- Email: [email protected]
dissatisfied with their jobs?
Briefings
IData ProcessingPeople - Are They Satisfied/
DissatisfiedWith Their Jobs?
1. Introduction
Charles IL Woodruff * Department of Information Systemrs, Georgk State University, Arlanta, Georgk USA
Although we tend to think of organizations in terms of organization charts, job descriptions, procedure guides, etc., we should remember that organizations are human-created as collective efforts of individuals who hopefully will be more effective as cooperative group members than as individuals. Organizations are, first and foremost, human systems. Effective functioning of an organization is contingent upon the requisite actions and interactions of the organization members. That is, organizational effectiveness may be viewed as a reflection of job behaviors and job attitudes which are a function of the work itself, the relevant characteristics of the individual, and their interaction. Typically, organizations attempt to assess an individual’s job behavior contribution by means of performance appraisals while the most widely discussed and evaluated job attitudes generally come under the rubric of job satisfaction.
Job satisfaction of 202 data processing personnel as assessed by the Minnesota Satisfaction Questionnaire (MSQ) are presented. Comparisons of twenty job satisfaction levels are made for these DP personnel and other studies of accountants and engineers utilizing the MSQ. Satisfaction with Advancement and Compensation was particularly low for the DP personnel. When compared with accountants and engineers, these DP personnel consistently reported lower job satisfaction. DP operations personnel reported lower job satisfaction than the other DP functional groups.
Keywords: Job satisfaction, advancement, compensation,
policies and practices, behavioral foundations.
Charles K. Woodruff
is an Assistant
Professor of Business Administration at the University of North Carolina at Greensboro. .He received a BME degree from North Carolina State Un+rsi~y (1955) in Mechanical eering, an MBA degree from the U 7 versity of North Carolina at Chapel Hill (1960) in Business
2. Whatis Job $atisfaction? Job satisfaction studies are voluminous and often contradictory in scope. One persistent difficulty is the problem of definition, Seldom are operational definitions of job satisfaction evaluated and compared on a conceptual basis, One exception was an extensive review [ 141 of the job satisfaction research which concluded that both the approaches to determining job facet saltsfaction and the approaches to combining job facet satisfaction data differ. These reviewers were able to identify Kline distinct conceptual views of measuring job satisfaction. Obviously, comparisons of results from various
Administration,an MBISd ee from Georgia State UniversityT 1972) in Wonnation Systems, and a Ph.D. degree in Business Administration from Georgls State University (1977) in Management.
+ Present affiliation: Department of BusinessAdministration, University of North Carolinaat Greensboro,Greensboro, NorthCaroha 27412, USA.
0 North-HollandPublishingCompany Information&Management 3 (1980) 219-225 219
220
Briefings
studies employing different definitions tend to confuse rather than clarify. Such confusion is often compounded when the relevance of the scales to the particular job situation is not adequately addressed by the researchers. Many researchers utilize “homemade” self-report job satisfaction questionnaires which fail to meet even the minimal psychometric standards, yet copyright questionnaires are available which are psychometrically sound. One potential advantage of such questionnaires is that they often have been utilized in various other occupational and job settings, thereby facilitating comparisons of results. The most widely used of these questionnaires are the Job Descriptive Index (JDI) and the Minnesota Satisfaction Questionnaire (MSQ). The MSQ [ 151, utilized in this study, defines satisfaction as the degree of correspondence between the needs of the individual and the reinforcement of these needs within the work environment. One may expect that dissatisfaction results from unfulfilled desires, while satisfaction is the result of comparison between fulfillment (i.e., is now) and desires or ideals (i.e., would like). Twenty scales of job facet satisfaction relevant to job settings are measured by the MSQ. The scale range is 5 to 25.
3. fkganhationd Implications of Job Satisfaction
Although job’ satisfaction is generally considered to be related to numero!us aspects of job behavior, the specific categories which have received the greal.est attention have been job turnover, absenteeism, and job performance. Reviews of turnover research [ 11 ,131 with rather high consistency have revealed a negative relationship between the probability of resignation and job satisfaction. It should be pointed out that many of the investigations of turnover have focussed on the propensity of individuals to resign rather than actual turnover. A limited number of studies [3,4] have incorporated professionalism as a predictor of DP turnover. Absenteeism research reviews [ 11,131 generally tend to indicate the presence of a negative relationship, although the relationships found are not as con-
sistent as job turnover. Perhaps some of the inconsistency may be attributed to the difficulty of delineating the absenteeism construct itself (e.g., excused - unexcused absences, frequency - length of occurrence). Prior to the mid-fifties it was generally assumed that a favorable attitude toward the job was necessary for high job performance. The earlier Hawthorne studies [9,10,12] and the human relations movement were instrumental in this approach to human motivation in the job setting. In 1955 the firs? major review of research relevant to the job satisfaction and job performance relationship was published [S] . The conclusion was that there was virtually no evidence of any significant relationships. Subsequently, many researchers and reviewers have entered into the debate concerning the relationship between job satisfaction and job performance.
4. Data Processing Pemonnel
Published studies of job satisfaction in DP environments appear infrequently [ 1,2,6-8,161. Most of these studies tend to restrict the number of facets of job satisfaction, typically less than five facets. Consequently, this may ignore those facets which could indicate personnel problems important to the DP organization. This study focused on 202 personnel from twelve business DP centers in metropolitan Atlanta. Individual subjects included 16 systems analysts, 52 programmer analysts, 63 programmers, and 71 operations personnel. Operations personnel consisted of supervisors, console operators, tape and forms handlers, job setup employees, etc.; however, keypunch and data entry operators were excluded, Also excluded were maintenance and supply personnel, scientific and engineering applications personnel, administrators, and hardware or software personnel. Each of the twelve centers at the time of the study was responsible for the design, implementation, and operation of company or division information systems. Most of the user organizations were directly involved in the analysis of information requirements but did not actively participate in the actual technical design of new system projects.
C. K. Woodruff/Data Bocessing Peopk
221
-
3 s
3
5 2
‘5 ‘Z
3 b -
-
P
.r
.z
5 Y -
3 ‘t
a
lz -
Fig. 1. Levels of Job Satisfaction for These DP People were Below the CorrespondingLevelsfor Accountantsin Another Study Except for Satisfactionwith WorkingConditions.(Data from ref. [ 151).
5. Job Satisfaction of DP People and Accountants Figure 1 depicts a comparison of job satisfaction levels for DP people in this study with another study of 53 accountants utilizing the same questionnaire, as reported by the industrial Relations Center of the University of Minnesota [ 151. It is apparent that job satisfaction was noticeably lower for these UP people.
i
i
Y
z
4” -
% -
Working Conditions was the only scale where accountants were lower. Advancement and ampensation were particularly low for DP people. However, neither accountants nor DP people were very satisfied with Company Policiesand fiactices. For both groups, job satisiaction appeared to be relatively high in MornI Values,Co-Workers,Achievement, Activity, Securely, and Social Service.
8
.r
r x 5
.r
3 -
Fig. 2. Engineers in another study expressed Greater Satisfaction with Their Jobs than did the DP People in II& Study. @ata from ref. [ lS]).
222
Briefings
6. Comparing the Job Satisfaction of DP People and
7. Comparing Job Satisfaction Among DP Groups
Engineers For each job satisfaction scale in Figure 3, the arithmetic mean for all DP subjects is presented, followed by the arithmetic mean for each of the four component DP groups: (1) systems analysts, (2) programmer analysts, (3) programmers, and (4) operations personnel. Systems andysts reported the highest overall level of job satisfaction, while operations personnel reported the lowest. The 16 systems analysts expressed noticeably
Figure 2 is a comparison of job satisfaction levels of DP people and 38 f%gineers (again utilizing the same questionnaire), as reported by the Industrial Relations Center of the University of Minnesota [ 151. The engineers were higher in all job satisfaction scales.Compe?zsationwas the lowest level of job satisfaction (followed by Advrzncemerrnt) for the engineers, but the DP people were still lower.
a 22
;: B
13
: T : F
14
: T i I
10
6
b Fig. 3a.b.
C K. Woodruff/Data
Recessing People
223
2 J i
1
L
T : F A
1
4 i rr 1
:
I 6
3
.C
f
2
5
E 5
H f
22
i B 19 1
ii
T i F A
14
F :, :I 10
_1 3 .E
s
6I
Fig. 3c, d. Job Satisfaction was Greatest for Systems Analysts and Lowest for Operations Personnel. Levels of Satisfaction with Advancement and Compensation were Noticeably Low.
higher levels of job satisfaction for Advanceme~, Authority, Company Policies and Practices,Compensation, Social Status, and working Conditions. It is interesting to note that they had a lower level for Ability Utilizationthan the total group. The 52 programmer analysts reported the highest levels of the four DP groups for Achievement, MOMI Vdu#, and Recognition, None of the scales were particularly low, though attitude toward Company Policies and Ptwtices was below that of the total group. The 63 programmers recorded the highest level for
Ability Utilization,but recorded the lowest levels for Activity, Security, and Social Service. The 71 operations personnel had the lowest levels for seventeen of the twenty scales. On the other hand, they did seem relatively satisfied with Security and Social Service.
0. Summary Two major problem areas regarding job satisfaction were apparent:
(1) dtsatisfaction with Advancement and Comperwtion, and (2) the low general satisfaction of operations persomtel. Each individual represents a considerable ,investment in training, expertise, experience, etc., for every DP organization. Coupled with this is the frequent scarcity of qualified people available for development of critical projects, often already deviating :significantly from the original scheduie and resource allocation budget. Management is understandably reluctant to permit needed individuals to pursue other career goals, particularly before completion of iproject implementation. Nevertheless, DP people should not feel that they are “locked into” their present positions with little hope of job mobility. It is important for DP people to feel their career goals are obtainable with commensurate compensation. Limited job mobility is quite prevalent for operations people who have experienced a lengthy trend of diminishing job opportunities. The continuing delineation of DP suborganization boundaries has, to a great extent, tended to separate further the operations groups from the other groups. One outcome has been a restriction of traditional career paths for operations people. Few DP organizations have adequately addressed1 such restrictions. As a consequence, there is a need for greater attention by management to the resulting problems faced by operations people. Behavioral research continues to clarify the significance of job satisfaction relationships in organizational environments. Even though there has been limited behavioral research in DP organizations, many of the job satisfaction fmdinga of c&r setkgs may presumably be generalized to DP organizations. Further, the relationships of job satisfaction to important outcomes can be quite meaningfullrfor even the most pragmatic DP managers. Turnover, for example, has indicated a consistent relationship with job satisfaction levels, as reflected in behavioral research. Many DP organizations report concern regarding turnover rates in excess of that of other technical profession;. DP management has often assumed that a substantial reduction of turnover k a desirab!e organixational goal: This may be questioned. First, if the individual is truly dissatisfied, then leaving that job may result in greater individual
satisfaction. Second, if the individual is dissatisfied and ineffectual, leaving the job may benefit the organization by creating an open position for a potentially better performer. Third, since the computer field is subjected to rapid technological change, higher job turnover may be needed to sustain needed technological change and the corresponding increases in efficiency. Job satisfaction research is important for both DP people and management. Accurate assessment of jbjb satisfaction is reflective of the behavioral health of an organization. Such assessment, together with research of relationships with various outcomes (e.g., absenteeism, job performance, etc.) is needed to assure continued progress of the DP profession.
[l] EM. Awad, Prediction of satisfaction of systems analysts. programmers, Data Management (Jan., 1977) 12-18. [ 21 B.H. Barnes and M.H. Gotterer, Attributes of computer professionals, Proc. Thirteenth Annual Computer Personnel Res. Conf. (1975) 31-39. [ 31 KM. Bartol, Individual versus organizational predictors of job satisfaction and turnover among professionals, Journal of Vocational Behavior 15 (1979) 55-67. [4] KM. Bartok Professionalism as a predictor of organiaational commitment, role stress, and turnover: a multidiiensional approach, Academy of Management Journal 22 (1979) 815-821. [S] A.EL Brayfmld and W.H. Crockett, Employee attitudes and employee performance, Psychological Bulletin 52 (1955) 3% 424. [6] J.D. Gouger and RA. Zawacki, What motivates DP professionals?, Datamation (Sept. 1978) 116-123. [7] J.D. Couger and R.A. Zawacki, Compensation preferences of DP professionals, Datamation (Nov. 1978) 96-192. [ 81 J.D. Cager and R.A, Zawacki,Something’svery wrong with DP operations jobs, Datamation (March 1979) 149-151,154-155,158. [9] PIA Landsberger, Hawthorne Revisited: Management and the Worker* Its Critics, and Developments in Human R&&i@ in Industry (Cornell University Press, Ithaoa, NY, 1958). [ 1fJ] E, b+yo, ille Human Problems of &I Industrial Civil&ation (The MaqniU@:t&., New York, 1933). [ll] CW. P&&a&R* gte$ q+g*a*b& work and &+&&& &$n@@yee ,tum&er.&nd,abs, Paychoiogi+BuBeti@80-(1973) 151-176. [ 121 F.J. RoethBsbergeS.andW&Diekson, @anagement and ,’
C.K. Woodruff /Llatu Processing People the Worker (Harvard University Press, Cambridge, MA,
1939). [13] V.H. Vroom, Work and Motivation (John Wiley and Sons, New York, 1964). [ 14141 J.P. Wanous and E.E. Lawler, III, Measurement and me-g of job satisfaction, Journal of Applied Psychology 56 (1972) 95-105.
225
[ 151 D.J. Weiss, R.V. Dawis, G.W. England, and L.H. hf@St, Manual for the Mimxxota Satisfaction Questionnaire. Mhmesota Studies in Vocational Rehabilitation, XXII. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota, Industrial Relations Center, 1967. [16] T.C. Willoughby, Needs, interests, reinforcer patterns and satisfaction of data processing personnel, Ph.D. dissertation, University of Minnesota (1971).
IData ProcessingPeople - Are They Satisfied/
DissatisfiedWith Their Jobs?
1. Introduction
Charles IL Woodruff * Department of Information Systemrs, Georgk State University, Arlanta, Georgk USA
Although we tend to think of organizations in terms of organization charts, job descriptions, procedure guides, etc., we should remember that organizations are human-created as collective efforts of individuals who hopefully will be more effective as cooperative group members than as individuals. Organizations are, first and foremost, human systems. Effective functioning of an organization is contingent upon the requisite actions and interactions of the organization members. That is, organizational effectiveness may be viewed as a reflection of job behaviors and job attitudes which are a function of the work itself, the relevant characteristics of the individual, and their interaction. Typically, organizations attempt to assess an individual’s job behavior contribution by means of performance appraisals while the most widely discussed and evaluated job attitudes generally come under the rubric of job satisfaction.
Job satisfaction of 202 data processing personnel as assessed by the Minnesota Satisfaction Questionnaire (MSQ) are presented. Comparisons of twenty job satisfaction levels are made for these DP personnel and other studies of accountants and engineers utilizing the MSQ. Satisfaction with Advancement and Compensation was particularly low for the DP personnel. When compared with accountants and engineers, these DP personnel consistently reported lower job satisfaction. DP operations personnel reported lower job satisfaction than the other DP functional groups.
Keywords: Job satisfaction, advancement, compensation,
policies and practices, behavioral foundations.
Charles K. Woodruff
is an Assistant
Professor of Business Administration at the University of North Carolina at Greensboro. .He received a BME degree from North Carolina State Un+rsi~y (1955) in Mechanical eering, an MBA degree from the U 7 versity of North Carolina at Chapel Hill (1960) in Business
2. Whatis Job $atisfaction? Job satisfaction studies are voluminous and often contradictory in scope. One persistent difficulty is the problem of definition, Seldom are operational definitions of job satisfaction evaluated and compared on a conceptual basis, One exception was an extensive review [ 141 of the job satisfaction research which concluded that both the approaches to determining job facet saltsfaction and the approaches to combining job facet satisfaction data differ. These reviewers were able to identify Kline distinct conceptual views of measuring job satisfaction. Obviously, comparisons of results from various
Administration,an MBISd ee from Georgia State UniversityT 1972) in Wonnation Systems, and a Ph.D. degree in Business Administration from Georgls State University (1977) in Management.
+ Present affiliation: Department of BusinessAdministration, University of North Carolinaat Greensboro,Greensboro, NorthCaroha 27412, USA.
0 North-HollandPublishingCompany Information&Management 3 (1980) 219-225 219
220
Briefings
studies employing different definitions tend to confuse rather than clarify. Such confusion is often compounded when the relevance of the scales to the particular job situation is not adequately addressed by the researchers. Many researchers utilize “homemade” self-report job satisfaction questionnaires which fail to meet even the minimal psychometric standards, yet copyright questionnaires are available which are psychometrically sound. One potential advantage of such questionnaires is that they often have been utilized in various other occupational and job settings, thereby facilitating comparisons of results. The most widely used of these questionnaires are the Job Descriptive Index (JDI) and the Minnesota Satisfaction Questionnaire (MSQ). The MSQ [ 151, utilized in this study, defines satisfaction as the degree of correspondence between the needs of the individual and the reinforcement of these needs within the work environment. One may expect that dissatisfaction results from unfulfilled desires, while satisfaction is the result of comparison between fulfillment (i.e., is now) and desires or ideals (i.e., would like). Twenty scales of job facet satisfaction relevant to job settings are measured by the MSQ. The scale range is 5 to 25.
3. fkganhationd Implications of Job Satisfaction
Although job’ satisfaction is generally considered to be related to numero!us aspects of job behavior, the specific categories which have received the greal.est attention have been job turnover, absenteeism, and job performance. Reviews of turnover research [ 11 ,131 with rather high consistency have revealed a negative relationship between the probability of resignation and job satisfaction. It should be pointed out that many of the investigations of turnover have focussed on the propensity of individuals to resign rather than actual turnover. A limited number of studies [3,4] have incorporated professionalism as a predictor of DP turnover. Absenteeism research reviews [ 11,131 generally tend to indicate the presence of a negative relationship, although the relationships found are not as con-
sistent as job turnover. Perhaps some of the inconsistency may be attributed to the difficulty of delineating the absenteeism construct itself (e.g., excused - unexcused absences, frequency - length of occurrence). Prior to the mid-fifties it was generally assumed that a favorable attitude toward the job was necessary for high job performance. The earlier Hawthorne studies [9,10,12] and the human relations movement were instrumental in this approach to human motivation in the job setting. In 1955 the firs? major review of research relevant to the job satisfaction and job performance relationship was published [S] . The conclusion was that there was virtually no evidence of any significant relationships. Subsequently, many researchers and reviewers have entered into the debate concerning the relationship between job satisfaction and job performance.
4. Data Processing Pemonnel
Published studies of job satisfaction in DP environments appear infrequently [ 1,2,6-8,161. Most of these studies tend to restrict the number of facets of job satisfaction, typically less than five facets. Consequently, this may ignore those facets which could indicate personnel problems important to the DP organization. This study focused on 202 personnel from twelve business DP centers in metropolitan Atlanta. Individual subjects included 16 systems analysts, 52 programmer analysts, 63 programmers, and 71 operations personnel. Operations personnel consisted of supervisors, console operators, tape and forms handlers, job setup employees, etc.; however, keypunch and data entry operators were excluded, Also excluded were maintenance and supply personnel, scientific and engineering applications personnel, administrators, and hardware or software personnel. Each of the twelve centers at the time of the study was responsible for the design, implementation, and operation of company or division information systems. Most of the user organizations were directly involved in the analysis of information requirements but did not actively participate in the actual technical design of new system projects.
C. K. Woodruff/Data Bocessing Peopk
221
-
3 s
3
5 2
‘5 ‘Z
3 b -
-
P
.r
.z
5 Y -
3 ‘t
a
lz -
Fig. 1. Levels of Job Satisfaction for These DP People were Below the CorrespondingLevelsfor Accountantsin Another Study Except for Satisfactionwith WorkingConditions.(Data from ref. [ 151).
5. Job Satisfaction of DP People and Accountants Figure 1 depicts a comparison of job satisfaction levels for DP people in this study with another study of 53 accountants utilizing the same questionnaire, as reported by the industrial Relations Center of the University of Minnesota [ 151. It is apparent that job satisfaction was noticeably lower for these UP people.
i
i
Y
z
4” -
% -
Working Conditions was the only scale where accountants were lower. Advancement and ampensation were particularly low for DP people. However, neither accountants nor DP people were very satisfied with Company Policiesand fiactices. For both groups, job satisiaction appeared to be relatively high in MornI Values,Co-Workers,Achievement, Activity, Securely, and Social Service.
8
.r
r x 5
.r
3 -
Fig. 2. Engineers in another study expressed Greater Satisfaction with Their Jobs than did the DP People in II& Study. @ata from ref. [ lS]).
222
Briefings
6. Comparing the Job Satisfaction of DP People and
7. Comparing Job Satisfaction Among DP Groups
Engineers For each job satisfaction scale in Figure 3, the arithmetic mean for all DP subjects is presented, followed by the arithmetic mean for each of the four component DP groups: (1) systems analysts, (2) programmer analysts, (3) programmers, and (4) operations personnel. Systems andysts reported the highest overall level of job satisfaction, while operations personnel reported the lowest. The 16 systems analysts expressed noticeably
Figure 2 is a comparison of job satisfaction levels of DP people and 38 f%gineers (again utilizing the same questionnaire), as reported by the Industrial Relations Center of the University of Minnesota [ 151. The engineers were higher in all job satisfaction scales.Compe?zsationwas the lowest level of job satisfaction (followed by Advrzncemerrnt) for the engineers, but the DP people were still lower.
a 22
;: B
13
: T : F
14
: T i I
10
6
b Fig. 3a.b.
C K. Woodruff/Data
Recessing People
223
2 J i
1
L
T : F A
1
4 i rr 1
:
I 6
3
.C
f
2
5
E 5
H f
22
i B 19 1
ii
T i F A
14
F :, :I 10
_1 3 .E
s
6I
Fig. 3c, d. Job Satisfaction was Greatest for Systems Analysts and Lowest for Operations Personnel. Levels of Satisfaction with Advancement and Compensation were Noticeably Low.
higher levels of job satisfaction for Advanceme~, Authority, Company Policies and Practices,Compensation, Social Status, and working Conditions. It is interesting to note that they had a lower level for Ability Utilizationthan the total group. The 52 programmer analysts reported the highest levels of the four DP groups for Achievement, MOMI Vdu#, and Recognition, None of the scales were particularly low, though attitude toward Company Policies and Ptwtices was below that of the total group. The 63 programmers recorded the highest level for
Ability Utilization,but recorded the lowest levels for Activity, Security, and Social Service. The 71 operations personnel had the lowest levels for seventeen of the twenty scales. On the other hand, they did seem relatively satisfied with Security and Social Service.
0. Summary Two major problem areas regarding job satisfaction were apparent:
(1) dtsatisfaction with Advancement and Comperwtion, and (2) the low general satisfaction of operations persomtel. Each individual represents a considerable ,investment in training, expertise, experience, etc., for every DP organization. Coupled with this is the frequent scarcity of qualified people available for development of critical projects, often already deviating :significantly from the original scheduie and resource allocation budget. Management is understandably reluctant to permit needed individuals to pursue other career goals, particularly before completion of iproject implementation. Nevertheless, DP people should not feel that they are “locked into” their present positions with little hope of job mobility. It is important for DP people to feel their career goals are obtainable with commensurate compensation. Limited job mobility is quite prevalent for operations people who have experienced a lengthy trend of diminishing job opportunities. The continuing delineation of DP suborganization boundaries has, to a great extent, tended to separate further the operations groups from the other groups. One outcome has been a restriction of traditional career paths for operations people. Few DP organizations have adequately addressed1 such restrictions. As a consequence, there is a need for greater attention by management to the resulting problems faced by operations people. Behavioral research continues to clarify the significance of job satisfaction relationships in organizational environments. Even though there has been limited behavioral research in DP organizations, many of the job satisfaction fmdinga of c&r setkgs may presumably be generalized to DP organizations. Further, the relationships of job satisfaction to important outcomes can be quite meaningfullrfor even the most pragmatic DP managers. Turnover, for example, has indicated a consistent relationship with job satisfaction levels, as reflected in behavioral research. Many DP organizations report concern regarding turnover rates in excess of that of other technical profession;. DP management has often assumed that a substantial reduction of turnover k a desirab!e organixational goal: This may be questioned. First, if the individual is truly dissatisfied, then leaving that job may result in greater individual
satisfaction. Second, if the individual is dissatisfied and ineffectual, leaving the job may benefit the organization by creating an open position for a potentially better performer. Third, since the computer field is subjected to rapid technological change, higher job turnover may be needed to sustain needed technological change and the corresponding increases in efficiency. Job satisfaction research is important for both DP people and management. Accurate assessment of jbjb satisfaction is reflective of the behavioral health of an organization. Such assessment, together with research of relationships with various outcomes (e.g., absenteeism, job performance, etc.) is needed to assure continued progress of the DP profession.
[l] EM. Awad, Prediction of satisfaction of systems analysts. programmers, Data Management (Jan., 1977) 12-18. [ 21 B.H. Barnes and M.H. Gotterer, Attributes of computer professionals, Proc. Thirteenth Annual Computer Personnel Res. Conf. (1975) 31-39. [ 31 KM. Bartol, Individual versus organizational predictors of job satisfaction and turnover among professionals, Journal of Vocational Behavior 15 (1979) 55-67. [4] KM. Bartok Professionalism as a predictor of organiaational commitment, role stress, and turnover: a multidiiensional approach, Academy of Management Journal 22 (1979) 815-821. [S] A.EL Brayfmld and W.H. Crockett, Employee attitudes and employee performance, Psychological Bulletin 52 (1955) 3% 424. [6] J.D. Gouger and RA. Zawacki, What motivates DP professionals?, Datamation (Sept. 1978) 116-123. [7] J.D. Couger and R.A. Zawacki, Compensation preferences of DP professionals, Datamation (Nov. 1978) 96-192. [ 81 J.D. Cager and R.A, Zawacki,Something’svery wrong with DP operations jobs, Datamation (March 1979) 149-151,154-155,158. [9] PIA Landsberger, Hawthorne Revisited: Management and the Worker* Its Critics, and Developments in Human R&&i@ in Industry (Cornell University Press, Ithaoa, NY, 1958). [ 1fJ] E, b+yo, ille Human Problems of &I Industrial Civil&ation (The MaqniU@:t&., New York, 1933). [ll] CW. P&&a&R* gte$ q+g*a*b& work and &+&&& &$n@@yee ,tum&er.&nd,abs, Paychoiogi+BuBeti@80-(1973) 151-176. [ 121 F.J. RoethBsbergeS.andW&Diekson, @anagement and ,’
C.K. Woodruff /Llatu Processing People the Worker (Harvard University Press, Cambridge, MA,
1939). [13] V.H. Vroom, Work and Motivation (John Wiley and Sons, New York, 1964). [ 14141 J.P. Wanous and E.E. Lawler, III, Measurement and me-g of job satisfaction, Journal of Applied Psychology 56 (1972) 95-105.
225
[ 151 D.J. Weiss, R.V. Dawis, G.W. England, and L.H. hf@St, Manual for the Mimxxota Satisfaction Questionnaire. Mhmesota Studies in Vocational Rehabilitation, XXII. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota, Industrial Relations Center, 1967. [16] T.C. Willoughby, Needs, interests, reinforcer patterns and satisfaction of data processing personnel, Ph.D. dissertation, University of Minnesota (1971).