) - 1 - - 1 5. F i r s t - l e v e l f a c t o r s perceived as not adequate to a t t r a c t proper help 1 - - - -6. Would p r e f e r to be paid b i -monthly r a t h e r than monthly - - 2 - -13. Company ( L i b r a r y ) P o l i c y and A d m i n i s t r a t i o n - second l e v e l 0. Not mentioned - - -1. F i r s t - l e v e l f a c t o r s perceived as source of p o s i t i v e f e e l i n g s toward company ( l i b r a r y ) p o l i -cy and a d m i n i s t r a t i o n 1 - 2 1 -2. F i r s t - l e v e l f a c t o r s perceived as a source of negative f e e l i n g s toward company ( l i b r a r y ) p o l i -cy and a d m i n i s t r a t i o n 4 6 8 2 2 14. S u p e r v i s i o n - t e c h n i c a l - second l e v e l 0. Not mentioned - - - -50 Females LA C Males LA 1. F i r s t - l e v e l f a c t o r s perceived as a source of p o s i t i v e f e e l i n g s toward company ( l i b r a r y ) p o l i c y and a d m i n i s t r a t i o n 1 2. F i r s t - l e v e l f a c t o r s perceived as a source of negative f e e l i n g s toward company ( l i b r a r y ) p o l i c y and a d m i n i s t r a t i o n 1 15. Factors i n personal l i f e - f i r s t l e v e l 0. Not mentioned -1. F i r s t - l e v e l f a c t o r s perceived as having a f a v o r a b l e e f f e c t on the i n d i v i d u a l ' s personal l i f e 2 2. F i r s t - l e v e l f a c t o r s perceived as having a de t r i m e n t a l e f f e c t on the i n d i v i d u a l ' s personal l i f e 2 16. I n t e r p e r s o n a l r e l a t i o n s - second l e v e l 0. Not mentioned -1. F i r s t - l e v e l f a c t o r s perceived as having f r i e n d l y r e l a t i o n s with s u p e r v i s o r 1 2. F i r s t - l e v e l f a c t o r s perceived as having f r i e n d l y r e l a t i o n s with peers 1 3. F i r s t - l e v e l f a c t o r s perceived as having f r i e n d l y r e l a t i o n s with students and i n s t r u c t o r s -4. F i r s t - l e v e l f a c t o r s perceived as having u n f r i e n d l y r e l a t i o n s with s u p e r v i s o r s -5. F i r s t - l e v e l f a c t o r s perceived as having u n f r i e n d l y r e l a t i o n s with peers 1 2 10 Females 51 Hales L LA C k LA 6. F i r s t - l e v e l f a c t o r s perceived as having u n f r i e n d l y r e l a t i o n s with subordinates - -7. F i r s t - l e v e l f a c t o r s perceived as having u n f r i e n d l y r e l a t i o n s with i n s t r u c t o r s and students 1 2 5 - -17. Lack of communication - second l e v e l 0. Not mentioned - - -1. F i r s t - l e v e l f a c t o r s perceived as an unnecessary lack of communication 6 — 18. F e e l i n g s of embarrassment 0. Not mentioned -1. F i r s t - l e v e l f a c t o r s perceived as a source of f e e l i n g s of embarrassment 4 2 4 19. F e e l i n g s of freedom 0. Not mentioned - - - - -1. F i r s t - l e v e l f a c t o r perceived as allowing freedom 1 - 2 1 1 2. F i r s t - l e v e l f a c t o r perceived as d i s a l l o w i n g freedom - - - - -20. Working c o n d i t i o n s 1. F i r s t - l e v e l f a c t o r s perceived as causing p h y s i c a l or mental discomfort 1 2 4 1 -2. F i r s t - l e v e l f a c t o r s perceived as causing f e e l i n g s of comfort - - 2 - -52 based on Herzberg's t a b l e (1959, p. 143-148). A l l of Herzberg's c a t e g o r i e s are shown although c e r t a i n of them were not present i n the data. New c a t e g o r i e s and subcategor-i e s generated by the present data have been added and are i n d i c a t e d by underlined numbers i n Table 1. A. THE SATISFIERS OR MOTIVATORS 1. F i r s t - l e v e l C a t e g o r i e s : A comparison with Herzberg's  f i n d i n g s At the time the present study was undertaken Myers (1964) was the only s u b s t a n t i a l study which had followed up Herzberg's (1959) work: Myers di d not undertake to generate c a t e g o r i e s from h i s raw data. Apparently he was s a t i s f i e d to use Herzberg's (1959) c a t e g o r i e s and f i t h i s own data i n t o them. One of the major o b j e c t i v e s of the present study was to t e s t the v a l i d i t y of the c a t e g o r i e s which Herzberg had generated. Therefore the sequences of events were sorted i n the f i r s t i n -stance without r e f e r e n c e to Herzberg's c a t e g o r i e s . As has been explained, when the data had been sorte d and independent c a t e g o r i e s generated i t was found that i n a l a r g e number of i n s t a n c e s , Herzberg's (1959) designations corresponded very c l o s e l y with those which had been generated, and a c c o r d i n g l y h i s wording was adapted f o r these. These newly generated f i r s t - l e v e l c a t e g o r i e s s h a l l now be compared with Herzberg's c a t e g o r i e s . 53 Herzberg's c a t e g o r i e s of "achievement", " r e c o g n i t i o n " , "work i t s e l f " , " r e s p o n s i b i l i t y " , "advancement", " s a l a r y " , " s t a t u s " , " i n t e r p e r s o n a l r e l a t i o n s - peers", " i n t e r p e r s o n a l r e l a t i o n s - s u p e r v i s o r " , " s u p e r v i s i o n - t e c h n i c a l " , "company ( l i b r a r y ) p o l i c y and a d m i n i s t r a t i o n " , and "working c o n d i t i o n s " were found i n the data f o r a l l three c l a s s i f i c a t i o n s of l i -b r a r i a n s , l i b r a r y a s s i s t a n t s and l i b r a r y c l e r k s . The " i n t e r p e r s o n a l r e l a t i o n s - subordinates" category appeared f o r l i b r a r i a n s and l i b r a r y a s s i s t a n t s but not f o r l i b r a r y c l e r k s , as they have no subordinates. The "personal l i f e " category r e c e i v e d one response from both the l i b r a r i a n s and l i b r a r y a s s i s t a n t s but none from the c l e r k s . The "pos-s i b i l i t y of growth" category appears i n l i b r a r y c l e r k s but not i n l i b r a r i a n s or l i b r a r y a s s i s t a n t s . In d i s c u S s i n g t h i s , i t should be pointed out that t h i s category i n c l u d e s ; (a) growth i n s k i l l s and (b) growth i n s t a t u s or advancement i n the job. A l l f i v e sequences reported by the c l e r k s were i n the growth i n s k i l l s area. These were young g i r l s almost d i r e c t l y out of high school and the constant p r a c t i c e they were r e c e i v i n g i n typing and f i l i n g was improving these s k i l l s and t h i s was a source of s a t i s f a c t i o n f o r them. The l i b r a r i -ans and l i b r a r y a s s i s t a n t s on the other hand, expressed i n the i n t e r v i e w s the opinion that they had taken on t h i s type of work to improve t h e i r l i b r a r y s k i l l s and knowledge of c e r t a i n areas. Therefore they expected t h i s self-improvement, r e c e i v e d i t , and i t was n e i t h e r a source of s a t i s f a c t i o n nor d i s s a t i s f a c t i o n f o r them. 54 The f i r s t - l e v e l subcategories of p o s s i b i l i t y of growth i n " s t a t u s " or "advancement i n the job" were non-existent i n the data c o l l e c t e d f o r a l l three job c l a s s i f i c a t i o n s . It would seem reasonable to assume that the male accountants and engineers would be more concerned with t h i s than the f e -male subjects interviewed, many of whom have other i n t e r e s t s ( i . e . f a m i l i e s ) and are not concerned with the p o s s i b i l i t y of growth i n s t a t u s of the job. Herzberg's "job s e c u r i t y " category which r e c e i v e d a s l i g h t response from the accountants and engineers r e c e i v e d no response from the l i b r a r y s u b j e c t s . However, a f i r s t -l e v e l category l a b e l l e d " i n t e r p e r s o n a l r e l a t i o n s - i n s t r u c t o r s and students" emerged with respect to the l i b r a r y sample probably because there i s no counterpart i n the Herzberg study. This category appeared i n a l l three job c l a s s i f i c a t i o n s . This i s not s u r p r i s i n g as the d i v i s i o n s s t u d i e d were the refer e n c e and c i r c u l a t i o n d i v i s i o n s where there i s c o n s i d e r -able s t a f f - i n s t r u c t o r and s t a f f - s t u d e n t i n t e r a c t i o n . Herzberg's subjects would have spent c o n s i d e r a b l y l e s s time i n contact with customers and more i n c a l c u l a t i n g and preparing p r o j e c t s . Table 2 shows a comparison of the f i r s t - l e v e l f a c t o r s appearing i n s a t i s f y i n g sequences of events i n Herzberg's f i n d i n g s with the data of t h i s study. For the purposes of f a c i l i t a t i n g a c l e a r d i s c u s s i o n of t h i s t a b l e and other sub-sequent t a b l e s comparing the data of t h i s study and that of Herzberg's, a fundamental assumption must be considered at 55 Table 2 F i r s t - l e v e l S a t i s f i e r Categories as a Percentage of a l l S a t i s f i e r s f o r Herzberg's Study , L i b r a r i a n s , L i b r a r y A s s i s t a n t s , Clerks and the T o t a l L i b r a r y Study Categories Herzberg % N = 228 L i b r a r i a n s % N = 79 L i b . A s s t s . N = 45 C l e r k s N = 91 L i b r a r y Study Tote N = 215 1 . Achievement 2 1 . 6 2 7 . 8 2 6 . 7 2 0 . 9 2 4 . 8 2 . Recognition 1 7 . 4 1 5 . 1 2 . 2 9 . 9 9 . 8 3 . Work I t s e l f 1 3 . 7 2 9 . 1 4 0 . 0 2 3 . 1 2 9 . 0 4 . R e s p o n s i b i l i t y 1 2 . 1 3 . 7 - 7 . 7 4 . 7 5 . Advancement 1 0 . 5 1 . 2 - 3 . 3 1 . 9 6 . Salary 7 . 9 - - 1 . 1 . 5 7 . P o s s i b i l i t y o f Growth 3 . 2 _ 4 . 4 1 . 9 8 . I n t e r p e r s o n a l R e l a t i o n s -subordinates 3 . 2 2 . 5 4 . 4 1 . 9 9 . Status 2 . 1 1 . 2 - 1 . 1 . 9 1 0 . I n t e r p e r s o n a l R e l a t i o n s -s u p e r i o r s 2 . 1 3 . 7 2 . 2 6 . 6 4 . 1 1 1 . I n t e r p e r s o n a l R e l a t i o n s -peers 1 . 6 2 . 5 8 . 9 7 . 7 6 . 1 1 2 . S u p e r v i s i o n -t e c h n i c a l 1 . 6 mm 2 . 2 1 . 1 . 9 1 3 . Company ( L i b r a r y ) P o l i c y and Ad-m i n i s t r a t i o n 1 . 6 6 . 3 4 . 4 2 . 2 4 . 2 1 4 . Working Con-d i t i o n s . 5 1 . 2 2 . 2 6 . 6 3 . 7 1 5 . Factors i n Per-sonal L i f e . 5 2 . 2 . 5 1 6 . Job S e c u r i t y . 5 - - - -1 7 . I n t e r p e r s o n a l R e l a t i o n s -i n s t r u c t o r s and students 5 . 0 4 . 4 4 . 4 4 . 7 T o t a l 1 0 0 . 1 9 9 . 3 9 9 . 8 1 0 0 . 1 # 9 . 6 56 t h i s p o i n t . The assumption i s that the importance of the motivator i s d i r e c t l y p r o p o r t i o n a l to the frequency of r e -sponses i n a p a r t i c u l a r motivator category. It i s f u l l y recognized that t h i s assumption may be challenged but f o r the purposes of t h i s a n a l y s i s i t i s accepted. In the l i b r a r y data, "achievement" and the "work i t -s e l f " occur f r e q u e n t l y as s a t i s f i e r s , thereby supporting Herzberg's f i n d i n g that they are s a t i s f i e r s . "Recognition" was a s a t i s f i e r i n the l i b r a r y data but not as f r e q u e n t l y as i t was i n Herzberg's (1959) study. " R e s p o n s i b i l i t y " , "Advancement" and "S a l a r y " are a l l l e s s important as moti-vators i n the l i b r a r y study than i n Herzberg's (1959) study. The main s i g n i f i c a n c e of f i n d i n g s shown i n Table 2 i s that they tend to weaken the r e l a t i v e importance of "respon-s i b i l i t y " , and "advancement" as general motivators f o r a l l job c l a s s i f i c a t i o n s . Although " r e s p o n s i b i l i t y " and "ad-vancement" were s i g n i f i c a n t motivators f o r Herzberg's account-ants and engineers t h i s was not the case f o r the l i b r a r y s t a f f . As a general theory of motivation Herzberg may have overstated the o v e r a l l importance of " r e s p o n s i b i l i t y " and "advancement". Table 2 a l s o suggests that r e l a t i o n s with peers, i n s t r u c t o r s and students and subordinates may be s t r o n g -er motivators f o r some job c l a s s i f i c a t i o n s , such as l i b r a r -i a n s , l i b r a r y a s s i s t a n t s and c l e r k s , than others, such as accountants and engineers. 57 (a) A comparison of the frequency of responses i n f i r s t - l e v e l s a t i s f i e r s between l i b r a r i a n s , l i b r a r y a s s i s t a n t s and l i b r a r y c l e r k s The purpose of t h i s comparison i s to determine i f the same c a t e g o r i e s are s a t i s f i e r s to l i b r a r i a n s , l i b r a r y a s s i s -t a n t s and l i b r a r y c l e r k s . The percent of the f a v o r a b l e f i r s t - l e v e l sequences of events f o r the three job c l a s s i f i c a t i o n s are l i s t e d i n Table 2. "Work i t s e l f " i s the strongest motivator i n a l l three c l a s s i f i c a t i o n s , being i n 29.1% of the s a t i s f y i n g sequences of events f o r l i b r a r i a n s , 40% f o r l i b r a r y a s s i s t a n t s and 23.1% f o r c l e r k s . In the "work i t s e l f " sequences, subjects gave reports of times when they were extremely s a t i s f i e d with the nature of the work i t s e l f independent of "achievement" or " r e c o g n i t i o n " . For example, one l i b r a r i a n t o l d of a b i b l i o -graphy she had compiled. She s a i d that she thoroughly en-joyed gathering and or g a n i z i n g the m a t e r i a l knowing that i t would be extremely u s e f u l to a p a r t i c u l a r f a c u l t y member. The second most f r e q u e n t l y reported category was "achieve-ment". As a percentage of a l l motivators t h i s category was reported by l i b r a r i a n s 27.8%, l i b r a r y a s s i s t a n t s 26.7%, c l e r k s 20.9%. The s t o r i e s i n t h i s category revolved around the s u c c e s s f u l completion of a task or job. Clerks reported on completing the f i l i n g of c e r t a i n groups of cards and l i -b r a r i a n s and l i b r a r y a s s i s t a n t s t o l d of f i n d i n g a p a r t i c u l a r r eference book which was e x a c t l y what was r e q u i r e d f o r t h e i r purposes. 5 8 " W o r k i t s e l f " a n d " a c h i e v e m e n t " t o g e t h e r c o m p r i s e f r o m 4 4 $ t o 6 6 $ o f t h e s a t i s f y i n g s e q u e n c e s f o r t h e t h r e e c l a s -s i f i c a t i o n s t a k e n t o g e t h e r a n d a r e d e f i n i t e l y t h e t w o m o s t i m p o r t a n t f a c t o r s i n t h e f i r s t - l e v e l a n a l y s i s . T h e r e m a i n -i n g f a c t o r s a p p e a r w i t h l e s s f r e q u e n c y a n d m o r e u n e v e n l y w i t h i n t h e g r o u p s . C o n t i n u i n g d o w n t h e c a t e g o r y c o l u m n i n T a b l e 2 , " r e c o g -n i t i o n " i s t h e n e x t i t e m o f i m p o r t a n c e . I t a p p e a r s f r e q u e n t -l y i n t h e l i b r a r i a n s e q u e n c e s , 1 5 . 1 $ a n d i n t h e c l e r k s s e q u e n c e s , 9.9% b u t v e r y l i t t l e i n t h e l i b r a r y a s s i s t a n t s c a t e g o r y , 2 . 2 $ . T h e t y p i c a l t y p e o f r e c o g n i t i o n s i t u a t i o n i s w h e r e , f o r e x a m p l e , a c l e r k i s t o l d t h a t s h e d i d a v e r y e f -f i c i e n t j o b o f t y p i n g a l i s t , o r w h e r e a s t u d e n t w i l l s a y t o a l i b r a r i a n " t h a n k y o u , t h i s b o o k y o u h a v e f o u n d f o r me w i l l b e v e r y h e l p f u l i n p r e p a r i n g my e s s a y " . " R e s p o n s i b i l i t y " , a s i g n i f i c a n t c a t e g o r y i n H e r z b e r g ' s a n a l y s i s , o n l y a p p e a r s t o a n y d e g r e e i n t h e c l e r k s , w i t h 1.1%. I t d o e s n o t s h o w u n d e r l i b r a r y a s s i s t a n t s a n d o n l y 3 . 7 $ u n d e r l i b r a r i a n s . T h i s i s t h e t y p e o f s i t u a t i o n w h e r e a s u b j e c t i s g i v e n a d d e d d u t i e s o r a r e s p o n s i b l e j o b f o r e x -a m p l e , "I am now i n c h a r g e o f o r d e r i n g b o o k s f o r t h i s d e p a r t -m e n t a n d I e n j o y t h i s r e s p o n s i b i l i t y . " " I n t e r p e r s o n a l r e l a t i o n s w i t h p e e r s " i s a s a t i s f i e r f o r l i b r a r y a s s i s t a n t s 8 . 9 $ a n d c l e r k s 7 . 7 $ b u t n o t s o m u c h f o r l i b r a r i a n s , o n l y 2 . 5 $ . T h e t y p i c a l e x a m p l e o f t h i s i s "I e n j o y w o r k i n g w i t h X , s h e i s c h e e r f u l a n d h e l p f u l , we g e t a l o n g v e r y w e l l . " 59 Responses i n the remaining c a t e g o r i e s are much l e s s frequent. "Working c o n d i t i o n s " and " i n t e r p e r s o n a l r e l a t i o n s -s u p e r i o r s " are mild motivators f o r c l e r k s , 6.6% each, but not as strong f o r l i b r a r i a n s and l i b r a r y a s s i s t a n t s . "In-t e r p e r s o n a l r e l a t i o n s with i n s t r u c t o r s and students" and " l i b r a r y p o l i c y and a d m i n i s t r a t i o n " , on the other hand, are mild motivators f o r l i b r a r i a n s , 5% and 6.3% r e s p e c t i v e l y , but s l i g h t l y l e s s important to the other jobs. In c o n c l u s i o n , i t can be seen from Table 2 that "work i t s e l f " and "achievement" are the main s a t i s f i e r s f o r a l l three jobs and " r e c o g n i t i o n " only s a t i s f i e s the l i b r a r i a n s and c l e r k s to any degree. " I n t e r p e r s o n a l r e l a t i o n s " s a t i s -f i e s l i b r a r y a s s i s t a n t s and c l e r k s . The L i b r a r y p o l i c y and a d m i n i s t r a t i o n category was a source of s a t i s f a c t i o n f o r l i -b r a r i a n s , 6.3% of the responses f e l l i n t h i s category, l i b r a r y a s s i s t a n t s '4.4% and c l e r k s only 2.2%. F i n a l l y , " r e s p o n s i -b i l i t y " , "working c o n d i t i o n s " and " i n t e r p e r s o n a l r e l a t i o n s with s u p e r i o r s " only s a t i s f y c l e r k s to any degree. 2. Second-level c a t e g o r i e s There are s e v e r a l d i f f e r e n c e s i n s e c o n d - l e v e l categor-i e s between the Herzberg data and those of t h i s study. F i r s t -l y , Herzberg's " f e e l i n g s about s a l a r y " , and " f e e l i n g s of p r i d e " , " f e e l i n g s of g u i l t and inadequacy" c a t e g o r i e s r e -ceived no second-level responses i n t h i s study. Secondly, 60 s e v e r a l new s e c o n d - l e v e l c a t e g o r i e s were s o r t e d from t h e p o s i t i v e s e c o n d - l e v e l f a c t o r s ; " f e e l i n g s toward company ( l i b r a r y ) p o l i c y " and " f e e l i n g s t oward a d m i n i s t r a t i o n " , " f e e l i n g s about s u p e r v i s i o n - t e c h n i c a l " , " f e e l i n g s about i n t e r p e r s o n a l r e l a t i o n s " , " f e e l i n g s about w o r k i n g c o n d i -t i o n s " and " f e e l i n g s o f freedom on t h e j o b " . A l l but t h e l a s t one a l s o appear as f i r s t - l e v e l f a c t o r s and need no ex-p l a n a t i o n . The name " f e e l i n g s o f freedom on t h e j o b " d e s -c r i b e s t h i s c a t e g o r y . F o r example, a s u b j e c t would say "my s u p e r v i s o r i s not always l o o k i n g o v e r my s h o u l d e r ( f i r s t l e v e l ) and t h i s g i v e s me a f e e l i n g o f freedom on t h e j o b which i s v e r y s a t i s f y i n g " ( s e c o n d - l e v e l ) . T a b l e 3 l i s t s t h e p e r c e n t o f c a t e g o r i e s a p p e a r i n g f o r l i b r a r i a n s , l i b r a r y a s s i s t a n t s , c l e r k s and H e r z b e r g ' s sub-j e c t s . " F e e l i n g s o f a c h i e v e m e n t " and " f e e l i n g s t oward t h e work i t s e l f " a r e t h e most l a r g e l y r e p o r t e d c a t e g o r i e s f o r t h i s s t u d y and a r e a l s o among t h e t o p o f t h e H e r z b e r g c a t e -g o r i e s , showing t h a t t h e y a r e i m p o r t a n t as s e c o n d - l e v e l s a t i s -f i e r s f o r a l l g r o u p s . " F e e l i n g s o f r e c o g n i t i o n " i s a s t r o n g s e c o n d - l e v e l s a -t i s f i e r f o r l i b r a r i a n s , c l e r k s and H e r z b e r g ' s sample, but not f o r t h e l i b r a r y a s s i s t a n t s . From t h e o p i n i o n s e x p r e s s e d i n t h e i n t e r v i e w s , i t seems t h a t t h e l i b r a r y a s s i s t a n t s i n -t e r v i e w e d e x p e r i e n c e d v e r y l i t t l e r e c o g n i t i o n and t h e r e f o r e t h i s was not a p o s s i b l e s o u r c e o f s a t i s f a c t i o n f o r them. 61 Table 3 A Comparison of the Percent of Second-Level  S a t i s f i e r s i n Herzberg's Study and the L i b r a r y Study C a t e g o r i e s Herzberg L i b r a r i a n s L i b . C l e r k s L i b r a r y % % A s s t s . % % Study T o t a l N = 98 N = 4 2 N =109 N = 249 1. R e c o g n i t i o n 20.9 12.2 2.4 11.0 8.5 2. Achievement 20.2 40.8 45.2 25.7 37.1 3. P o s s i b l e growth 3.5 3.1 - 3.7 7.7 4. Advancement 1.1 - - .9 .3 5. R e s p o n s i b i l i t y 10.6 2.1 2.4 8.3 4.3 6. Group f e e l i n g 3.5 4.1 16.7 7.3 9.4 7. Work i t s e l f 10.3 27.6 19.1 24.8 24.2 8. S t a t u s 6.4 1.1 - 2.6 1.2 9. S e c u r i t y 2.5 1.1 - .9 .7 10. F a i r n e s s -u n f a i r n e s s 1.1 1.1 - - .4 11. P r i d e , g u i l t , inadequacy 3.2 - - - 0 12. S a l a r y 6.7 - - - 0 13. Company ( l i -b r a r y ) p o l i c y and a d m i n i -s t r a t i o n 1.1 1.8 1.0 14. S u p e r v i s i o n -t e c h n i c a l 1.1 2.4 - 1.2 15. F a c t o r s i n pe r -s o n a l l i f e — 2.1 2.4 4.6 3.0 16. I n t e r p e r s o n a l r e l a t i o n s - 2.1 9.5 4.6 5.4 *17 . Lack of com-mun i c a t i o n — — - - 0 * 18. F e e l i n g s of embarrassment — — - - 0 19. F e e l i n g s of freedom on the job 1.1 1.8 1.0 20. Working c o n d i -t i o n s - - - 1.8 .6 U n d e r l i n e d f r e q u e n c i e s are those which are g r e a t e r than 5% of the f r e q u e n c i e s i n the s p e c i f i e d group. 62 The "group f e e l i n g " , that i s , " p o s i t i v e f e e l i n g s toward the group" i n the same job c l a s s i f i c a t i o n , was a high source of s a t i s f a c t i o n f o r the l i b r a r y a s s i s t a n t s and a l s o , to some extent, to the c l e r k s , but c o n s i d e r a b l y lower f o r the l i -b r a r i a n s and Herzberg's sample. " F e e l i n g s about i n t e r p e r s o n -a l r e l a t i o n s " was a l s o a high category f o r the l i b r a r y a s s i s -t a n t s i n d i c a t i n g that they gain c o n s i d e r a b l e s a t i s f a c t i o n from i n t e r a c t i o n with people on the job. "Feelings of r e s p o n s i b i l i t y " was a high category f o r the c l e r k s and Herzberg's sample but not f o r the l i b r a r i a n s and l i b r a r y a s s i s t a n t s . " F e e l i n g s of s t a t u s and " f e e l i n g s of p o s s i b l e growth" were high f o r Herzberg's sample but not f o r the l i b r a r y sample. These d i f f e r e n c e s are d i f f i c u l t to ex-p l a i n but they e x h i b i t the danger of g e n e r a l i z i n g the f i n d i n g s of one job to another even though they may appear to be r e -l a t e d . In c o n c l u s i o n , the f e e l i n g that you have achieved and a p o s i t i v e f e e l i n g toward the work i t s e l f are a s s o c i a t e d with an i n c r e a s e i n job s a t i s f a c t i o n . "Recognition", as Herzberg points out, i s a l s o a major sec o n d - l e v e l s a t i s f i e r but with i t s conspicuous absence from the l i b r a r y a s s i s t a n t s i t appears that t h i s may not be so i n a l l cases. The d i f f e r e n c e s be-tween the samples i n the other c a t e g o r i e s i s a d e f i n i t e s i g n that g e n e r a l i z a t i o n s i n t h i s area are r i s k y . 63 B. DI5SATI5FIERS 1. F i r s t - l e v e l The f o l l o w i n g i s a comparison between the Herzberg (1959) study and t h i s study on the f i r s t - l e v e l d i s s a t i s f i e r s . "Company ( l i b r a r y ) p o l i c y and a d m i n i s t r a t i o n " was the s i n g l e most important f i r s t - l e v e l d i s s a t i s f i e r i n the Herzberg study and i n t h i s study. It was the most f r e q u e n t l y reported f i r s t - l e v e l d i s s a t i s f i e r f o r the l i b r a r i a n s and l i b r a r y a s s i s t a n t s and the t h i r d most f r e q u e n t l y reported f o r the c l e r k s . " S u p e r v i s i o n - t e c h n i c a l " and " s a l a r y " the second and t h i r d most f r e q u e n t l y reported f i r s t - l e v e l d i s s a t i s f i e r s were r e l a -t i v e l y minor d i s s a t i s f i e r s f o r the l i b r a r i a n s and l i b r a r y a s s i s t a n t s . " 5 a l a r y " was a l s o a r e l a t i v e l y minor d i s s a t i s -f i e r f o r the l i b r a r y c l e r k s but " s u p e r v i s i o n - t e c h n i c a l " , l i k e the Herzberg study was f a i r l y f r e q u e n t l y r e p o r t e d . "Work i t s e l f " was a d i s s a t i s f i e r i n t h i s study and was almost twice as high, 10%, f o r the c l e r k s as i t was f o r the l i b r a r i a n s , 5% and l i b r a r y a s s i s t a n t s , G%. " I n t e r p e r s o n a l r e l a t i o n s - i n s t r u c t o r s and students" was a mild d i s s a t i s f i e r f o r the l i b r a r y a s s i s t a n t s , 4$, and s l i g h t l y stranger f a r the c l e r k s , 5%, and l i b r a r i a n s , 8$. "I n t e r p e r s o n a l r e l a t i o n s - s u p e r i o r s " was the second highest d i s s a t i s f i e r f o r the c l e r k s and the t h i r d highest f o r the l i b r a r y a s s i s t a n t s . It was not f r e q u e n t l y reported by the l i b r a r i a n s . 64 Table 4 F i r s t - L e v e l D i s s a t i s f i e r Categories as a Percentage of  a l l D i s s a t i s f i e r s f o r Herzberg's Study, L i b r a r i a n s . L i b r a r y A s s i s t a n t s , Clerks and the T o t a l L i b r a r y Study Categories Herzberg % N = 248 L i b r a r i a n s % N = 59 L i b . A s s t s . % N = 52 Cler k s % i\l=100 L i b r a r y Study To1 N = 211 1. Achievement 3.9 8.5 15.4 4 8.0 2. Recognition 10.0 5.1 1.9 3 3.3 3. Work I t s e l f 7.8 11.9 11.5 18 14.7 4. R e s p o n s i b i l i t y 3.3 - 3.8 - .9 5. Advancement 6.1 - 1.9 2 1.4 6. Salary 9.4 1.7 1.9 3 7.4 7. P o s s i b i l i t y of Growth 4.4 1 .5 8. Interpersonal r e l a t i o n s -subordinates 1.7 3.4 3.8 1.9 9. Status 2.2 - 1.9 - .5 10. Interpersonal r e l a t i o n s -su p e r i o r s 8.3 6.8 13.5 18 13.8 11. Working Con-d i t i o n s 6.1 6.8 5.8 10 8.1 12. Supervision -t e c h n i c a l 11.1 1.7 3.8 11 6.5 13. L i b r a r y p o l i c y and ad m i n i s t r a -t i o n 17.2 32.2 19.2 14 20.0 14. Inter p e r s o n a l r e l a t i o n s -peers 4.4 3.4 9.6 6 6.2 15. Factors i n Personal l i f e .6 1.7 mm .6 16. Job S e c u r i t y .6 - - - 0 17. Int e r p e r s o n a l r e l a t i o n s - i n -s t r u c t o r s and students 16.9 5.8 10 10.9 97.1 100.1 99.8 100.0 98.8 65 2. Second-level D i s s a t i s f i e r s Of Herzberg's main c a t e g o r i e s of sec o n d - l e v e l d i s s a -t i s f i e r s , " f e e l i n g s of f a i r n e s s - u n f a i r n e s s " , " f e e l i n g s of growth", " f e e l i n g s of r e c o g n i t i o n " , and " f e e l i n g s of achieve-ment", only " f e e l i n g s of achievement" and " f e e l i n g s of f a i r n e s s - u n f a i r n e s s " showed to be a c o n s i s t e n t major second-l e v e l d i s s a t i s f i e r i n t h i s study (Table 5). "F e e l i n g s of f a i r n e s s - u n f a i r n e s s " appeared i n the c l e r k s , l i b r a r y a s s i s -t a n t s , and l i b r a r i a n s where i t was 9.5%, 1.8%, and 5.8% r e s p e c t i v e l y . " F e e l i n g s of achievement" was 12.5%, 17.6%, and 29.0% r e s p e c t i v e l y f o r these c a t e g o r i e s . In the present data there were three other c a t e g o r i e s which were prominent i n at l e a s t some of the c l a s s i f i c a t i o n s . The " f e e l i n g towards work i t s e l f " was the most prominent of these with l i b r a r i a n s showing t h i s i n 23.2% of the t o t a l d i s s a t i s f i e r s (Table 6), l i b r a r y a s s i s t a n t s 34.6%, c l e r k s 21.2%. Next was " f e e l i n g s about i n t e r p e r s o n a l r e l a t i o n s " with l i b r a r i a n s 18.2% and l i b r a r y a s s i s t a n t s 7.7%. F i n a l l y , " f e e l i n g s toward company ( l i b r a r y ) p o l i c y " and " a d m i n i s t r a -t i o n " showed 7.7% f o r c l e r k s , 11.7% f o r l i b r a r y a s s i s t a n t s and 5.8% f o r l i b r a r i a n s . C. HERZBERG'S FIR5T*LEVEL DISSATISFIER5 AS FIRST-LEVEL  5ATISFIER5 AND DI55ATISFIER5 IN THIS STUDY According to Herzberg's hypothesis the f a c t o r s r e l a t i n g to job s a t i s f a c t i o n would be found i n f r e q u e n t l y as job d i s -s a t i s f i e r s and the d i s s a t i s f i e r s would come from the other 66 Table 5 A Comparison of the Percent of Each Second-level  Factor Appearing i n D i s s a t i s f y i n g Job Sequences  i n Herzberg's Study and the L i b r a r y Study Categories Herzberg Clerks L i b . L i b r a r i a n s ' % % As s t s . % 0 1. Recognition 13.8 4.8 2.0 4.3 2. Achievement 10.1 12.5 17.6 29.0 3. P o s s i b l e growth 17.6 1.9 2.0 2.9 4. Advancement 1.1 - 2.0 -5. R e s p o n s i b i l i t y 4.3 3.8 5.9 2.9 6. Group f e e l i n g 1.6 - - -7. Work i t s e l f 6.9 21.2 14.6 23.2 8. Status 5.3 1.0 2.0 -9. S e c u r i t y 4.8 1.9 3.9 -10. F a i r n e s s -u n f a i r n e s s 20.2 9.6 7.8 5.8 11. P r i d e , g u i l t , inadequacy 7.4 - - -12. Sa l a r y 6.9 2.9 2.0 1.4 13. Company ( l i b -r a r y ) p o l i c y and a d m i n i s t r a -t i o n 7.7 11.7 5.8 14. S u p e r v i s i o n -t e c h n i c a l 3.8 _ 5.8 15. Factors i n personal l i f e — 2.9 - 2.9 16. I n t e r p e r s o n a l r e l a t i o n s — 18.2 17.6 2.9 17. Lack of com-munication — — - 8.7 18. F e e l i n g s of embarrassment — 3.8 3.9 5.8 19. F e e l i n g s of freedom on the job mm mm 20. Working con-d i t i o n s 3.8 3.9 1.4 67 c a t e g o r i e s . In h i s data t h i s was so, the motivators being "achievement", " r e c o g n i t i o n " , "work i t s e l f " , " r e s p o n s i b i l i t y " , and "advancement" and the d i s s a t i s f i e r s being " i n t e r p e r s o n -a l r e l a t i o n s - peers" and " i n t e r p e r s o n a l r e l a t i o n s - super-i o r s " , " s u p e r v i s i o n t e c h n i c a l " , "company ( l i b r a r y ) p o l i c y and a d m i n i s t r a t i o n " , "working c o n d i t i o n s " and "personal l i f e " . R e f e r r i n g to Table 4 and Figures 1, 2 and 3, t h i s hypothesis w i l l be di s c u s s e d . F i r s t l y , are Herzberg's d i s s a t i s f i e r s the same ones to be found i n t h i s study and are they d i s s a t i s f i e r s only? Secondly, as discussed i n D, are Herzberg's s a t i s f i e r s the same ones to be found i n t h i s study and are they s a t i s f i e r s only? I t should be mentioned here that Figures 1, 2 and 3 which w i l l be r e f e r r e d to e x t e n s i v e l y i n the subsequent d i s -cussion are s i m i l a r i n layout to those of Herzberg (1959, p. 81) and Myers (1964, p. 76). They provide an e a s i l y read graph which shows the r e l a t i v e strengths of the various c a t e g o r i e s as " s a t i s f i e r s " and " d i s s a t i s f i e r s " . "Company ( l i b r a r y ) p o l i c y and a d m i n i s t r a t i o n " , Herzberg's major d i s s a t i s f i e r , i s also the major d i s s a t i s f i e r s f o r a l l c l a s s i f i c a t i o n s i n t h i s study. Like Herzberg's study, i t a l s o appears c o n s i d e r a b l y more f r e q u e n t l y as a d i s s a t i s f i e r than as a s a t i s f i e r ; l i b r a r y c l e r k s 7 to 1, l i b r a r y a s s i s -t a n t s 5 to 1, and l i b r a r i a n s 4 to 1. This i s a d e f i n i t e 68 agreement with Herzberg. An example of t h i s would be "the l i b r a r y p o l i c y of handling and announcing promotions d i s s a t -i s f i e s me." "I n t e r p e r s o n a l r e l a t i o n s with s u p e r i o r s " , a Herzberg d i s s a t i s f i e r , was a l s o a strong d i s s a t i s f i e r i n t h i s study f o r l i b r a r y a s s i s t a n t s , 13.5$ and c l e r k s , 18$, but not qu i t e so much f o r l i b r a r i a n s , 6.8$. It was p a r t i c u l a r l y d i s s a t i s f y i n g f o r c l e r k s because they were often r e s p o n s i b l e to a l i b r a r i a n and a l i b r a r y a s s i s t a n t and d i f f e r e n t i n -s t r u c t i o n s would r e s u l t i n c o n f l i c t s with t h e i r s u p e r i o r s . T h i s category was mainly a d i s s a t i s f i e r f o r c l e r k s , 3 to 1, and l i b r a r y a s s i s t a n t s , 7 to 1, but t h i s was not the case with l i b r a r i a n s where i t was j u s t as much a s a t i s f i e r as i t was a d i s s a t i s f i e r . I t was the most f r e q u e n t l y reported d i s -s a t i s f i e r f o r the c l e r k s , the t h i r d most f r e q u e n t l y reported f o r the l i b r a r y a s s i s t a n t s and co n s i d e r a b l y lower f o r the l i b r a r i a n s . Although " i n t e r p e r s o n a l r e l a t i o n s with super-i o r s " are s i m i l a r between the c l e r k s , l i b r a r y a s s i s t a n t s and the Herzberg sample, the l i b r a r i a n s i n t h i s study are not as d i s s a t i s f i e d with t h i s and are, i n f a c t , as frequent-l y s a t i s f i e d by t h i s f a c t o r . "Working c o n d i t i o n s " were a minor d i s s a t i s f i e r f o r a l l c l a s s i f i c a t i o n s , l i b r a r i a n s 6.8$, l i b r a r y a s s i s t a n t s 5.8$, c l e r k s 10$, l i k e Herzberg's engineers and accountants 6.1$. It was al s o predominantly a d i s s a t i s f i e r as i t was i n Herzberg's study. Figures 1, 2 and 3 show that the d i s s a t i s -69 FIGURE 1 A COMPARISON OF THE PERCENTAGE OF FAVORABLE AND UNFAVORABLE FIRST-LEVEL 5EQUENCES OF EVENTS FOR FEMALE LIBRARIANS FIRST-LEVEL CATEGORY % UNFAVOR. SEQUENCES 15 10 5 % FAVOR. 5 . » SEQUENCES 10 15 NO.OF 5EQ_. - , + % RECOGNITION w • 1 mi 3 12 10.9 ACHIEVEMENT 5 22 19.6 P0S5. OF GROWTH - - -ADVANCEMENT D 0 1 .7 SALARY I 1 0 .7 INTERP. REL.-SUPER. 4 3 5.1 INTERP. REL.-5UB0RD. A 2 2 3.0 INTERP. REL.-PEERS 2 2 3.0 INTERP. REL.-INSTR. AND STUDENTS ' m m . I 10 4 10.1 SUPERVISION-TECH. i 1 0 .7 RESPONSIBILITY 0 3 2.2 CO. (LIBRARY) POLICY AND ADMIN. WORKING CON-DITIONS ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ 1 Jl 19 5 17.3 4 1 3.6 THE WORK ITSELF 7 23 21.8 FACTORS IN PER5. LIFE 1 0 .7 STATUS n 0 1 .7 JOB SECURITY — - -59 79 100 70 FIGURE 2 A COMPARISON OF THE PERCENTAGE DF FAVORABLE AND UNFAVORABLE FIRST-LEVEL SEQUENCES OF EVENTS FOR FEMALE LIBRARY ASSISTANTS FIRST-LEVEL CATEGORY % UNFAVOR. SEQ-j ' 8 4 % FAVOR. SEQ. NO. OF RECOGNITION ACHIEVEMENT POSS. OF, GROWTH ADVANCEMENT SALARY INTERP. REL.-SUPER. INTERP. REL.-SUBORD. INTERP. • REL.-PEERS INTERP. REL.-INSTR. AND STUDENTS SUPERVISION-TECH. RESPONSIBILITY CO. (LIBRARY) POLICY AND ADMIN. WORKING CON-DITIONS THE WORK ITSELF FACTORS IN PERS. LIFE STATUS JOB SECURITY 71 FIRST-LEVEL % UNFAVOR. 5EQ. CATEGORY 9 6 3 -A i ,. « . FIGURE 3 A COMPARISON OF THE PERCENTAGE OF FAVORABLE AND UNFAVORABLE FIRST-LEVEL SEQUENCES OF EVENTS FOR FEMALE LIBRARY CLERKS RECOGNITION ACHIEVEMENT POSS. OF GROWTH ADVANCEMENT SALARY INTERP. REL.-SUPER. INTERP. REL.-5UB0RD. INTERP. REL.-PEERS INTERP. REL.-INSTR. AND STUDENTS SUPERVISION-TECH. RESPONSIBILITY CO. (LIBRARY) POLICY AND ADMIN. WORKING CON- ' DITIONS THE WORK ITSELF FACTORS IN PERS. LIFE STATUS JOB SECURITY ?£ FAVOR. SE'Q. 3 6 9 J l _ _ J n NO. OF SEQ. + 3 4 1 2 3 18 10 11 0 14 10 18 0 100 9 19 4 3 1 1 7 2 6 21 91 af 6.3 12.1 2.6 2.6 2.1 12.5 6.8 7.3 6.3 3.7 8.1 8.4 20.4 . 5 100 72 f i e r / s a t i s f i e r r a t i o was 4 to 1 f o r l i b r a r i a n s , 3 to 1 f o r l i b r a r y a s s i s t a n t s and 5 to 3 f o r c l e r k s . The r e s u l t s on t h i s category correspond with those of t h i s study. It should be mentioned that at the time these data were c o l l e c t e d , there were extensive renovations underway i n the l i b r a r y . In s p i t e of t h i s , there were no sequences of events reported on working c o n d i t i o n s which were a r e s u l t of the renovations. Some subjects began to r e l a t e sequences that r e s u l t e d from c o n s t r u c t i o n but stopped and s a i d "but that r e a l l y doesn't d i s s a t i s f y me i t i s j u s t temporary and i s i n the best i n t e r e s t s of the l i b r a r y anyway." "I n t e r p e r s o n a l r e l a t i o n s with peers", although not a major d i s s a t i s f i e r i n Herzberg's study was a d e f i n i t e d i s -s a t i s f i e r f o r c l e r k s and l i b r a r y a s s i s t a n t s , note Table 4. but i n a l l three c a t e g o r i e s i t was approximately as strong a s a t i s f i e r as a d i s s a t i s f i e r . " S u p e r v i s i o n - t e c h n i c a l " was as frequent a d i s s a t i s f i e r i n c l e r k s as i t was i n Herzberg's sample but i t was a minimal d i s s a t i s f i e r f o r l i b r a r i a n s and l i b r a r y a s s i s t a n t s , Table 4. It was however, i n a l l cases predominantly a d i s s a t i s f i e r : l i b r a r i a n s 1 to •, l i b r a r y a s s i s t a n t s 2 to 1 and c l e r k s 6 to 1. This i s a reasonable f i n d i n g f o r i n a l l the jobs sampled, the s u p e r v i s o r i s expected to know more about the t e c h n i c a l operation than h i s subordinate so that when good t e c h n i c a l s u p e r v i s i o n i s given i t i s expected but when i t i s not i t i s d i s s a t i s f y i n g . 73 F i n a l l y , Herzberg's smallest d i s s a t i s f i e r , " f a c t o r s i n personal l i f e " , was almost non-existent i n t h i s sample with only one sequence reported as a s a t i s f i e r and one as a d i s s a t i s f i e r . " I n t e r p e r s o n a l r e l a t i o n s - i n s t r u c t o r s and students", a new category r e l a t e d to t h i s study, was found to be a strong d i s s a t i s f i e r f o r l i b r a r i a n s , 16.9% and c l e r k s , 10% and a mild d i s s a t i s f i e r f o r l i b r a r y a s s i s t a n t s , 5.8%. Tables 6 and 7 show that i t was mostly a d i s s a t i s f i e r f o r l i b r a r i a n s , approximately 2 to 1, and c l e r k s , 2.5 to 1, but i t was as strong a s a t i s f i e r as d i s s a t i s f i e r f o r l i b r a r y a s s i s t a n t s . I t was no t i c e d i n the i n t e r v i e w s that most of the c l e r k s ' i n c i d e n t s d e a l t with t u r n s t y l e duty and with the l i b r a r i a n s handling student r e f e r e n c e problems.. The l i b r a r y a s s i s t a n t s d i d i n d i c a t e that they did not deal with students as f r e q u e n t l y . There are two c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s of a " d i s s a t i s f i e r " , (1) i t occurs f r e q u e n t l y as a " d i s s a t i s f i e r " and (2) i t occurs predominantly more as a " d i s s a t i s f i e r " than a " s a t i s f i e r " . In summary, of Herzberg's s i x d i s s a t i s f i e r s , i n order of importance, "company ( l i b r a r y ) p o l i c y and a d m i n i s t r a t i o n " , " s u p e r v i s i o n - t e c h n i c a l " , " i n t e r p e r s o n a l r e l a t i o n s - super-i o r " , "working c o n d i t i o n s " , " i n t e r p e r s o n a l r e l a t i o n s - peers", and "personal l i f e " , three appeared f r e q u e n t l y (greater than 5%) as d i s s a t i s f i e r s i n the present three jobs s t u d i e d . The ca t e g o r i e s were, i n order of frequency: "company ( l i b r a r y ) 74 p o l i c y and a d m i n i s t r a t i o n " , " i n t e r p e r s o n a l r e l a t i o n s -s u p e r i o r s " and "working c o n d i t i o n s " — Herzberg's f i r s t three c a t e g o r i e s . These three c a t e g o r i e s s a t i s f y the f i r s t r e -quirement of o c c u r r i n g f r e q u e n t l y as a " d i s s a t i s f i e r " but do they appear predominantly as a " d i s s a t i s f i e r " r a t h e r than a " s a t i s f i e r " ? Only two of the three proved to be pre-dominantly more " d i s s a t i s f i e r s " than " s a t i s f i e r s " i n a l l three j o b s . These were: "company ( l i b r a r y ) p o l i c y and ad-m i n i s t r a t i o n " and "working c o n d i t i o n s " . Thus of Herzberg's s i x d i s s a t i s f i e r s , "company ( l i b r a r y ) p o l i c y and a d m i n i s t r a -t i o n " , " s u p e r v i s i o n - t e c h n i c a l " , " i n t e r p e r s o n a l r e l a t i o n s -s u p e r i o r " , "working c o n d i t i o n s " , " i n t e r p e r s o n a l r e l a t i o n s -peers", and "personal l i f e " only company ( l i b r a r y ) p o l i c y and a d m i n i s t r a t i o n " and "working c o n d i t i o n s " were c o n s i s t e n t -l y frequent and predominantly " d i s s a t i s f i e r s " . D. HERZBERG'S FIRST-LEVEL 5ATI5FIER5 AS FIRST-LEVEL  DIS5ATISFIERS AND 5ATISFIERS IN THIS STUDY Of Herzberg's f i v e s a t i s f i e r s , "achievement", "recog-n i t i o n " , "work i t s e l f " , " r e s p o n s i b i l i t y " and "advancement", only one — "achievement", i s c o n s i s t e n t l y s i g n i f i c a n t l y more a s a t i s f i e r than a d i s s a t i s f i e r i n the present study. T h i s i s t r u e f o r l i b r a r i a n s 4 to 1, l i b r a r y a s s i s t a n t s 13 to 8, and l i b r a r y c l e r k s 5 to 1. "Work i t s e l f " , the highest percent s a t i s f i e r , i s mostly a s a t i s f i e r f o r l i b r a r i a n s 3 to 1, and l i b r a r y a s s i s t a n t s 3 to 1, but not f o r l i b r a r y c l e r k s where i t i s as strong a d i s s a t i s f i e r as s a t i s f i e r . 75 "Recognition" and " r e s p o n s i b i l i t y " are preponderantly s a t i s f i e r s f o r c l e r k s 5 to 1 and 4 to 0 r e s p e c t i v e l y , and l i b r a r i a n s 3 to 1 and 2 to • r e s p e c t i v e l y , but not f o r l i b r a r y a s s i s t a n t s . In f a c t , lack of " r e s p o n s i b i l i t y " i s a d i s s a t i s f i e r f o r l i b r a r y a s s i s t a n t s whereas r e c o g n i t i o n i s an i n f r e q u e n t l y reported s a t i s f i e r and d i s s a t i s f i e r . These r e s u l t s f o r the l i b r a r y a s s i s t a n t s suggest that the g e n e r a l i z a t i o n that " r e c o g n i t i o n " and " r e s p o n s i b i l i t y " are only s a t i s f i e r s i s unsafe. Both these c a t e g o r i e s may f r e -quently be d i s s a t i s f i e r s when the employee expects a c e r -t a i n amount of r e s p o n s i b i l i t y or r e c o g n i t i o n and does not r e c e i v e i t . Herzberg's f i f t h s a t i s f i e r , "advancement", appears i n f r e q u e n t l y but i n d i c a t i o n s are that l a c k of advancement i s a d i s s a t i s f i e r f o r c l e r k s and l i b r a r y a s s i s t a n t s . One f u r t h e r observation should be made regarding the s a t i s f i e r s i n these data. In Table 7 i t may be seen that two s a t i s f i e r s , although they are f r e q u e n t l y more s a t i s f i e r s than d i s s a t i s f i e r s , have more d i s s a t i s f y i n g sequences than some of the d i s s a t i s f i e r s . "work i t s e l f " i s among the top sources of d i s s a t i s f i e d experiences f o r l i b r a r y a s s i s t a n t s and l i b r a r i a n s , although i t i s a 3 to 1 s a t i s f i e r i n both these c a t e g o r i e s . "Achievement" which i s the major s a t i s -f i e r i s a l s o a source of d i s s a t i s f a c t i o n f o r l i b r a r y a s s i s -t a n t s , 15.4$, and l i b r a r i a n s , 8.5$. T h i s does not take 76 away from t h e i r power as s a t i s f i e r s but i t should be recog-nized that they can be, to a l e s s e r degree, d i s s a t i s f i e r s . Contrary to Herzberg's f i n d i n g s , the data from t h i s study do not e x h i b i t s a t i s f a c t i o n / d i s s a t i s f a c t i o n r a t i o s which i n d i c a t e that some c a t e g o r i e s are predominantly " s a t i s f i e r s " or " d i s s a t i s f i e r s " . "Achievement" i s predomi-n a t e l y a s a t i s f i e r but i n two cases i t r a t e s high among the d i s s a t i s f i e r s as w e l l . The data f o r "work i t s e l f " i s not c o n s i s t e n t f o r the c l e r k s and that f o r " r e s p o n s i b i l i t y " and " r e c o g n i t i o n " i s not c o n s i s t e n t f o r l i b r a r y a s s i s t a n t s . E. HERZBERG'5 SECOND-LEVEL DI5SATI5FIER5 AS SECOND-LEVEL  DI55ATI5FIER5 AND SATI5FIER5 IN THIS 5TUDY Figures 4, 5 and 6 e x h i b i t the comparative frequency of s a t i s f y i n g and d i s s a t i s f y i n g s e c o n d - l e v e l f a c t o r s . " F e e l i n g s of u n f a i r n e s s " and " f e e l i n g s of block to growth", were Herzberg's main sec o n d - l e v e l d i s s a t i s f i e r s . " F e e l i n g s of f a i r n e s s - u n f a i r n e s s " were c o n s i s t e n t second-l e v e l d i s s a t i s f i e r s f o r l i b r a r i a n s , l i b r a r y a s s i s t a n t s and l i b r a r y c l e r k s but " f e e l i n g s of block to growth" were not. In f a c t , " p o s s i b i l i t y of growth" was p r i m a r i l y a s a t i s f i e r f o r l i b r a r i a n s and l i b r a r y a s s i s t a n t s . Second-level " f e e l i n g s of achievement", l i k e the Herzberg (1959) study appear f r e q u e n t l y as d i s s a t i s f i e r s but appear more than twice as often as s e c o n d - l e v e l s a t i s f i e r s f o r a l l three job c a t e g o r i e s . " F e e l i n g s toward the work i t s e l f " a l s o appear as a major se c o n d - l e v e l d i s s a t i s f i e r 77 FIGURE 4 A COMPARISON'OF THE PERCENTAGE OF FAVORABLE AND UNFAVORABLE SECOND-LEVEL SEQUENCES OF EVENTS FOR FEMALE LIBRARIANS. I SECOND-LEVEL CATEGORY % UNFAV0R.5EQ • -3-0 5 % FAVOR. SEQUENCES 5. 10 15: 20 NO. OF SEQ. _ + 3 12 9.0 20 40 36.0 2 3 3.0 2 2 2.4 0 4 2.4 16 27 25.8 0 1 .6 0 1 .6 4 1 3.0 1 0 .6 1 3.0 1 1 1.2 2 2 2.4 2 2 2.4 6 0 3.6 0 2.4 0 1 .6 1 0 .6 68 98 100 RECOGNITION ACHIEVEMENT POSS. OF JGRQWTH ADVANCEMENT RESPONSIBILITY GROUP FEELING THE WORK ITSELF STATUS SECURITY FEELINGS OF FAIRNESS OR UNFAIRNESS FEELINGS OF PRIDE OR SHAME SALARY CO. (LIBRARY) POLICY AND ADMIN. SUPERVISION-TECH. FACTORS IN PERS. LIFE INTERPERSONAL REL. LACK OF COM-MUNICATION FEELINGS OF EMBARR. FEELINGS OF FREEDOM WORKING CON-DITIONS 1 2 I I H 78 FIGURE 5 A COMPARISON OF THE PERCENTAGE OF FAVORABLE AND UNFAVORABLE SECOND-LEVEL SEQUENCES OF EVENTS FOR FEMALE LIBRARY ASSISTANTS SECOND-LEVEL CATEGORY % UNFAVOR. 5EQ 12 8 4 % FAVOR. SEQUENCES 4 B 1-2 16 NO.OF SEQ. - + RECOGNITION . ACHIEVEMENT POSSIBLE GROWTH ADVANCEMENT RESPONSIBILITY GROUP FEELING THE WORK ITSELF STATUS SECURITY FEELINGS OF FAIRNESS OR UNFAIRNESS • FEELINGS OF PRIDE OR SHAME SALARY CO. (LIBRARY) POLICY AND ADMIN. SUPERVISION-TECH. FACTORS IN PERS. LIFE INTERPERSONAL REL. LACK OF COM-MUNICATION FEELINGS OF EMBARR. FEELINGS OF FREEDOM WORKING CON-DITIONS 2 ra 51 1 19 0 0 1 7 18 0 0 2.0 27.1 1.0 1.0 3.9 6.8 26.1 1.0 1.9 3.9 1.0 5.8 1.0 1.0 117.6 1.9 52 1.9 L01.0 79 FIGURE 6 A COMPARISON OF THE PERCENTAGE OF FAVORABLE AND UNFAVORABLE SECOND-LEVEL SEQUENCES OF EVENTS FOR FEMALE LIBRARY CLERKS NO.OF SEQ. + SECOND-LEVEL CATEGORY RECOGNITION ACHIEVEMENT POSSIBLE GROWTH ADVANCEMENT RESPONSIBILITY GROUP FEELING THE WORK ITSELF STATUS SECURITY FEELINGS OF FAIRNESS OR UNFAIRNESS FEELINGS OF PRIDE OR SHAME SALARY . i CO. (LIBRARY) POLICY AND ADMIN. SUPERVISION-TECH. FACTORS IN PER5. LIFE INTERPERSONAL REL. LACK OF COM-MUNICATION FEELINGS OF EMBARR. FEELINGS OF FREEDOM-WORKING CON-DITIONS % UNFAVOR. SEQUENCES - 12 8 4 -% FAVOR. SEQUENCES 4 .8 .12 W/M m m 5 113 2 0 4 0 22 1 2 llO 8 4 3 19 4 0 0 2D9 112 28 4 1 9 8 27 3 1 0 2 1 8.0 119.3 2.8 .5 6.1 3.8 23.0 1.9 1.4 4.7 1.4 4.7 1.9 3.8 111.3 1.9 .9 .5 109 100 80 but more as a s e c o n d - l e v e l d i s s a t i s f i e r f o r a l l t h r e e j o b c l a s s i f i c a t i o n s . F. HERZBERG'S SECOND-LEVEL SATISFIERS AS SECOND-LEVEL  SATISFIERS AND DI55ATI5FIERS IN THIS STUDY L i k e t h e H e r z b e r g s t u d y , " f e e l i n g s o f a c h i e v e m e n t " and " f e e l i n g s t o w a r d t h e work i t s e l f " were f r e q u e n t l y r e p o r t e d s e c o n d - l e v e l s a t i s f i e r s . " F e e l i n g s o f r e c o g n i t i o n " was a s t r o n g s e c o n d - l e v e l s a t i s f i e r i n H e r z b e r g ' s d a t a and i n t h e d a t a f o r l i b r a r i a n s and l i b r a r y c l e r k s but not t h e l i b r a r y a s s i s t a n t s . " F e e l i n g s o f p o s s i b i l i t y o f growth" was a s e c o n d - l e v e l s a t i s f i e r w h ich r e c e i v e d a l a r g e number o f r e s p o n s e s i n H e r z b e r g ' s s t u d y but r e l a t i v e l y few i n t h i s s t u d y , l i b r a r i a n s 2% o f a l l t h e s e q u e n c e s r e p o r t e d , l i b r a r y a s s i s t a n t s , 0% and l i b r a r y c l e r k s , 2%. " F e e l i n g s o f r e s p o n s i b i l i t y " a n o t h e r f r e q u e n t s e c o n d -l e v e l s a t i s f i e r i n H e r z b e r g ' s d a t a , o n l y o c c u r r e d as a s e c -o n d - l e v e l s a t i s f i e r f o r l i b r a r i a n s i n 1% o f t h e t o t a l s e -quences o f e v e n t s , l i b r a r y a s s i s t a n t s , 1% and l i b r a r y c l e r k s , 5%. G. A COMPARISON OF DURATION OF FEELINGS BETWEEN HERZBERG'S  DATA AND THE DATA OF THIS 5TUDY 1. A c o m p a r i s o n o f d u r a t i o n s o f f e e l i n g s between  s a t i s f i e r s i n t h e l i b r a r y s t u d y and t h o s e i n  H e r z b e r g ' s s t u d y . In T a b l e 6 i t may be seen t h a t H e r z b e r g f o u n d s e q u e n c e s o f e v e n t s c a t e g o r i z e d as a c h i e v e m e n t and r e c o g n i t i o n r e s u l t e d 81 Table 6 A Comparison of Duration of F e e l i n g s of F i r s t - L e v e l  S a t i s f i e r s Between the Herzberg Data, L i b r a r i a n s . L i b r a r y A s s i s t a n t s and C l e r k s ^ 2 L i b r a r y L i b r a r y Categories Herzberg L i b r a r i a n s A s s i s t a n t s Clerks Short Long Short Long Short Long 5hort Long 1. Achievement 54 38 15 7 11 1 19 0 2. Recognition 64 27 12 - - - 8 1 3. Work I t s e l f 3 31 16 7 12 6 15 6 4. Responsi-b i l i t y 0 28 3 0 _ _ 5 2 5. Advancement 3 23 1 0 - - 3 0 6. S a l a r y 13 15 - - - - 1 0 7. P o s s i b i l i t y of growth 0 7 — — — — 2 2 8. I n t e r p e r s o n a l r e l a t i o n s -subordinate. 3 6 2 2 9. Status 3 5 1 - - - 1 0 10. I n t e r p e r s o n a l r e l a t i o n s -s u p e r i o r s 5 4 2 1 1 0 4 2 11. I n t e r p e r s o n a l r e l a t i o n s -peers 0 4 1 1 2 2 7 0 12. S u p e r v i s i o n -t e c h n i c a l 0 3 _ _ 1 0 1 0 13. Company ( l i -brary p o l i c y and admini-s t r a t i o n 0 3 4 1 2 0 1 1 14. Working c o n d i t i o n s 0 1 1 0 1 0 4 2 Herzberg (1959, Table 6, p. 72) expresses h i s values as percentages of each f a c t o r appearing i n the category of sequences. Because more than one f a c t o r can appear i n a sequence of events, the t o t a l i s greater than 100%. The values l i s t e d under the l i b r a r i a n , l i b r a r y a s s i s t a n t and l i -b rary c l e r k c a t e g o r i e s are numbers of responses. 82 Table 6 continued Categories Herzberg Short Long L i b r a r y L i b r a r i a n s A s s i s t a n t s Short Long Short Long L i b r a r y Clerks Short Long 15. Personal l i f e 16. Job S e c u r i t y 17. I n t e r p e r s o n a l r e l a t i o n s -i n s t r u c t o r s and students 0 T o t a l = 148 147 61 18 35 9 74 17 83 i n a predominance of f e e l i n g s of short duration r a t h e r than long d u r a t i o n . These f i n d i n g s were s u b s t a n t i a t e d by the present study by a l l three job c l a s s i f i c a t i o n s i n achievement and by l i b r a r y c l e r k s and l i b r a r i a n s i n r e c o g n i t i o n . It should be mentioned, however, that these c a t e g o r i e s are s t i l l extremely important as motivators, even though the duration of f e e l i n g s of s a t i s f a c t i o n i s short, because the sequences appear f r e q u e n t l y . "Work i t s e l f " l e a d s to a 31 to 3 r a t i o of long duration of f e e l i n g s over short i n the Herzberg data but i n the present study an approximate 2 to 1 r a t i o of short to long i s shown. Th i s was found f o r a l l three c l a s s i f i c a t i o n s . This d i f f e r e n c e can probably be explained by the d i f f e r e n c e i n the nature of the jobs of the two samples. Because of the nature of t h e i r work engineers and accountants r e l a t i n g sequences of events about the work i t s e l f , would give examples of engineering p r o j e c t s or a n a l y s i s of c e r t a i n accounts which are lengthy t a s k s . L i b r a r i a n s , l i b r a r y a s s i s t a n t s and c l e r k s would give examples of events which would l a s t only a short p e r i o d of time f o r example, a s s i s t i n g a student with a r e f e r e n c e , or-dering s p e c i f i c books, t y p i n g a p a r t i c u l a r b i b l i o g r a p h y . Therefore i t would be expected that f e e l i n g s of s a t i s f a c t i o n a r i s i n g from a short task would be s h o r t e r and those a r i s i n g from a long p r o j e c t would be l o n g e r . Responses i n the " r e s p o n s i b i l i t y " and "advancement" c a t e -gories i n the Herzberg (1959) study were preponderantly of 84 of long d u r a t i o n . This was not the case i n the present study where responses i n the l , r e s p o n s i b i l i t y , , and "advancement" c a t e g o r i e s were s l i g h t l y more of short duration than l o n g . "Company ( l i b r a r y ) p o l i c y " and " i n t e r p e r s o n a l r e l a t i o n s with peers" which have long duration e f f e c t s i n the Herzberg study lean s l i g h t l y towards short duration i n the present study. Other c a t e g o r i e s d i f f e r s l i g h t l y but the number of sequences repor t e d do not permit a reasonable comparison. The t o t a l s of long and short duration i n d i c a t e , as was discussed under "work i t s e l f " , that the engineers and account-ants longer p r o j e c t s lead to longer f e e l i n g s of s a t i s f a c t i o n f o l l o w i n g a given sequence of events. Herzberg's sample shows 1.3 long duration r e p o r t s to 1 short duration, whereas i n the present study there i s only .3 long duration r e p o r t s f o r each short duration r e p o r t s . The t o t a l s are found i n Table 4. In c o n c l u s i o n , i t was confirmed that "achievement" and " r e c o g n i t i o n " l e a d to f e e l i n g s of s a t i s f a c t i o n of short dura-t i o n , that i s of a few hours or days. Herzberg's c a t e g o r i e s of "work i t s e l f " , " r e s p o n s i b i l i t y " , "advancement", "company ( l i b r a r y ) p o l i c y and a d m i n i s t r a t i o n " , and " i n t e r p e r s o n a l r e l a t i o n s " causing f e e l i n g s of s a t i s f a c t i o n of long duration were found to cause f e e l i n g s of short duration i n t h i s study. These f i n d i n g s were c o n s i s t e n t f o r l i b r a r i a n s , l i b r a r y a s s i s -t a n t s and c l e r k s . This study y i e l d e d a c o n s i d e r a b l y smaller p r o p o r t i o n of long duration i n c i d e n t s to short duration 85 i n c i d e n t s which may be explained by the nature of the jobs. 2. A comparison of durations of f e e l i n g s between d i s - s a t i s f i e r s i n the l i b r a r y study and those i n  Herzberg's study. The d i s c u s s i o n i n t h i s s e c t i o n w i l l focus around Table 7 which l i s t s the data r e q u i r e d f o r the comparison. The pur-pose of t h i s comparison i s to determine i f the d i s s a t i s f a c t i o n i n the various c a t e g o r i e s of t h i s study corresponds i n length of duration to the d i s s a t i s f a c t i o n i n the s i m i l a r Herzberg c a t e g o r i e s . Herzberg's category of "achievement" contained short dur-a t i o n d i s s a t i s f y i n g sequences almost two times that of long duration d i s s a t i s f y i n g sequences. The l i b r a r i a n s and l i b r a r y a s s i s t a n t s i n t h i s study a l s o showed a preponderance of short duration to long duration sequences; 4 to 1 and 5 to 3 respec-t i v e l y . L i b r a r y c l e r k s however, e x h i b i t e d a one to one b a l -ance of short and long duration sequences f o r d i s s a t i s f y i n g sequences under "achievement". The three other Herzberg c a t e g o r i e s showing a greater than majority of short duration d i s s a t i s f y i n g sequences were " r e c o g n i t i o n " , " i n t e r p e r s o n a l r e l a t i o n s - peers" and " i n t e r -personal r e l a t i o n s - subordinates"; 3.5 to 1, 10 to 7, and 8 to 1 r e s p e c t i v e l y . L i b r a r i a n s reported more short duration d i s s a t i s f y i n g sequences c a t e g o r i z e d as " r e c o g n i t i o n " than long duration sequences; a r a t i o of 2 to 1, but f o r l i b r a r y a s s i s -t a n t s and l i b r a r y c l e r k s there was an equal 1 to 1 balance r e p o r t e d . This was not the case f o r " i n t e r p e r s o n a l r e l a t i o n s -86 Table 7 A Comparison of Duration of F e e l i n g s of F i r s t - L e v e l  D i s s a t i s f i e r s Between the Herzberg Data, L i b r a r i a n s , L i b r a r y A s s i s t a n t s and Clerks ^ L i b r a r y L i b r a r y Categories Herzberg L i b r a r i a n s A s s i s t a n t s Clerks Short Long Short Long Short Long Short Long 1. Achievement 10 6 4 1 5 3 4 4 2. Recognition 38 11 2 1 1 1 3 3 3. Work I t s e l f 4 18 3 4 3 3 8 10 4. R e s p o n s i b i l i t y 4 6 0 0 1 1 0 0 5. Advancement 6 14 0 0 1 0 1 1 6. S a l a r y 8 21 0 1 0 1 3 3 7. P o s s i b i l i t y of growth 3 11 0 0 0 0 1 0 8. In t e r p e r s o n a l r e l a t i o n s -subordinate 8 1 2 0 2 0 0 0 9. Status 1 6 0 0 1 0 0 0 10. I n t e r p e r s o n a l r e l a t i o n s -s u p e r i o r s 10 18 2 2 4 3 16 2 11. I n t e r p e r s o n a l r e l a t i o n s -peers 10 7 2 0 5 0 5 1 12. S u p e r v i s i o n -t e c h n i c a l 13 23 1 0 2 0 8 3 13. Company ( l i -brary) p o l i c y and admini-s t r a t i o n 18 37 11 8 4 6 9 5 14. Working con-d i t i o n s 8 12 1 3 2 1 8 2 15. Personal l i f e 7 8 1 0 0 0 0 0 16. Job s e c u r i t y 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 17. I n t e r p e r s o n a l r e l a t i o n s -i n s t r u c t o r s and students 0 0 9 1 3 0 10 0 Please see footnote on next page Please see footnote on next page 87 Footnotes from Table 7 ^Herzberg (1959, Table 6, p. 72) expresses h i s values as percentages of each f a c t o r appearing i n the category of sequences. Because more than one f a c t o r can appear i n a sequence of events the t o t a l i s greater than 100%. 2 The values l i s t e d under the L i b r a r i a n , L i b r a r y A s s i s t a n t and L i b r a r y Clerk c a t e g o r i e s are numbers of responses. 88 peers" where a l l three l i b r a r y job c l a s s i f i c a t i o n s reported 2 to 0, 5 to 1 and 5 to 0 that sequences i n t h i s category were of short duration r a t h e r than long d u r a t i o n . " I n t e r p e r s o n a l r e l a t i o n s - subordinates" i n t h i s study a l s o followed the s i m i l a r Herzberg category r e s u l t s with short d u r a t i o n / l o n g d u r a t i o n r a t i o of 2 to 0 for'both the l i b r a r i a n s and l i b r a r y a s s i s t a n t s . There are four Herzberg c a t e g o r i e s i n which the number of short duration d i s s a t i s f y i n g sequences are s i g n i f i c a n t l y l e s s than the number of long duration d i s s a t i s f y i n g sequences; they are "work i t s e l f " , 9 long durations to 2 short duration, " i n t e r p e r s o n a l r e l a t i o n s - s u p e r i o r s , 9 long duration to 5 short d u r a t i o n , " s u p e r v i s i o n - t e c h n i c a l " , 23 long duration to 13 short d u r a t i o n and "company ( l i b r a r y ) p o l i c y and admini-s t r a t i o n 37 long duration to 18 short d u r a t i o n . The l i b r a r i a n s and l i b r a r y c l e r k s i n t h i s study have s i m i -l a r short d u r a t i o n / l o n g d u r a t i o n r a t i o s to the Herzberg f i n d -ings f o r the category "work i t s e l f " , 3 to 4 and 4 to 5 r e -s p e c t i v e l y , with fewer short duration than long duration r e -sponses. The l i b r a r y a s s i s t a n t s category however has a b a l -anced 1 to 1 r a t i o . The short d u r a t i o n / l o n g duration r a t i o s f o r the subjects i n t h i s study i n the " i n t e r p e r s o n a l r e l a t i o n s - s u p e r i o r " c a t e -gory do not correspond with the Herzberg f i n d i n g s i n the same category. For the " l i b r a r y a s s i s t a n t s " and " l i b r a r y c l e r k s " the r a t i o s are 4 to 3 and 8 to 1 r e s p e c t i v e l y , both having a 89 greater number of short duration d i s s a t i s f y i n g sequences than lo n g . The Herzberg r a t i o was 5 to 9 with a greater number of long duration d i s s a t i s f y i n g sequences than s h o r t . The l i -b r a r i a n s ' responses i n t h i s category were balanced 1 to 1. The f i n d i n g s i n t h i s study were the converse to those of Herzberg with respect to the short duration/long duration r a t i o - f o r d i s s a t i s f i e r s i n the " s u p e r v i s i o n - t e c h n i c a l " category. Herzberg's short d u r a t i o n / l o n g duration r a t i o i n t h i s category was 13 to 23 while the r a t i o s f o r the l i b r a r i a n s , l i b r a r y a s s i s t a n t s , and l i b r a r y c l e r k s were 1 to 0, 2 to 0 and 8 to 3 r e s p e c t i v e l y . This suggests that d i s s a t i s f a c t i o n with t e c h n i c a l s u p e r v i s i o n i s more l i k e l y to be of long duration i n h i g h l y t e c h n i c a l jobs such as engineers and accountants than i n the l e s s t e c h n i c a l jobs i n the l i b r a r y . The d i s s a t i s f a c t i o n of l i b r a r i a n s and l i b r a r y c l e r k s with "company ( l i b r a r y ) p o l i c y and a d m i n i s t r a t i o n " i s p r i m a r i l y short range with short duration/long duration r a t i o s of 11 to 8 and 9 to 5 r e s p e c t i v e l y . This i s contr a r y t o the Herzberg f i n d i n g s . Herzberg's short d u r a t i o n / l o n g duration r a t i o of 18 to 37 i s , however, s i m i l a r to the l i b r a r y a s s i s t a n t s r a t i o f o r t h i s category of 2 to 3. The remaining c a t e g o r i e s , as may be seen i n Table 7 , do not have a s u f f i c i e n t number of responses i n t h i s study to compare them with the Herzberg data. However, the new category a r i s i n g i n t h i s study, " i n t e r p e r s o n a l r e l a t i o n s - i n -s t r u c t o r s and students", which i s not i n the Herzberg data 90 should be d i s c u s s e d . In a l l three job c l a s s i f i c a t i o n s l i -b r a r i a n s , l i b r a r y a s s i s t a n t s and l i b r a r y c l e r k s the d i s s a t i s -f i e r s are preponderantly of short duration; 9 to 1, 3 to 0 and 10 to 0 r e s p e c t i v e l y . This i n d i c a t e s that d i s s a t i s f y i n g sequences of events with i n s t r u c t o r s and students are r e l a -t i v e l y soon f o r g o t t e n by the l i b r a r y s t a f f . As was done i n Myers (1964) study the examination of durations of f e e l i n g s has been r e s t r i c t e d to f i r s t - l e v e l f a c -t o r s . This maintains the utmost o b j e c t i v i t y i n determining length of d u r a t i o n because the length of duration i s d i r e c t l y connected with a p a r t i c u l a r sequence of events. In d e a l i n g with the f e e l i n g s which made the subject f e e l the way he d i d we are one step removed from the d i r e c t o b j e c t i v i t y and r e l y i n g on h i s s u b j e c t i v e a n a l y s i s of why he f e l t s a t i s f i e d or d i s s a t i s -f i e d . The generation of s e c o n d - l e v e l f a c t o r s may r e v e a l some very worthwhile information but i t would seem to the i n v e s t i -gator that to r e q u i r e the subject to estimate a length of duration f o r these s u b j e c t i v e f e e l i n g s i s asking too much and s t r e t c h i n g the o b j e c t i v i t y of the study. H. SECOND-LEVEL FACTORS ARISING FROM THE MAJOR POSITIVE  AND NEGATIVE FIRST-LEVEL FACTORS This s e c t i o n of the a n a l y s i s i s s i m i l a r to that c a r r i e d out by Myers (1964). I t s purpose i s to determine which sec-o n d - l e v e l f e e l i n g s r e s u l t from a given f i r s t - l e v e l f a c t o r . A major p o s i t i v e or negative f i r s t - l e v e l f a c t o r was 91 a r b i t r a r i l y defined as one i n which contained responses greater than 8$ of the t o t a l p o s i t i v e f a c t o r s . This was done so that there was a s u f f i c i e n t number of i n c i d e n t s to give meaning to the graphs. "Achievement" and "work i t s e l f " , as may be seen i n Figures 7, 8 and 9, were the s a t i s f i e r s analyzed. In each case, i t was found that p o s i t i v e " f e e l i n g s toward the work i t s e l f " and " f e e l i n g s of achievement" arose from the f i r s t -l e v e l "achievement". P o s i t i v e " f e e l i n g s toward the work i t -s e l f " and " f e e l i n g s of achievement" were al s o the main sec-ond l e v e l f a c t o r s a r i s i n g from the "work i t s e l f " . The negative " f e e l i n g s a r i s i n g from the work i t s e l f " , i n Figure 9, are somewhat s i m i l a r to the p o s i t i v e " f e e l i n g s with work i t s e l f " and "achievement" again composing approxi-mately 70$. However, none of the c a t e g o r i e s i n the remaining 30$ i s d u p l i c a t e d . The negative f e e l i n g s found to a r i s e from " i n t e r p e r s o n a l r e l a t i o n s " (see Figure 9) are d i f f e r e n t i n nature from those i n "achievement" and the "work i t s e l f " . " F e e l i n g s of f a i r -ness" and " f e e l i n g s toward s u p e r v i s i o n - t e c h n i c a l " comprised approximately 50$ of the f e e l i n g s a r i s i n g from " i n t e r p e r s o n a l r e l a t i o n s " . " F e e l i n g s a r i s i n g from i n t e r p e r s o n a l r e l a t i o n s " , " f e e l i n g s a r i s i n g from r e s p o n s i b i l i t y " and " f e e l i n g s from the work i t s e l f " , comprise 41$ of the " f e e l i n g s a r i s i n g from i n -t e r p e r s o n a l r e l a t i o n s " i n proportions of 17.6$, 11.8$ and 11.8$ r e s p e c t i v e l y . 92 FIGURE 7 SECOND-LEVEL FEELINGS ARISING FROM THE MAJOR POSITIVE AND NEGATIVE FIRST-LEVEL CATEGORIES FOR FEMALE LIBRARIANS SATISFYING SECOND-LEVEL FEELINGS ARISING FROM THE FIRST-LEVEL CATEGORY OF THE WORK ITSELF 50% 4-Work I t s e l f 42.8% -4^ -Achievement F e e l i n g s of P r i d e I n t e r p e r s o n a l R e l a t i o n s SATISFYING SECOND-LEVEL FEELINGS ARISING FROM THE FIRST-LEVEL CATEGORY OF "ACHIEVEMENT" Work I t s e l f Achievement I t s e l f DISSATISFYING SECOND-LEVEL FEELINGS ARISING FROM THE FIRST-LEVEL CATEGORY OF "COMPANY (LIBRARY) POLICY AND ADMINISTRATION" .52.6%, ty—— Lack of Achievement .21.0% C o . ( L i b r a r y ) P o l i c y &. A d m i n i s t r a t i o n ^ T e c h n i c a l S u p e r v i s i o n Lack of Communication I n t e r p e r s o n a l R e l a t i o n s Work I t s e l f < F e e l i n g s of Embarrassments 93 FIGURE 8 SECOND-LEVEL FEELINGS ARISING FROM THE MAJOR P05ITIVE AND NEGATIVE FIRST-LEVEL CATEGORIES FOR LIBRARY ASSISTANTS SATISFYING SECOND-LEVEL FEELINGS ARISING FROM THE FIRST-LEVEL CATEGORY OF "WORK ITSELF" 33.3$ Achievement 33.3$ Work I t s e l f 16.6$ 8.4$ 4.2 4.2 R e s p o n s i b i l i t y Factors i n personal l i f e ' F e e l i n g s of freedom i n working Group feelingc5« SATISFYING SECOND-LEVEL FEELINGS ARISING FROM THE FIRST-LEVEL CATEGORY OF "ACHIEVEMENT" Achievement Work ¥ I t s e l f R e s p o n s i b i l i t y I n t e r p e r s o n a l Relations*^ DISSATISFYING SECOND-LEVEL FEELINGS ARISING FROM THE FIR5T-LEVEL CATEGORY OF "ACHIEVEMENT" O f .1% P8 • f\'fn 14.3$ -4> Lack of Achievement F e e l i n g s of Embarrassment 1 W o r k M t s e l f DISSATISFYING SECOND-LEVEL FEELINGS ARISING THE FIRST-LEVEL CATEGORY OF "CO. (LIBRARY) POLICY AND ADMINISTRATION FROM 1 ^ O . U % 12.5% "12.5$~ "12.5$"T 1 L 1 I I Co. ( L i b r a r y ) P o l i c y and I n t e r p e r s o n a l A d m i n i s t r a t i o n R e l a t i o n s Achievement! Working* Conditions Work I t s e l f 94 FIGURE 9 SECOND-LEVEL FEELINGS ARISING FROM THE MAJOR P05ITIVE AND NEGATIVE FIRST-LEVEL CATEGORIES FOR LIBRARY CLERKS SATISFYING SECOND-LEVEL FEELINGS ARISING FROM THE FIRST-LEVEL CATEGORY OF "ACHIEVEMENT" 64.5% 29.0% JL Achievement Work tfltself P o s s i b i l i t y of Growth 6.5% SATISFYING SECOND-LEVEL FEELINGS ARISING FROM THE FIRST-LEVEL CATEGORY "THE WORK ITSELF" Work ' I t s e l f Achievement R e c o g n i t i o n I n t e r p e r s o n a l R e l a t i o n s Group F e e l i n g s Factors i n Personal L i f e«^= DISSATISFYING SECOND-LEVEL FEELINGS ARISING FROM THE FIRST-LEVEL CATEGORY "THE WORK ITSELF" 62.5%-1 — 8 .3% Work ' I t s e l f Achievement R e s p o n s i b i l i t y ^ P o s s i b i l i t y of Grojwth Advancement Status-*^ Working Conditions DISSATISFYING SECOND-LEVEL FEELINGS ARISING FROM THE FIRST-LEVEL CATEGORY OF "INTERPERSONAL RELATIONS" 1 •5.9-- cf - 5.9--%' 23.5%- -23.5%-F e e l i n g s of Fai r n e s s bupervisxon-T e c h n i c a l -17.6%- - 1 1 . 8 % - f l l . 8 % -71 I n t e r p e r s o n a l R e s p o n s i b i l i t y ] R e l a t i o n s Work I t s e l f P o s s i b i l i t y of Growth Company ( Li b r a r y ) P o l i c y &. Admini-s t r a t i o r x t 95 "F e e l i n g s of lack of achievement" and "negative f e e l i n g s toward the work i t s e l f " a r i s e from the negative f i r s t - l e v e l achievement, Figure 8 i n a s i m i l a r manner to the p o s i t i v e f i r s t - l e v e l "achievement". " F e e l i n g s of embarrassment" are revealed as a s i g n i f i c a n t s e c o n d - l e v e l f a c t o r i n the negative "achievement", however, which do not appear i n the p o s i t i v e achievement. The negative f e e l i n g s a r i s i n g from f i r s t - l e v e l "company ( l i b r a r y ) p o l i c y and a d m i n i s t r a t i o n " are s i m i l a r but i n d i f -f e r e n t p r o p o r t i o n s . " F e e l i n g s of lack of achievement" and " f e e l i n g s toward company ( l i b r a r y ) p o l i c y and a d m i n i s t r a t i o n " were major negative f e e l i n g s a r i s i n g from the f i r s t - l e v e l "company ( l i b r a r y ) p o l i c y and a d m i n i s t r a t i o n " ; 52.6$ and 21.0$ r e s p e c t i v e l y f o r the l i b r a r i a n s and 12.5$ and 37.5$ respec-t i v e l y f o r the l i b r a r y a s s i s t a n t s . " F e e l i n g s toward i n t e r p e r -sonal r e l a t i o n s " was a prominent r e s u l t f o r the l i b r a r y a s s i s t a n t s , 25$, but f a i r l y i n s i g n i f i c a n t f o r the l i b r a r i a n s , 5.3$. "F e e l i n g s toward working c o n d i t i o n s " and " f e e l i n g s toward the work i t s e l f " , the other two c a t e g o r i e s a r i s i n g from f i r s t - l e v e l "company ( l i b r a r y ) p o l i c y and a d m i n i s t r a t i o n " f o r both l i b r a r i a n s and l i b r a r y a s s i s t a n t s occur i n proportions of 12.5$ f o r the l i b r a r y a s s i s t a n t s and 5.3$ f o r the l i b r a r i a n s . In general, i t may be s a i d that of the c a t e g o r i e s analyzed s i m i l a r s e c o n d - l e v e l f a c t o r s a r i s e from the same f i r s t - l e v e l c a t e g o r i e s i n d i f f e r e n t job c l a s s i f i c a t i o n s , but not always i n the same p r o p o r t i o n s . There i s al s o a d e f i n i t e s i m i l a r i t y 96 between the second-level factors ar i s ing from the same pos i t ive and negative f i r s t - l e v e l fac tors . CHAPTER V CONCLUSION The objects of t h i s study were to (1) t e s t the v a l i d i t y of Herzberg's c a t e g o r i e s by generating c a t e g o r i e s of s a t i s -f a c t i o n and d i s s a t i s f a c t i o n without refere n c e to Herzberg's (1959) c a t e g o r i e s , (2) to t e s t the a p p l i c a b i l i t y of Herzberg's technique on female subjects and (3) to t e s t the a p p l i c a b i l i t y of Herzberg's technique to the job c l a s s i f i c a t i o n s of l i b r a r -i a n s , l i b r a r y a s s i s t a n t s and l i b r a r y c l e r k s . The f o l l o w i n g are the con c l u s i o n s of t h i s study. A. The v a l i d i t y of Herzberg's (1959) c a t e g o r i e s . 1. F i r s t - l e v e l c a t e g o r i e s Herzberg's f i r s t - l e v e l c a t e g o r i e s are e s s e n t i a l l y d u p l i -cated i n t h i s study. The c a t e g o r i e s of "achievement", "recog-n i t i o n " , "work i t s e l f " , " r e s p o n s i b i l i t y " , "advancement", " s a l -ary", " s t a t u s " , " i n t e r p e r s o n a l r e l a t i o n s - peers", " s u p e r v i s i o n - t e c h n i c a l " , "company ( l i b r a r y ) p o l i c y and a d m i n i s t r a t i o n " and "working c o n d i t i o n s " were sorte d f o r a l l three job c l a s s i -f i c a t i o n s s t u d i e d . " i n t e r p e r s o n a l r e l a t i o n s - subordinates" was found i n the jobs where subordinates e x i s t e d but not with the c l e r k s and t h e " p o s s i b i l i t y of growth" category was found only f o r c l e r k s . The only Herzberg category not found i n t h i s study i n any c l a s s i f i c a t i o n was "job s e c u r i t y " . One new 97 98 category " i n t e r p e r s o n a l r e l a t i o n s - i n s t r u c t o r s and students" was formed: no comparable category appeared i n Herzberg's f i n d i n g s . T h i s was understandable as there was no personal i n t e r a c t i o n group counterpart i n the Herzberg (1959) study. 2. Second-level c a t e g o r i e s A l l Herzberg's se c o n d - l e v e l c a t e g o r i e s r e c e i v e d responses i n a l l three job c l a s s i f i c a t i o n s i n t h i s study except " f e e l -ings of p r i d e or shame" and " f e e l i n g s of advancement". " F e e l i n g s of advancement" appeared as responses f o r the l i b r a r -ians and l i b r a r y c l e r k s but was absent f o r the l i b r a r y a s s i s -t a n t s . There were no responses i n the category " f e e l i n g s of p r i d e or shame" i n e i t h e r of the three job c l a s s i f i c a t i o n s . S e v e r a l new s e c o n d - l e v e l c a t e g o r i e s were sorte d from the data i n t h i s study which were absent i n Herzberg's data. These were " f e e l i n g s toward company ( l i b r a r y ) p o l i c y and ad-m i n i s t r a t i o n " , " f e e l i n g s toward s u p e r v i s i o n - t e c h n i c a l " , " f e e l i n g s toward i n t e r p e r s o n a l r e l a t i o n s " , " f e e l i n g s toward working c o n d i t i o n s " and " f e e l i n g s of freedom on the job". This study g e n e r a l l y supports the hypothesis that Herzberg's f i r s t - l e v e l and s e c o n d - l e v e l c a t e g o r i e s may be generated f o r female s u b j e c t s i n l i b r a r y jobs. It a l s o i n d i -cates that Herzberg's (1959) c a t e g o r i e s may not be a l l i n c l u -s i v e f o r female subjects i n l i b r a r y jobs. B. Herzberg's s a t i s f i e r s as s a t i s f i e r s i n t h i s study. 1. F i r s t - l e v e l s a t i s f i e r s 99 Of Herzberg's (1959) s a t i s f i e r s , "work i t s e l f " , "achieve-ment", " r e c o g n i t i o n " , " r e s p o n s i b i l i t y " and "advancement", "work i t s e l f " , "achievement" and " r e c o g n i t i o n " were substan-t i a t e d as f r e q u e n t l y reported f i r s t - l e v e l s a t i s f i e r s but t h i s was not so f o r " r e s p o n s i b i l i t y " and "advancement". 2. Second-level s a t i s f i e r s Herzberg's f i n d i n g that s e c o n d - l e v e l " f e e l i n g s of achievement" and a " p o s i t i v e f e e l i n g toward the work i t s e l f " are strong motivators was s u b s t a n t i a t e d . However, " r e c o g n i -t i o n " was shown not to be as c o n s i s t e n t a sec o n d - l e v e l s a t i s -f i e r as Herzberg suggests. It was the t h i r d strongest sec-ond l e v e l s a t i s f i e r f o r l i b r a r i a n s and l i b r a r y c l e r k s but was a r e l a t i v e l y weak s a t i s f i e r f o r l i b r a r y a s s i s t a n t s . C. Herzberg's D i s s a t i s f i e r s as D i s s a t i s f i e r s i n t h i s study 1. F i r s t - l e v e l d i s s a t i s f i e r s Of Herzberg's s i x f i r s t - l e v e l d i s s a t i s f i e r s , "company ( l i b r a r y ) p o l i c y and a d m i n i s t r a t i o n " , " s u p e r v i s i o n - t e c h n i c a l " , " i n t e r p e r s o n a l r e l a t i o n s - s u p e r i o r " , "working c o n d i t i o n s " , " i n t e r p e r s o n a l r e l a t i o n s - peers" and "personal l i f e " only three appeared f r e q u e n t l y (greater than 5%) as d i s s a t i s f i e r s i n the three jobs s t u d i e d . These were "company ( l i b r a r y ) p o l i c y and a d m i n i s t r a t i o n " , " i n t e r p e r s o n a l r e l a t i o n s - super-i o r s " , and "working c o n d i t i o n s " , which correspond with Herzberg's top three c a t e g o r i e s . Of these same s i x f i r s t - l e v e l d i s s a t i s f i e r s , only two 100 were f r e q u e n t l y reported and predominantly u n i l a t e r a l d i s -s a t i s f i e r s , "company ( l i b r a r y ) p o l i c y and a d m i n i s t r a t i o n " and "working c o n d i t i o n s " . 2. Second-level d i s s a t i s f i e r s Of Herzberg's main c a t e g o r i e s of s e c o n d - l e v e l d i s s a t i s -f i e r s , " f e e l i n g s of fairness-unfairness',', " f e e l i n g s of block to growth", only " f e e l i n g s of f a i r n e s s - u n f a i r n e s s " was a c o n s i s t e n t s e c o n d - l e v e l d i s s a t i s f i e r i n t h i s study. " f e e l i n g s of a p o s s i b i l i t y of growth", although a mild one, was a sec-ond l e v e l s a t i s f i e r f o r l i b r a r i a n s and l i b r a r y c l e r k s . How-ever, i t was responded to as a s l i g h t d i s s a t i s f i e r f o r l i b r a r y a s s i s t a n t s . " F e e l i n g s of achievement" and " f e e l i n g s toward the work i t s e l f " were f r e q u e n t l y reported second-level d i s s a t i s f i e r s but more f r e q u e n t l y reported s e c o n d - l e v e l s a t i s f i e r s . "Lack of communication" was the other major se c o n d - l e v e l d i s s a t i s f i e r f o r l i b r a r i a n s , while " f e e l i n g s toward company ( l i b r a r y ) p o l i c y and a d m i n i s t r a t i o n " and " f e e l i n g s toward i n t e r p e r s o n a l r e l a t i o n s " were the major se c o n d - l e v e l d i s s a t i s -f i e r f o r l i b r a r y a s s i s t a n t s . " i n t e r p e r s o n a l r e l a t i o n s " and " f e e l i n g s of f a i r n e s s - u n f a i r n e s s " were the other major second-l e v e l d i s s a t i s f i e r s . D. A comparison of duration of f e e l i n g s f o r f i r s t - l e v e l  sequences between Herzberg's (1959) data and the data  i n t h i s study. 101. 1. Duration of f i r s t - l e v e l s a t i s f i e r s It was confirmed that Herzberg's c a t e g o r i e s of "achieve-ment" and " r e c o g n i t i o n " lead to f e e l i n g s of short r a t h e r than long d u r a t i o n . Herzberg's long duration c a t e g o r i e s of "work i t s e l f " , " r e s p o n s i b i l i t y " , "advancement", "company ( l i b r a r y ) p o l i c y and a d m i n i s t r a t i o n " and " i n t e r p e r s o n a l r e l a t i o n s " caused f e e l i n g s of short duration i n the l i b r a r y jobs when they were s a t i s f i e r s . 2. Duration of f i r s t - l e v e l d i s s a t i s f i e r s These four Herzberg (1959) f i r s t - l e v e l d i s s a t i s f i e r s which are e s s e n t i a l l y d i s s a t i s f i e r s of long duration are, " i n t e r p e r s o n a l r e l a t i o n s - s u p e r i o r s " , " s u p e r v i s i o n - t e c h n i -c a l " , "company ( l i b r a r y ) p o l i c y and a d m i n i s t r a t i o n " and "the work i t s e l f " . Only "work i t s e l f " was a long duration d i s s a t i s -f i e r f o r the l i b r a r y s u b j e c t s , the other c a t e g o r i e s were of p r i m a r i l y short d u r a t i o n . This f i n d i n g could shed l i g h t on the importance of "work i t s e l f " as a d i s s a t i s f i e r as w e l l as a s a t i s f i e r . Although t h i s category appears more f r e q u e n t l y as a s a t i s f i e r , the f e e l i n g s of d i s s a t i s f a c t i o n are of long d u r a t i o n . The d i f f e r e n c e s i n the f i n d i n g s on duration of f e e l i n g s could be a t t r i b u t e d to e i t h e r or both of the v a r i a b l e s i n t h i s study, the female s u b j e c t s , or the d i f f e r e n t job c l a s s i -f i c a t i o n s . 102 E. Second-level f a c t o r s a r i s i n g from the major p o s i t i v e  and negative f i r s t - l e v e l f a c t o r s In general i t may be s a i d that of the c a t e g o r i e s ana-l y z e d , that s i m i l a r s e c o n d - l e v e l f a c t o r s a r i s e from the same f i r s t - l e v e l c a t e g o r i e s i n d i f f e r e n t job c l a s s i f i c a t i o n s , but not always i n the same p r o p o r t i o n s . There i s a l s o a d e f i -n i t e s i m i l a r i t y between the s e c o n d - l e v e l f a c t o r s a r i s i n g from the same p o s i t i v e and negative f i r s t - l e v e l f a c t o r s . These conclusions are not r e l a t e d to Herzberg's (1959) study as he did not make t h i s type of a n a l y s i s . The analy-s i s was made i n a manner s i m i l a r to that i n Myers (1964) study so as to ameliorate the i n s i g h t i n t o the i n t e r r e l a t i o n -ship of the f i r s t - l e v e l and s e c o n d - l e v e l sequences of events. F. Summary This study g e n e r a l l y v a l i d a t e s the f i r s t - l e v e l and sec-o n d - l e v e l c a t e g o r i e s generated by Herzberg (1959). Although the f i r s t and s e c o n d - l e v e l c a t e g o r i e s were s i m i l a r i n t h i s study, the frequency of the sequences of events i n each of these d i f f e r e d c o n s i d e r a b l y between the l i b r a r i a n s , l i b r a r y a s s i s t a n t s , l i b r a r y c l e r k s and Herzberg's data. I t suggests that i t i s important to use s p e c i f i c samples and de r i v e data from them. Combining data from various job c l a s s i f i c a t i o n s and analyzing them as a s i n g l e group could d e f i n i t e l y be m i s l e a d i n g . The general concept of u n i l a t e r a l s a t i s f i e r s and d i s -103 s a t i s f i e r s , that i s f a c t o r s which act as s a t i s f i e r s only or d i s s a t i s f i e r s only, should be q u a l i f i e d somewhat due to the r e s u l t s of t h i s study. No common u n i l a t e r a l s a t i s f i e r s were found between the three l i b r a r y job c l a s s i f i c a t i o n s and Herzberg's data and only two c o n s i s t e n t u n i l a t e r a l d i s -s a t i s f i e r s were found. U n i l a t e r a l s a t i s f i e r s and d i s s a t i s -f i e r s are evident w i t h i n c e r t a i n job c l a s s i f i c a t i o n s but i n general do vary from one job c l a s s i f i c a t i o n to another. Categories which do appear i n some cases as u n i l a t e r a l d i s -s a t i s f i e r s may not always appear as u n i l a t e r a l s a t i s f i e r s f o r a l l job c l a s s i f i c a t i o n s but w i l l r a r e l y or never appear as u n i l a t e r a l s a t i s f i e r s . The same would be true of u n i -l a t e r a l s a t i s f i e r s . BIBLIOGRAPHY Aikenhead, J . D. Teacher S a t i s f a c t i o n s and Discouragements. A l b e r t a Journal of E d u c a t i o n a l Research. I960, 6,, 92-102. Anon. The motivation to work: some new i n s i g h t s . Personnel. September - October, I960, 5. B r a y f i e l d , A. H. Review of Herzberg, Mausner and Snyderman: The Motivation to Work. Personnel Psychology. I960, 13, 101-102. Caplow, T. and R. McGee, The Academic Marketplace. New York, Basic Books, 1958. B a r r e t t , J . Edward. The C r i t i c a l Requirements of F i r s t Line Supervisors on the Consolidated Mining and Smelting Company of Canada, T r a i l Operation. Unpublished Master's T h e s i s , U n i v e r s i t y of B r i t i s h Columbia, 1958. Devries, A. G. A Study of T r a i n i n g Needs i n the S e l l i n g of Real E s t a t e Through the Use of the C r i t i c a l I n c i -dent Technique. Unpublished Master's T h e s i s , Uni-v e r s i t y of B r i t i s h Columbia, 1957. Ewen, Robert R. Some determinants of job s a t i s f a c t i o n : a study of the g e n e r a l i t y of Herzberg's theory. Journal of Applied Psychology. 1964, 4j3, 3, 161-163. F i n k l e , R. B. A study of c r i t i c a l requirements of foreman-s h i p . U n i v e r s i t y of P i t t s b u r g h B u l l e t i n . 1950, 46. 291-297. Flanagan, J . The c r i t i c a l i n c i d e n t technique. P s y c h o l o g i c a l  B u l l e t i n . 1954, 51, 327-358. G u i l f o r d , J . P. Psychometric Methods. New York, McGraw-H i l l Book Company, 2nd ed., 1954, 267-268. F r i e d l a n d e r , F. Job c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s as s a t i s f i e r s and d i s -s a t i s f i e r s . J o u rnal of Applied Psychology. 1964, 48, 388-392. Herzberg, F. An a n a l y s i s of moral survey comments. Person-nel Psychology. 1954, 7(2), 267-275. Herzberg, F. Work and the Nature of Man. Cleveland, World P u b l i s h i n g Company, 1966, 203 pp. 1 0 4 B i b l i o g r a p h y 1Q5 Herzberg, F., Mausner, B., Peterson, R.O. and Capwell, D.F. Job a t t i t u d e s : review of research and opinion r e p o r t . P s y c h o l o g i c a l S e r v i c e of P i t t s b u r g h , P i t t s b u r g h , Pennsylvania, 1957. Herzberg, F., Mausner, B. and Snyderman, B.B. The Motivation  to Work. New York, John Wiley and Sons Inc., 2nd ed., 1959. Kahn, R.L. Review of Herzberg,.. Mausner .and Snyderman : The Moti-vat i o n , to Work;., Contemporary Psychology. 1961, 6, (1),9-10. Katz, D. and Kahn, R.L. Some Recent Findings i n Human Rela-t i o n s Research. Ann Arbor, Michigan, U n i v e r s i t y of Michigan, I n s t i t u t e f o r S o c i a l Research, 1951. Katz, D., Macoby, N. and Morse, N. P r o d u c t i v i t y . S u p e r v i s i o n  and Morale i n an O f f i c e S i t u a t i o n . Part I. Ann Arbor, Michigan, U n i v e r s i t y of Michigan, I n s t i t u t e f o r S o c i a l Research, 1951. Kerr, W. Labor turnover and i t s c o r r e l a t e s . J o u r n a l of Applied  Psychology. 1947, 31, 366-371. Krum, R.L. C r i t i c a l Reguirements of P i l o t I n s t r u c t o r s . Human Resources Research Centre, Lackland A i r Force Base, San Antonio, September, 1952. Maslow, A.H. Motivation and P e r s o n a l i t y . New York, Harper 1954, 69 pp. McGilvery, C.J. The C r i t i c a l Requirements of the U n i v e r s i t y L i b r a r i a n s Job: Methodological Considerations i n C o l -l e c t i n g Incidents and Weighting Requirements. Unpub-l i s h e d Master's T h e s i s , U n i v e r s i t y of B r i t i s h Columbia, 1968. Mayo, E. The Human Problems of an I n d u s t r i a l C i v i l i z a t i o n . New York, Macmillan, 1933. Myers, M.S. "Who are your motivated workers?" Harvard Business  Review. 1964, 42(1), 73-78. Nevins, C h a r l o t t e I. An A n a l y s i s of Reasons f o r the Success or F a i l u r e of Bookkeepers i n Sales Companies. Unpublished Master's T h e s i s , U n i v e r s i t y of P i t t s b u r g h , 1949. Otke, P.G. A Study of the Method of O f f i c e r Cadet Assessment Employed by the Royal Canadian School of Mechanical Engineering U t i l i z i n g the C r i t i c a l Requirements and Peer Rating Techniques. Unbublished Master's T h e s i s , U n i v e r s i t y of B r i t i s h Columbia, 1958. B i b l i o g r a p h y 106. R o e t h l i s b e r g e r , F. J . and Dickson, W. J . Management and  the Worker. Cambridge, Massachusettes, Harvard U n i v e r s i t y Press, 1939. Schwartz, M. M., Jenunites, E. and Stark, H. M o t i v a t i o n a l f a c t o r s among s u p e r v i s o r s i n the u t i l i t y i n d u s t r y . Personnel Psychology. 1963, 16.(1), 45-53. Smit, Joanne. A study of the c r i t i c a l requirements f o r i n -s t r u c t o r s of general psychology course. U n i v e r s i t y  of P i t t s b u r g h B u l l e t i n . 1952, 48, 279-284. 5mith, R. G. and Standohar, F. T. C r i t i c a l Requirements of  B a s i c T r a i n i n g T a c t i c a l I n s t r u c t o r s . A i r Force T r a i n i n g Research Centre, Lackland A i r Force Base, San Antonio, 1954. Stockford, L. and Kunzek. Psychology and the pay check. Personnel. 1950, 27, 129-143. Stoyva, M. S. C r i t i c a l requirements of a t r o l l e y - b u s opera-t o r ' s job. Unpublished Master's T h e s i s , U n i v e r s i t y of B r i t i s h Columbia, 1956. Thorndike, E. L. A constant e r r o r i n p s y c h o l o g i c a l r a t i n g s . J o u r n a l of Applied Psychology. 1920, 4, 25-29. Turner, E. C. Test room s t u d i e s i n employee e f f e c t i v e n e s s . American Journal of P u b l i c Health, 1933, 2_3, 577-584. V a l l a n c e , T. R., Glickman, A. S. and V a s i l a s , J . IM. C r i t i c a l  I ncidents i n J u n i o r O f f i c e r T r a i n i n g Aboard Des-t r o y e r - t y p e V e s s e l s . P i t t s b u r g h , American I n s t i t u t e f o r Research, 1948. V a l l a n c e , T. R., Glickman, A.S. and V a s i l a s , J . N. C r i t i c a l I n cidents i n Junior O f f i c e r Duties Aboard Destroyer-type V e s s e l s . P i t t s b u r g h . American I n s t i t u t e f o r Research, 1949. Wagner, R. F. A study of c r i t i c a l requirements f o r d e n t i s t s . U n i v e r s i t y of P i t t s b u r g h B u l l e t i n . 1950, 46, 331-339. Wickert, F. Turnover, and employees' f e e l i n g s of ego-in-volvement i n the day to day operations of a company. Personnel Psychology. 1951, 4, 185-197. B i b l i o g r a p h y 10.7-Z a l e z n i k , A. Worker S a t i s f a c t i o n and Development. Boston, D i v i s i o n of Research, Harvard Business School, 1956. Z a l e z n i k , A., Christensen, R o e t h l i s b e r g e r . The Motivation  P r o d u c t i v i t y and S a t i s f a c t i o n of Workers. Harvard U n i v e r s i t y , D i v i s i o n of Research, 1958. 108 A P P E N D I C E S 109 APPENDIX A THE UNIVERSITY OF BRITISH COLUMBIA Vancouver 8, Canada Department of Psychology I am w r i t i n g to i n v i t e your cooperation i n a research p r o j e c t being undertaken under my d i r e c t i o n , concerned with the comprehensive a n a l y s i s of the p r o f e s s i o n of l i b r a r i a n . It i s expected to l e a d to a b e t t e r understanding both of the demands of l i b r a r y jobs upon l i b r a r i a n s , and of the s a t i s f a c t i o n s l i b -r a r i a n s experience i n t h e i r j o b s . The i n i t i a l phase, concerned with the sources of s a t i s -f a c t i o n and d i s s a t i s f a c t i o n of l i b r a r i a n s , i s being undertaken t h i s summer by Mr. Martin G i f f o r d , a graduate student i n t h i s department, whom t h i s l e t t e r w i l l serve to i n t r o d u c e . The L i b r a r i a n , Mr. Stuart-Stubbs, i s i n t e r e s t e d i n the p r o j e c t , and has k i n d l y agreed to the c o l l e c t i o n of data during working hours i n the l i b r a r y . S e l e c t e d members of the l i b r a r y s t a f f , of which you are one, w i l l be interviewed by Mr. G i f f o r d during the next few weeks. He w i l l arrange an i n d i v i d u a l appointment to s u i t your convenience. The i n t e r v i e w w i l l take something l i k e 45 minutes — c e r t a i n l y not more than an hour. He w i l l , of course, e x p l a i n the s p e c i f i c i n f o r m a t i o n he seeks during the i n t e r v i e w . Although i t i s hoped that the f i n d i n g s of the study w i l l be of i n t e r e s t and value to p r o f e s s i o n a l l i b r a r i a n s , p a r t i -c u l a r l y those i n our own U n i v e r s i t y L i b r a r y and School of L i b r a r i a n s h i p , none of the data c o l l e c t e d during the i n t e r v i e w s w i l l be a v a i l a b l e to them. You may be assured that whatever info r m a t i o n or view you express to Mr. G i f f o r d w i l l be handled i n confidence by the research team. We should be g r a t e f u l i f you would r e f r a i n from d i s c u s s i n g t h i s p r o j e c t , and what t r a n s -p i r e s i n the i n t e r v i e w , /with your l i b r a r y c o l l e a g u e s . We b e l i e v e you w i l l f i n d the i n t e r v i e w i n t e r e s t i n g , and e a r n e s t l y e n l i s t your cooperation i n t h i s study. Should you wish to get i n touch with me about t h i s study, my o f f i c e i s i n HM-3, and I am on L o c a l 562 on the U n i v e r s i t y exchange. Yours s i n c e r e l y , Edwin S. W. Belyea A s s o c i a t e P r o f e s s o r APPENDIX B - l l iLO Patterned Interview Think of a time when you f e l t e x c e p t i o n a l l y good or excep-t i o n a l l y bad about your job, e i t h e r your present job or any other job you have had i n the l i b r a r y . This can be e i t h e r the "long-range" or "short-range" kind of s i t u a t i o n , as I have j u s t described i t . T e l l me what happened. 1. How long ago did t h i s happen? 2. Can you describe s p e c i f i c a l l y what made the change of f e e l i n g s begin? How long d i d the f e e l i n g l a s t ? (When did i t end?) 3. Was what happened t y p i c a l of what was going on at the time? 4. Can you t e l l me more p r e c i s e l y why you f e l t the way you d i d at the time? 5. What was i t that made you f e e l e x c e p t i o n a l l y with t h i s occurrence? 6 . Did what happened b a s i c a l l y a f f e c t the way you f e l t about working at the l i b r a r y or did i t merely make you f e e l about the occurrence i t s e l f ? 7. Could the s i t u a t i o n you described happen again f o r the same reasons? ( I f answered no) Describe the changes that have taken place which would make your f e e l i n g s and act i o n s d i f f e r e n t today than they were then. 8 . Is there anything e l s e you would l i k e to say about the sequence of events you have described? (What did you think of the interview?) (Have you any other comments on the i n t e r v i e w or the research?) Appendix B - l (cont'd) H i 9. Now that you have described a time when you f e l t about your job, please think of another time, one during which you f e l t e x c e p t i o n a l l y about your job, pre-f e r a b l y a range sequence of events. 10. Please do not t a l k to anyone about the i n f o r m a t i o n r e -quested and r e c e i v e d i n t h i s i n t e r v i e w . 112 APPENDIX B-2 THE RATING SCALE USED IN THE INTERVIEW How ser iously were your feel ings about your job affected by what happened? Pick a spot on the l i n e below to indicate how strong your feel ings were. 1 least average greatest NOTE: "1" should be used for a sequence that hardly affected your feel ings at a l l ; "9" should be used for a sequence that affected your feel ings as ser iously as the most important events in your working experience. APPENDIX C U 3 Subj ec t number; Age; Sex: Job held at the time of the incident: Length of experience: yrs. months 2. (A) (B) (C) 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. (A) (B)> 9. (A) (B) (C) APPENDIX D 11'4 THE McBEE KEY SORT CARD CODE There are two long rows and two short rows of punch holes on the McBee key s o r t card and each row i s numbered i n two ways. On the long rows of punch holes the numbers run from one to 33, r i g h t to l e f t and the short rows are numbered from r i g h t to l e f t , one to 12. The second set of numbers breaks the punch holes i n t o groups of four; three groups of four on the short rows and eight groups of four on the long s i d e s with number 33 the l e f t over, being i s o l a t e d . The four holes i n each of these groups are numbered, from r i g h t to l e f t , one, two, four, and seven. This combination of numbers allows you to go up to nine without punching more than two holes i n a " f i e l d " and up to 13 punching three holes i n a " f i e l d " , i . e . , punch 2 + 1 = 3 , punch 7 + 2 = 9 , punch 7 + 4 + 2 = 13. There are also three unnumbered holes on three of the four corners and two unnumbered holes on one b e v e l l e d corner. These systems of numbering permit two main ways of c a t e g o r i z i n g data; one i s to allow each of the num-bers i n the consecutive numbering systems, the 1 to 2 or the 1 to 33, to represent a category; the second i s to use combined numbers i n each f i e l d to represent a category and using d i f f e r -ent f i e l d s to represent d i g i t s , hundreds, and thousands e t c . Using the l a t t e r method, you can get up to 13 c a t e g o r i e s per frame and up to 999 using three frames. Appendix D (cont'd) 11.5 Both types of numbering on the cards were used to record the data. However, before d e s c r i b i n g where the d i f f e r e n t types of data were recorded, more d e s c r i p t i o n of the card i s necessary. The card i s i n i t s proper p o s i t i o n when the p r i n t e d s i d e i s up and the beveled corner i s i n the upper r i g h t p o s i t i o n . To help t h i s d i s c u s s i o n when a s e c t i o n of the card i s described, such as l e f t , or bottom, i t w i l l r e f e r to the s i d e i n such a p o s i t i o n when the card i s p r i n t e d s i d e up with the beveled corner on the upper r i g h t . On the top s i d e of the card, the f i r s t frame, numbering from l e f t to r i g h t , was used f o r the num-ber of the sequence any given subject reported number 33 was used as ID thereby allowing the numbering to go up to 19 ra t h e r than 9 when the f i e l d was used alone. The second, t h i r d and f o u r t h f i e l d s were used to number the s u b j e c t s , the second f i e l d was hundreds, the t h i r d tens and the f o u r t h u n i t s . The f i f t h f i e l d was used to record the time of c o l l e c t i o n of data and number 13 was on the consecutive number system and was punched to represent J u l y and August of 1964. This hole was punched f o r a l l cards i n t h i s study. Numbers f i v e to twelve of the con-s e c u t i v e numbers i n the s i x t h and seventh f i e l d s were used to reco r d the s i g n , range and duration of the sequences of events; 12 - f i r s t - l e v e l plus or minus, plus sequences were punched; 11 - short range, short d u r a t i o n ; 10 - short range, long dur-a t i o n ; 9 long range, long duration; 8 - short range, short dur-a t i o n / s h o r t range, long duration - , long range long duration -, and 5 was punched i f the subject s t i l l f e l t t h i s way. Number 4 1 1 6 A p p e n d i x D ( c o n t ' d ) o f t h e c o n s e c u t i v e number s y s t e m i n f i e l d e i g h t was p u n c h e d i f t h e s u b j e c t r e p o r t e d t h e s e q u e n c e o f e v e n t s a s b e i n g t y p i c a l a n d i i t was n o t p u n c h e d i f t h e s e q u e n c e was r e p o r t e d a s b e i n g t y p i c a l . Number 3 o f t h e c o n s e c u t i v e number s y s t e m i n f i e l d e i g h t was p u n c h e d i f t h e f i r s t - l e v e l f a c t o r m e r e l y a f f e c t e d t h e s u b j e c t ' s f e e l i n g s t o w a r d t h e o c c u r r e n c e i t s e l f and i t was n o t p u n c h e d i f i t a f f e c t e d t h e s u b j e c t ' s f e e l i n g s t o w a r d h i s j o b . Number t w o i n f i e l d e i g h t was p u n c h e d i f t h e s u b j e c t f e e l s t h a t a s i m i l a r o c c u r r e n c e c o u l d a r i s e a g a i n and i t i s n o t p u n c h e d i f t h e y f e e l i t c o u l d n o t a r i s e a g a i n . Number one i n f i e l d e i g h t was p u n c h e d i f t h e c a r d f o r a s e c o n d - l e v e l f a c t o r and was n o t p u n c h e d i f i t was f o r a f i r s t - l e v e l f a c t o r . On t h e r i g h t h a n d s i d e o f t h e c a r d , number 12 i s p u n c h e d i f t h e s u b j e c t i s a l i b r a r i a n s , number 1 1 i f he i s a l i b r a r y a s s i s t a n t , and number 10 i f he i s a c l e r k . Number n i n e on t h e r i g h t s i d e o f t h e c a r d i s p u n c h e d i f t h e s u b j e c t i s m a l e and n o t p u n c h e d f o r f e m a l e s . The b o t t o m two f r a m e s on t h e r i g h t a r e u s e d t o c o d e n u m e r i c a l l y t h e v a r i o u s d i v i s i o n s i n t h e l i b r a r y , t h e m i d d l e f r a m e i s u s e d f o r t h e t e n s and t h e l o w e r f r a m e f o r t h e u n i t s : 1 . A s i a n S t u d i e s 2 . B i o m e d i c a l L i b r a r y (Woodward L i b r a r y ) 3. B i o m e d i c a l L i b r a r y ( G e n e r a l H o s p i t a l ) 4 . C o l l e g e L i b r a r y 5. C u r r i c u l u m L a b o r a t o r y Appendix D (cont'd) 117 6. Extension L i b r a r y 7. Fine Arts 8. Government Documents 9. Humanities 10. Science 11. S o c i a l Sciences 12. S p e c i a l C o l l e c t i o n s 13. C i r c u l a t i o n 14. A c q u i s i t i o n s 15. S e r i a l s On the bottom_row number 33 and the f i r s t frame on the r i g h t are used to i n d i c a t e length of experience. Number 33 i n d i c a t e s l e s s than or equal to s i x months' experience; number 32 greater than s i x months to 1 ess than or equal to one year; number 31 greater than one year and l e s s than or equal to two years; number 30 greater than two years and l e s s than or equal to f i v e years; and number 29 greater than f i v e y ears. The second f i e l d on the r i g h t i n the bottom row uses the 7, 4, 2 add 1 to makr the number chosen i n the i n t e r v i e w which could be any number from one to nine. The remaining t h i r d to eighth frames from the r i g h t on the bottom row are d i f f e r e n t f o r the f i r s t - l e v e l and second l e v e l - c a r d s . For the f i r s t - l e v e l cards, numbers one to 16 i n the consecutive numbering system are used f o r the main category headings: 1. Recognition 2. Achievement Appendix D (cont'd) 118 3. P o s s i b i l i t y of growth 4. Advancement 5. Sal a r y 6. In t e r p e r s o n a l r e l a t i o n s -• s u p e r v i s o r s 7. In t e r p e r s o n a l r e l a t i o n s - subordinates 8. I n t e r p e r s o n a l r e l a t i o n s - peers 9. S u p e r v i s i o n - t e c h n i c a l 10. R e s p o n s i b i l i t y 11. Company ( l i b r a r y ) p o l i c y and a d m i n i s t r a t i o n 12. Working c o n d i t i o n s 13. Work i t s e l f 14. Factors i n personal l i f e 15. Status 16. I n t e r p e r s o n a l r e l a t i o n s There were no f i r s t - l e v e l f a c t o r s recorded under the. heading Job S e c u r i t y so no number 17 was r e q u i r e d . The category sub-headings are recorded i n the t h i r d and f o u r t h f i e l d s from the r i g h t f o r the f i r s t - l e v e l f a c t o r s , the t h i r d f i e l d from the r i g h t r e p r e s e n t i n g u n i t s and the f o u r t h tens, the 7, 4, 2, 1 numbers are used i n these frames. The f o l l o w i n g card has the various f i r s t - l e v e l c a t e g o r i e s marked on the f i e l d s by l e t t e r and a d e t a i l e d d e s c r i p t i o n corresponding to the l e t t e r s i s l i s t e d on the next page. A p p e n d i x D ( c o n t ' d ) CATEGORIES ON THE F I R S T - L E V E L CARD 33 32 31 30 29 28 27 26 25 24 23 22 21 20 10 18 17 16 15 14 13 12 11 10 9 ! 7 6 5 119 m L S 9 L 8 6 01 l l 21 I Z > i I Z > I El t l SI 91 i l SI 61 02 12 ZZ EZ tZ SZ 9Z ZZ 82 6Z OC IE ZE The number of the sequence of event t h a t a give n s u b j e c t r e p o r t e d . S u b j e c t number The date when the data was r e c o r d e d (13 i s the number punched f o r August 1964). S i g n , range and d u r a t i o n . 12. punched equals p l u s , normal equals minus 11. s h o r t range, s h o r t d u r a t i o n , p l u s . 10. s h o r t range, l o n g d u r a t i o n , p l u s . 9. l o n g range, l o n g d u r a t i o n , p l u s . 8. s h o r t range, s h o r t duration," minus. 7. . s h o r t range, l o n g d u r a t i o n , minus. 6. l o n g range, l o n g d u r a t i o n , minus. 5. t h i s was punched i f the s u b j e c t s ' f e e l i n g s were s t i l l c o n t i n u i n g . 4. punched, t h i s meant the s u b j e c t s a i d t h a t the sequence of events was a t y p i c a l , normal, i n -d i c a t e s t h a t the. s u b j e c t regarded i t as t y p i c a l . Appendix D (cont'd) 120 3. i f punched, i n d i c a t e s that the f i r s t - l e v e l f a c t o r merely a f f e c t e d the s u b j e c t s ' f e e l i n g s toward the occurrence i t s e l f and i f i t was not punched i t a f f e c t e d the s u b j e c t s ' f e e l i n g s toward h i s job. 2. i f punched, t h i s i n d i c a t e s the subject f e e l s that a s i m i l a r occurrence could a r i s e again and i f not punched, he f e e l s i t could not a r i s e again. 1. i f punched, i n d i c a t e s a s e c o n d - l e v e l card, i f nor-mal i n d i c a t e s a f i r s t - l e v e l c ard. f . Job and sex c l a s s i f i c a t i o n 12. L i b r a r i a n ; 11. L i b r a r y A s s i s t a n t ; 10. Clerk 9. punched: male; not punched: female. g. D i v i s i o n of the L i b r a r y 1. Asian Studies; 2. Biomedical L i b r a r y (Woodward L i b r a r y ) ; 3. Biomedical L i b r a r y (General H o s p i t a l ) ; 4. C o l l e g e L i b r a r y ; 5. Curriculum Laboratory; 6. Extension L i b r a r y ; 7. Fine A r t s ; 8.Government Docu-ments; 9. Humanities; 10. Science; 11. S o c i a l S c i e n -ces; 12. S p e c i a l C o l l e c t i o n s ; 13. C i r c u l a t i o n ; 14. A c q u i s i t i o n s ; and 15. S e r i a l s . h. Length of experience. 33. l e s s than or equal to s i x months' experience. 32. greater than s i x months to l e s s than or equal to one year. 31. greater than one year to l e s s than or equal to two years. 30. greater than two years to l e s s than or equal to f i v e years. 29. greater than f i v e years. i . Strength of change of f e e l i n g . 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 l e a s t average greatest the u n i t s 7, 4, 2, 1 are punched to give the d e s i r e d number. Appendix D (cont'd) 121 j . F i r s t - l e v e l s u b f a c t o r s . 1 to 99 corresponding to the subfactors i n the f i r s t - l e v e l c a t e g o r i z e d on the master data sheets i n the r e s u l t s s e c t i o n : 21 to 24 i s the u n i t s f i e l d and 17 to 20 the tens f i e l d . k. F i r s t - l e v e l cards, f i r s t - l e v e l c a t e g o r i e s . 1. r e c o g n i t i o n 2. achievement 3. p o s s i b i l i t y of growth 4. advancement 5. s a l a r y 6. i n t e r p e r s o n a l r e l a t i o n s - su p e r v i s o r 7. i n t e r p e r s o n a l r e l a t i o n s - subordinates 8. i n t e r p e r s o n a l r e l a t i o n s -• peers 9. s u p e r v i s i o n - t e c h n i c a l 10. r e s p o n s i b i l i t y 11. company ( l i b r a r y ) p o l i c y and a d m i n i s t r a t i o n 12. working c o n d i t i o n s 13. work i t s e l f 14. f a c t o r s i n personal l i f e 15. s t a t u s 16. i n t e r p e r s o n a l r e l a t i o n s -students i n s t r u c t o r s and j.k. Second-level cards, s e c o n d - l e v e l c a t e g o r i e s 1. r e c o g n i t i o n 2. achievement Appendix D (cont'd) 122! 3. p o s s i b l e growth 4. advancement 5. r e s p o n s i b i l i t y 6. work i t s e l f 7. group f e e l i n g 8. stat u s 9. s e c u r i t y 10. f a i r n e s s - u n f a i r n e s s 11. f e e l i n g s of pr i d e and shame 12. s a l a r y 13. company ( l i b r a r y ) p o l i c y and a d m i n i s t r a t i o n 14. s u p e r v i s i o n - t e c h n i c a l 15. f a c t o r s i n personal l i f e 16. i n t e r p e r s o n a l r e l a t i o n s 17. lack of communication 18. f e e l i n g s of embarrassment 19. f e e l i n g s of freedom 20. working c o n d i t i o n s 1. Age, f o r f i r s t and s e c o n d - l e v e l cards. 9. 41 years and over 10. 31 years to 40 years 11. 26 years to 30 years 12. 18 years to 25 years m. Subcategories f o r se c o n d - l e v e l c a t e g o r i e s only. 1 to 4 composes the u n i t s and f i v e to eight the tens. The subcategories are l i s t e d i n the master plan of responses which i s to be found i n the r e s u l t s s e c t i o n . 

Cite

Citation Scheme:

        

Citations by CSL (citeproc-js)

Usage Statistics

Share

Embed

Customize your widget with the following options, then copy and paste the code below into the HTML of your page to embed this item in your website.
                        
                            <div id="ubcOpenCollectionsWidgetDisplay">
                            <script id="ubcOpenCollectionsWidget"
                            src="{[{embed.src}]}"
                            data-item="{[{embed.item}]}"
                            data-collection="{[{embed.collection}]}"
                            data-metadata="{[{embed.showMetadata}]}"
                            data-width="{[{embed.width}]}"
                            async >
                            </script>
                            </div>
                        
                    
IIIF logo Our image viewer uses the IIIF 2.0 standard. To load this item in other compatible viewers, use this url:
http://iiif.library.ubc.ca/presentation/dsp.831.1-0104342/manifest

Comment

Related Items