Herzberg's Theory of Motivation as a Predictor of Job Satisfaction: A Study of Non-academic Community College Employees

Full text

38
Herzberg’s Theory of Motivation
as a Predictor of Job Satisfaction:
A Study of Non-academic Community
College Employees*
Greta Marie Giese**, Mejai Bola Avoseh***
Introduction
Research on job satisfaction in higher education faculty and staff is lim-
ited, and what research has been conducted has been largely focused on facul-
ty members. While faculty members are charged with the education of stu-
dents, the operations, processes, and procedures of colleges and universities
are the responsibilities of the non-academic staff. This study sought to under-
stand the job satisfaction and motivators of non-academic staff meeting a sig-
nificant need in the research of motivation in higher education employees and
providing insight to leadership in higher education. In order to promote a
positive work environment, decrease employee turnover, and guide institu-
tional decision-making, it is essential to have a better understanding of the
motivators and predictors of job satisfaction for non-academic college and
university employees.
1. The Literature and Theoretical Framework
For almost a century, researchers and scholars have been curious about the
motivation and job satisfaction of employees (Herzberg, Mausner, & Snyder-
man, 1959; Locke, 1976; Maslow, 1943, 1954; McClelland, 1965; Moxley,
* The paper is an abridged version of a doctoral dissertation.
** Northwest Iowa Community College, US.
*** University of South Dakota, US.
Excellence and Innovation in Teaching and Learning (ISSNe 2499-507X), 2018, 2
Copyright © FrancoAngeli
Copy for personal use only. No part of this publication may be shared
or made available to the public on a private or public network,
neither for free nor for a fee.

39
1977; Wood, 1976). Employers understand how important it is to have work-
ers who are dedicated to their role, effective in their labor, and productive
with their time. In addition, supervisors and organizations have a moral re-
sponsibility to care about the welfare and health of their employees. Employ-
ees who are satisfied with their jobs are better performers, go beyond the as-
signed responsibilities and expectations of their role, and have better overall
well-being. In contrast, employees who are dissatisfied with their jobs are
more likely to experience burnout, look for alternative employment, experi-
ence increased absenteeism, and other withdrawal behaviors (Spector, 1997).
The theoretical framework for this study is rooted in Herzberg et al. (1959)
two-factor theory of motivation also known as the motivation-hygiene theory
or duality theory. Herzberg’s (1959) theory states that there are two sets of
factors that affect employees’ job satisfaction: a) motivators and b) hygiene
factors. Motivators are the intrinsic work conditions and feelings that lead to
job satisfaction. Motivator factors include achievement, recognition, growth,
and responsibility. Hygiene factors are external or extrinsic work conditions
that primarily lead to job dissatisfaction or prevent job dissatisfaction. Hy-
giene factors include supervision, leadership, benefits, compensation, and re-
lationships with co-workers.
Herzberg’s research was influenced and supported by the research of
Maslow (1943), Mayo (1946), and McGregor (1960). Maslow (1943) changed
the view of employee motivation by shifting from a rewards/consequences-
centric approach to the establishment of a needs hierarchy with individuals
seeking to progressively meet higher level needs. Mayo (1946) also discarded
the old system of motivating individuals with rewards and the avoidance of
punishment, and concluded that individuals place great value on their auton-
omy, social connections with co-workers, and relationship with supervisor.
McGregor (1960) concurred, finding productivity is significantly increased
under the supervision of a manager who attends to individualized rewards, re-
lationship building, autonomy, and offers increased responsibility. The work
of these scholars synchronizes with the central theory to this study, Herzberg’s
(1959) Hygiene-Motivation Theory.
Previous studies that examined higher education employees’ job satisfac-
tion utilized Herzberg’s (1959) motivation-hygiene theory. Research shows
that the presence of hygiene factors contributes to job dissatisfaction and it is
a significant predictor of employee intent to leave (Jo, 2008; Kortegast &
Hamrick, 2009). Factors such as negative relationships with supervisors, dis-
satisfaction with salary and compensation are significant contributors to em-
ployees’ intent to leave and ultimate departure. However, researchers also find
that employees are motivated to leave because of motivator or intrinsic factors
as well (Jo, 2008; Kortegast & Hamrick, 2009). Lack of advancement oppor-
Copyright © FrancoAngeli
Copy for personal use only. No part of this publication may be shared
or made available to the public on a private or public network,
neither for free nor for a fee.

40
tunities, career development, and professional growth are also significant pre-
dictors of employee departure at higher education institutions.
Despite a rich history of research in employee motivation and job satisfac-
tion, research focused on higher education employees is limited. Faculty job
satisfaction has been the main emphasis of research in this area, along with a
small amount of research on administrator job satisfaction. Smerek and Peter-
son (2006) conducted one of the few studies on non-academic college em-
ployees’ job satisfaction after identifying a need for research regarding the
motivation and job satisfaction experienced by non-academic employees at
colleges and universities. Their study sought a better understanding of how
personal characteristics such as work unit or department, ethnicity, and union
status interact with Herzberg’s hygiene-motivation theory to predict overall
job satisfaction. The results of their study showed that job satisfaction signifi-
cantly varied by the department of employment, older employees were more
satisfied than younger employees, unionized employees were less satisfied
than non-union employees, and that Herzberg’s motivator “the work itself”
was noted as a significant predictor of job satisfaction.
Results from these studies offer educational leaders insight into limiting
job dissatisfaction by managing hygiene factors within the work environment
that significantly impact employees and increasing job satisfaction by ad-
dressing and implementing motivators within the work environment. This
study identified a lack of understanding non-academic employee job satisfac-
tion as the central problem. With a large number of nonteaching staff at insti-
tutions of higher education and little research conducted on this population’s
factors of job satisfaction, the current study offers a community college lead-
ership, especially in Iowa, insight into the job satisfaction and dissatisfaction
of non-academic employees as well as guidance for developing institutional
policy and culture.
2. Method
2.1. Data Collection
In this study, four independent variables were identified including personal
characteristics, job characteristics, hygiene factors, and motivator factors. Per-
sonal characteristics included gender, age, ethnicity/minority status, length of
service at current institution, and length of service in the Iowa community col-
lege system. Job characteristics included college of employment, college de-
partment, and full or part-time employment status. Hygiene factors focused on
leadership, supervision, compensation, benefits, and relationships with co-
Copyright © FrancoAngeli
Copy for personal use only. No part of this publication may be shared
or made available to the public on a private or public network,
neither for free nor for a fee.

41
workers. Motivator factors included achievement, recognition, growth, work
itself, and connection to organization. Overall job satisfaction was the de-
pendent variable for this study.
The primary instrument for data collection in this study was an electronic
survey instrument supported by Qualtrics Survey Software. Qualtrics Survey
Software was used to distribute, collect, and aggregate the data collected. The
survey used in this study is a combination of instruments used in previous re-
search of job satisfaction and dissatisfaction of higher education employees.
Gullickson (2011) adopted two instruments in his study of job satisfaction of
Iowa community college online faculty. The instruments were first used by
Moxley (1977) in her study of job satisfaction of higher education faculty, and
later by Olanrewaju (2001) in his study of job satisfaction of Virginia com-
munity college business faculty. In Gullickson’s (2011) use of the instruments,
he modified them slightly to better represent Herzberg’s work and reflect the
characteristics of online instruction as his study focused on the job satisfaction
of online college instructors.
Herzberg’s original study was an oral interview with participants, but the
current study relied on the written adoptions by Leon (1973), and Schwartz,
Jenusaitis, & Stark (1963), Moxley (1977), Olanrewaju (2001), and most re-
cently Gullickson (2011). The current study’s instrumentation consisted of
two sections. The first section of the instrument asked participants to rate hy-
giene and motivator factors based on the work of Herzberg, Mausner, &
Snyderman (1959). The second section of the instrument most closely aligns
with Herzberg et al.’s (1959) study. It allowed participants to write open-
ended responses whereas Herzberg et al. (1959) conducted oral interviews.
Like previous research studies, as participants began the survey they were
asked to respond based on their current role.
The first section of the survey instrument included a 28-question rating
scale including the motivator and hygiene factors from Herzberg et al. (1959).
Gullickson’s study utilized a 37-question rating scale, but his study focused on
community college faculty members. Because the survey instrument came
from studies focused on faculty job satisfaction and the current study’s popu-
lation and sample were non-academic employees, the instrumentation was
slightly modified removing questions specific to faculty roles and tasks.
The participants rated each factor with a 7-point Likert scale using very dis-
satisfied, dissatisfied, somewhat dissatisfied, neither satisfied nor dissatisfied,
somewhat satisfied, satisfied, or very satisfied. These questions referred to intrin-
sic or motivator factors including achievement, recognition, work itself, respon-
sibility, advancement, and possibility of growth, as well as extrinsic or hygiene
factors including technical supervision, interpersonal relationships in the work-
place, working conditions, policies in the workplace, job security, and salary.
Copyright © FrancoAngeli
Copy for personal use only. No part of this publication may be shared
or made available to the public on a private or public network,
neither for free nor for a fee.

42
The second section included two questions. The first question asked partic-
ipants to “think of a time when they felt especially good about their job”, to
describe what aspect of the job comes to mind. The second question asked
participants to “think of a time that they felt especially bad about their job”, to
describe what aspect of the job comes to mind. These two questions were de-
signed to establish if the motivation-hygiene theory of job satisfaction is ap-
plicable to the participants.
In addition to the 28 factors and two open-ended questions, participants were
asked to rate their overall job satisfaction as well as provide selected demo-
graphic information including personal and job characteristics. Gullickson
(2011) utilized the open-ended written responses as well as his 37-question rat-
ing scale, overall job satisfaction rating, and demographic questions. These sur-
vey questions were previously validated by Leon (1973), and Schwartz, Jenu-
saitis, and Stark (1973), Moxley (1977), and Olanrewaju (2001). In their study
of non-academic employees at a university, Smerek and Peterson (2006) also
utilized a written survey approach to motivator and hygiene factors. In addition,
they asked participants to identify personal and job characteristics.
Although Herzberg et al. (1959) utilized a qualitative interview approach,
this study utilized a quantitative, written, survey-based approach to assessing
employee job satisfaction. has been criticized by researchers for his research’s
inability to transcend methodologies (Vroom, 1964). However, the current
study’s approach was employed in order to reach and include non-academic
employees throughout the state of Iowa. It also encouraged openness and sin-
cerity that might not have been provided in interviews where participants
could be personally identified by the researcher.
The electronic survey instrument was e-mailed to Iowa community college
non-academic employees, and permission to send the instrument to employees
was obtained from by the presidents of the Iowa community colleges. Follow-
ing approval by the respective presidents, e-mail addresses of Iowa communi-
ty college employees were generated by the human resources directors and
technology directors of the colleges. A cover letter e-mail was sent with the
survey instrument inviting participation, outlining instructions for accessing
the survey, providing contact information for the primary researcher and USD
supervising faculty member. It also included statements ensuring confidential-
ity, privacy, and informed consent. A high response rate was promoted by
planned reminder emails and a deadline for completion. The one-month time-
line for completion included weekly reminder emails for those who had not
yet completed.
Copyright © FrancoAngeli
Copy for personal use only. No part of this publication may be shared
or made available to the public on a private or public network,
neither for free nor for a fee.

43
2.2. Analysis
The process of data analysis in this study was guided by multiple regres-
sion. Multiple regression supported the study’s intentions to understand the
relationship between non-academic community college employee job satisfac-
tion and hygiene factors, motivator factors, job characteristics, and personal
characteristics.
Descriptive statistics were generated containing job characteristics includ-
ing (a) college of employment, (b) college department of employment, and (c)
full or part-time employment status. Average scores for overall job satisfac-
tion were also calculated. The descriptive statistics generated also included
personal characteristics comprising of: a) gender; b) ethnicity/minority status;
c) age; d) length of service at current institution, and f) length of service in
Iowa community college system.
A multiple regression analysis was conducted to examine relationships be-
tween the predictor or independent variables and criterion or dependent varia-
ble. These variables included: a) each job characteristic and overall job satis-
faction; b) motivation factors and overall job satisfaction; c) each personal
characteristic and overall job satisfaction, and d) hygiene factors and overall
job satisfaction.
3. Findings
Non-academic employees at 10 of the 15 Iowa community colleges formed
the population of the study. A total of 2,929 non-academic employees re-
ceived the survey and email communications. A total of 952 surveys were
completed for a response rate of 32.5 percent. Responses came from all of the
participating institutions, and employees from sixteen different departments
participated. The majority of the responses came from female employees, with
over 70 percent of the respondents identifying as female (n = 677). The re-
spondents came from every age group except the 75-84 age range, and nearly
75 percent of the participants were in the age range of 35-65 years old. Nearly
one-third of the participants have worked at their current institution for 0-3
year (n = 298), and the responses for overall time spent working in the Iowa
community college system imply that many of the participants have worked at
the same institution or may be just beginning their careers in the Iowa com-
munity college system. In line with the population demographics of the state
of Iowa, 91.3 percent of the participants in this study identified their ethnicity
as white (n = 869).
Copyright © FrancoAngeli
Copy for personal use only. No part of this publication may be shared
or made available to the public on a private or public network,
neither for free nor for a fee.

44
Table 1 provides the results of the multiple regression analysis for the pre-
dictor hygiene factors and the criterion overall job satisfaction. The multiple
regression analysis for the predictor hygiene factors and the criterion overall
job satisfaction showed that over 62% of the variability in overall job satisfac-
tion is explained by hygiene factors, and that interpersonal skills of supervi-
sor, work conditions, salary, personal life as affected by work, job security,
and interpersonal relations with colleagues have unique effects over overall
job satisfaction.
Tab. 1 – Multiple regression analysis for hygiene factors and overall job satisfaction
95.0% CI for B
I
ndependent variables B SEb Beta t P LL UL
Technical ability of supervisor .013 .031 .015 .419 .675 -.047 .073
Interpersonal skills of supervisor .094 .027 .122 3.452 .001 .041 .148
Institutional policies .047 .027 .050 1.705 .089 -.007 .100
Work Conditions .136 .031 .129 4.417 .000 .075 .196
Salary .101 .020 .126 4.981 .000 .061 .141
Personal life as affected by work .074 .024 .086 3.119 .002 .028 .121
Job security .062 .024 .065 2.622 .009 .016 .108
Interpersonal relations
with colleagues .210 .028 .202 7.554 .000 .156 .265
Interpersonal relations
with students .011 .026 .011 .433 .665 -.040 .063
Interpersonal relations
with employees who report to you -.001 .025 -.002 -.059 .953 -.050 .047
Notes: R2 = .628, F(15,834) = 93.803, p <.05, N = 2,292, n = 952
Table 2 provides the results of the multiple regression analysis for the pre-
dictor motivator factors and the criterion overall job satisfaction. The multiple
regression analysis for the predictor motivator factors and the criterion overall
job satisfaction showed that over 65 percent of the variability in overall job
satisfaction is explained by motivator factors. When other factors are con-
trolled for, Sense of achievement, Amount of responsibility, Kind of work,
Amount of recognition, Growth and development, and Sense of accomplish-
ment have significant explanatory power on overall job satisfaction.
Copyright © FrancoAngeli
Copy for personal use only. No part of this publication may be shared
or made available to the public on a private or public network,
neither for free nor for a fee.

45
Tab. 2 – Multiple regression analysis for motivator factors and overall job satisfaction
95.0% CI for B
I
ndependent variables B SEb Beta t p LL UL
Sense of achievement .146 .040 .126 3.639 .000 .067 .225
Amount of responsibility .115 .029 .117 3.972 .000 .058 .172
Kind of work .137 .034 .118 4.005 .000 .070 .204
Amount of recognition .139 .027 .173 5.185 .000 .086 .191
Opportunity for achievement .046 .032 .058 1.462 .144 -.016 .108
Growth and development .129 .030 .176 4.353 .000 .071 .187
Status and prestige .021 .030 .026 .694 .488 -.038 .081
Help others -.003 .038 -.002 -.089 .929 -.079 .072
Sense of accomplishment .134 .042 .121 3.207 .001 .052 .216
Intellectual challenge .028 .032 .031 .894 .371 -.034 .090
Students growth and achievement -.001 .028 -.001 -.052 .958 -.056 .053
Opportunity to be creative .048 .029 .051 1.675 .094 -.008 .105
Opportunity for advancement .009 .028 .012 .306 .760 -.047 .064
Notes: R2 = .662, F(13,868) = 130.857, p < .05, N = 2,292, n = 952
The multiple regression analysis for the predictor job characteristics and
the criterion overall job satisfaction found that only 2 percent of the variability
in overall job satisfaction is explained by job characteristics. Only Union Sta-
tus had a unique effect on overall job satisfaction. The multiple regression
analysis for the predictor personal characteristics and the criterion overall job
satisfaction found that only 3 percent of the variability in overall job satisfac-
tion is explained by personal characteristics. Only Age had a unique effect on
overall job satisfaction.
In Herzberg’s original research, he used a critical incident approach to un-
derstand the factors that contribute to job satisfaction. The final component of
this study’s survey included two open-ended questions that Gullickson’s (2011)
study used to replicate Herzberg’s critical incident approach. These responses
were coded by theme and organized by hygiene and motivator factors.
The first open-ended question read, “Think of a time when you felt espe-
cially good about your job, what aspects of the job come to mind”. Table 3
provides the leading themes drawn from this question’s open-ended responses.
Motivator factors were reported more often with good work experiences. The
motivator factor Kind of work was a statistically significant predictor of over-
all job satisfaction, and two of the top three themes for Good aspects of the
job were related to the work being done by non-academic employees, specifi-
cally Working with students and the Work itself.
Copyright © FrancoAngeli
Copy for personal use only. No part of this publication may be shared
or made available to the public on a private or public network,
neither for free nor for a fee.

46
Tab. 3 – Leading themes drawn from open-ended responses to good aspects of job
Theme Frequency Factor Excerpts
Working with
students
351 Motivator Helping students succeed always feels good, and I am able to
do that on a regular basis.
When you see students reach their goals and know that yo
u
were a part of that success.
The ability to make a difference in a student’s life.
Helping others 212 Motivator Sense of accomplishment when helping others.
Making a positive difference in the lives of others.
Helping to accomplish a goal, helping students to accomplish
a goal, being a contributor to our team.
Work itself 124 Motivator I take pride in my work on this beautiful campus, and I enjoy
the faculty and students.
Creating new and successful programming, making strides in
approving our budget.
When I’m busy and productive.
Goal achieve-
ment
122 Motivator There was a good deal of responsibility placed on my shoul-
ders and the resulting sense of achievement.
Project completion, good results from projects.
Ability to help achieve institutional strategic goals.
Interpersonal
Relations
with Co-workers/
Colleagues
119 Hygiene Collaborating with colleagues, mentoring faculty and col-
leagues, improving the student experience.
My boss and coworkers are amazing.
I feel good about my job because of the flexibility that it of-
fers along with the ability to have a good relationship with
the people I work with. There is a general feeling of
b
eing
needed and appreciated.
Creativity 96 Motivator Creativity, thinking outside the box. Openness to change/ideas.
Creative, group work, project-based.
I feel best about my job when I have the ability to enact a
creative or new idea, take part in the larger scope of the col-
lege direction, and have additional “real” responsibility tha
t
can make a tangible difference.
Autonomy 56 Motivator I am given the freedom and flexibility to run my departmen
t
in a way that supports the mission of the college.
Feeling empowered to make decisions.
Ability to work independently and to make my own deci-
sions.
Recognition
and rewards
56 Motivator Being recognized by co-workers for the work I have done
and them expressing their gratitude to have someone in the
role who strives for improvement and advancements.
My rewards are that the faculty, staff and students tell me
what a good job I do every day.
I felt especially good about my job when I received a ksta
r
award. I was simply doing what I normally do, and someone
thought it was above and beyond. This made me feel goo
d
about the work I do every day. I put that kind of excellence in
every day and it was really nice to have someone notice.
Notes: 809 participants completed this question of the 952 total survey participants.
Copyright © FrancoAngeli
Copy for personal use only. No part of this publication may be shared
or made available to the public on a private or public network,
neither for free nor for a fee.

47
Tab. 4 – Leading themes drawn from open-ended responses to bad aspects of job
Theme Frequency
F
acto
r
Excerpts
Workload
Work Conditions
198 Hygiene Overwhelmed at amount of work and responsibilities during peak
times in the semester.
Not given enough time and given too many responsibilities to do my
work well.
Work load. Failure by the college to recognize we need more help.
Supervisor/admin 176 Hygiene Lack of support by my supervisor.
Manager that was either inexperienced or past their prime. Manager
who was not an effective communicator and who would explode then
try to repair what they had done. Lack of attention to resources to al-
low others to effectively do their job.
Not having enough direction from supervisor.
Interpersonal
relations
with co-workers/
colleagues
121 Hygiene Talked down to/condescended to by colleagues.
When people don’t want to work together.
In the middle between coworkers not getting along.
Harassment from co-workers.
Lack of resources 109 Hygiene We continue to strive to do more with less resources and support. The
workload can be overwhelming. Time is simply not available for stra-
tegic planning and brainstorming creative new ideas and processes.
So often I feel my work is “just in time”. I’m a few days ahead of ac-
ademic year planning timeline, sometimes just a few hours. You natu-
rally have to prioritize your projects and not give as much focus and
attention to some projects, simply because there isn’t enough time.
The limited funding and the expectations others impose on the de-
partment.
Budget and state funding cuts.
Student issues 86 Motivato
r
When you can’t help a struggling student.
Having to let a student down is never something you want to do but i
t
comes with the job at times.
When no matter how much time and effort is given to a student, they
still do not succeed in a course of study.
Lack of appreciation 79 Motivato
r
Not being appreciated for the work being put. Although it is good to
have excellent expectations and demands, it would be good to be
shown appreciation every once in a while instead of being treated like
a machine.
Realization that there is no achievement based reward system. No
amount of hard work matters.
Lack of recognition from my supervisor and the president for the
amount of effort I put into my job and the accomplishments I have
made. Lack of direction for the college makes it difficult to align my
day to day work with any long-term goals.
Communication 69 Hygiene Lack of communication from leadership.
Uninformed, poor communicating, no follow up to produce a differ-
ent outcome.
When a lack of communication leaves me wondering what will hap-
pen with the future of my job, when decisions are made about my po-
sition and I’m not asked for input.
Policies 65 Hygiene When we, as a community college, were unable to meet the needs o
f
the business due to “policy”.
Frustration or anger about policies and procedures which are not in
the student’s best interest.
Some of the policies, procedures, and decisions made by the admin-
istration and the politics.
Notes: 798 participants completed this question of the 952 total survey participants.
Copyright © FrancoAngeli
Copy for personal use only. No part of this publication may be shared
or made available to the public on a private or public network,
neither for free nor for a fee.

48
The second open-ended question read “Think of a time when you felt es-
pecially bad about your job, what aspects of the job come to mind”. Table 4
provides the leading themes from the participants’ responses to this question.
Hygiene factors were reported more often with bad work experiences. The
leading themes from these Bad aspect open-ended responses correlate to those
hygiene factors that significantly predicted overall job satisfaction including
their feelings about their supervisor, work conditions, and interpersonal rela-
tions with co-workers. In fact, Interpersonal Relations with colleagues ap-
peared as a significant theme on both open-ended questions as well as being a
statistically significant predictor over overall job satisfaction in the multiple
regression analysis.
4. Discussion, recommendations and future research
One of the most significant predictors of overall job satisfaction was Kind of
Work, also known as the Work Itself. Herzberg identified the Work Itself as the
task of performing one’s job, which is related to the feelings about the job. In
both the multiple regression and the open-ended question themes, employees
were significantly focused on the content of their work. Overwhelmingly, em-
ployees talked about the joys of working with students or the enjoyment of the
job they do as good, pleasing aspects of their job. This finding supports previous
research that found a strong link between job satisfaction and the work itself.
The implication here for leaders is to recognize that when employees are
passionate about the work itself, they will experience greater overall job satis-
faction. A goodness of fit is key here, but it does pose a challenge to leaders
because what is meaningful to one employee may not be remotely interesting
to another.
Responsibility was another motivation factor that was statistically signifi-
cant in this study and is supported by Herzberg’s work. His work showed that
employees who are given more responsibility over their work and more au-
tonomy experience higher job satisfaction. This provides leaders with the op-
portunity to delegate responsibilities to a workforce who is yearning for more
responsibility, while also freeing up precious time for leadership to focus on
long-term planning, strategic initiatives, and other key tasks.
However, delegating additional responsibilities must be cohesive with the
other factors that predict job satisfaction. They must be conducive to employ-
ees’ passion and contribute to their enjoyment of the work itself, and they also
cannot feel like additional workload is being imposed on them. Factors like
Work conditions, Workload, and Personal life as affected by work were all
statistically significant predictors of overall job satisfaction as well as key
Copyright © FrancoAngeli
Copy for personal use only. No part of this publication may be shared
or made available to the public on a private or public network,
neither for free nor for a fee.

49
themes from the open-ended questions. Many employees cited feeling over-
whelmed, not having enough time, and long hours away from their families
due to the heavy workload. Work-life balance continues to be a prominent
theme in management and human resources research, and leadership must try
to find the delicate balance between offering additional responsibility and
overstretching their valuable assets, their employees.
Participants in this study placed significant value on sense of achievement,
accomplishment, and growth. Supervisors have the opportunity to influence
the overall job satisfaction of their employees through sincere appreciation or
and recognition for goal accomplishment and employee achievement. This
means finding ways of recognizing employees that are meaningful to each in-
dividual as well as helping them upfront to set goals or provide opportunities
for accomplishment and/or advancement.
Salary, job security, and a general lack of resources were influential factors
and themes in the results of this study. Herzberg viewed factors such as these
as hygiene factors that did not contribute to overall job satisfaction but pre-
vented job dissatisfaction. These factors pose an interesting challenge to lead-
ers in that there may be little control over them especially in the case of insti-
tutions whose budgets depend on funding by government. The key takeaway
for leadership here may be to open up dialogue about what decreasing state
general aid means to their institution and offer assurances where they can be
made and transparency across the board.
Interpersonal relations with colleagues or co-workers was a significant in-
fluence on overall job satisfaction and a recurring theme in the open-ended
question responses. While Herzberg asserted that these interpersonal relation-
ships with co-workers were an extrinsic or hygiene factor that prevented job
dissatisfaction, the responses in this study assert that co-worker relationships
can be both satisfying and dissatisfying. Respondents shared positive experi-
ences like working with friendly and happy people and a shared sense of pur-
pose with co-workers – as well as negative experiences like disengaged co-
workers, and even accounts of workplace conflicts that border on bullying or
harassment. The significance of this factor showcases the importance of bring-
ing together and cultivating a caring, trusting, welcoming workplace. And it
also highlights the importance of modeling a healthy work environment with
healthy work relationships for college leadership.
The factor supervisor was statistically significant and a recurring theme in
the open-ended questions and tied all of the other factors together. This study
sought to offer supervisors and leadership findings that would provide insight
into making their workplaces more satisfying for their employees. The find-
ings of this study highlight the amount of influence leadership has on work-
place culture and overall employee job satisfaction.
Copyright © FrancoAngeli
Copy for personal use only. No part of this publication may be shared
or made available to the public on a private or public network,
neither for free nor for a fee.

50
Herzberg (1959) viewed this factor as an extrinsic or hygiene factor that
did not contribute to job satisfaction but that prevented job dissatisfaction.
However, the role and scope of supervision and leadership have changed over
the years, and it is interesting to note that participants referred to supervision
as good aspects as well as bad aspects of their current position. No longer is a
supervisor simply an individual that enforces policy and manages productivi-
ty. Supervisors in the current work climate are expected to be motivators, in-
spirational, and visionary. An employees’ response and overall job satisfaction
is reflected in how a manager acts. This again calls for a closer examination of
how Herzberg’s duality theory may need to the changed to reflect the current
workforce climate. Almost 60 years ago, a supervisor was not expected to
coach employees, deal with an increasingly diverse set of employees, or man-
age both productivity and professional development. This study’s findings
point out that a supervisor’s effectiveness could significantly affect a number
of factors that influence their employees’ overall job satisfaction.
Recommendations for future study include expanding this study to include
all 15 Iowa community colleges to determine whether the findings of the cur-
rent study are generalizable to non-academic employees at all community col-
leges in the state and replicating this study in other states or areas of the Unit-
ed States. It could indicate differences in community college climates in other
areas and how responses and results vary with those differences. For example,
the current condition of state funding decisions in Iowa clearly affected how
employees viewed salary, job security, and an overall lack of resources. How
might these results change in other contexts with different concerns, issues, or
current events?
Future research could also further explore personal and job characteristics
and their influence on overall job satisfaction scores, looking at these charac-
teristics and how they influence non-academic employees’ job satisfaction at
other institutions and countries. There may also be an opportunity to explore
generational differences in job satisfaction, providing valuable information to
leaders working with diverse age groups.
Many interesting responses and themes emerged from the open-ended re-
sponses. Future research could utilize qualitative methodology and tease out
themes from the open-ended responses.
Conclusion
Herzberg (1959) theorized there are two sets of factors that affect employ-
ees’ job satisfaction: a) motivators and b) hygiene factors. The findings of this
study show that non-academic community college employees’ overall job sat-
Copyright © FrancoAngeli
Copy for personal use only. No part of this publication may be shared
or made available to the public on a private or public network,
neither for free nor for a fee.

51
isfaction is influenced by a number of motivator factors including achieve-
ment, responsibility, the work itself, recognition, growth and development,
and accomplishment. The findings also show that non-academic community
college employees’ overall job satisfaction is influenced by a number of hy-
giene factors including their supervisor, work conditions, salary, and personal
life as affected by work, job security, and relationships with co-workers.
This study underlines the importance of community college leaders’ power
to influence their employees’ overall job satisfaction. Non-academic staff such
as advisors, administrative assistants, and maintenance employees that experi-
ence high overall job satisfaction will be better representatives of their institu-
tion and better-equipped to serve students, constituents, and their communi-
ties. Although this study was conducted within the context of Iowa Communi-
ty Colleges in the United States, the findings have implications for leadership
and management in educational and training contexts in many countries.
References
Gullickson, L. (2011). Herzberg’s Theory of Motivation as Applied to Community
College Full-time and Adjunct Online Faculty, Unpublished Doctoral Dissertation,
University of South Dakota.
Herzberg, F., Mausner, B., & Snyderman, B. B. (1959). The Motivation to work. New
York: John Wiley & Sons, 2nd ed.
Jo, V. H. (2008). Voluntary Turnover and Women Administrators in Higher Educa-
tion. Higher Education, 56, 565-582.
Kortegast, C. A., & Hamrick, F. A. (2009). Moving on: Voluntary Staff Departures at
Small Colleges and Universities. National Association of Student Personnel Ad-
ministrators (NASPA) Journal, 46 (2), 183-207.
Leon, J. S. (1973). An Investigation of the Applicability of the Two-factor Theory of
Job Satisfaction among College and University Professors, Unpublished Doctoral
Dissertation, University of Arkansas.
Locke, E. A. (1976). The Nature and Causes of Job Satisfaction. In Dunnette, M. D.
(Ed.), Handbook of Industrial and Organizational Psychology (pp. 1297-1349).
Chicago: Rand McNally.
Maslow, A. H. (1943). A Theory of Human Motivation. Pyschological Review, 50,
390-396.
Maslow, A. H. (1954). Motivation and Personality. New York: Harper.
Mayo, E. (1946). The Human Problems of an Industrial Civilization. Boston (MA):
Harvard University.
McClelland, D. C. (1965). Achievement Motivation can be developed. Harvard Busi-
ness Review, 43 (6), 6-24.
McGregor, D. M. (1960). The Human Side of Enterprise. New York: McGraw-Hill.
Copyright © FrancoAngeli
Copy for personal use only. No part of this publication may be shared
or made available to the public on a private or public network,
neither for free nor for a fee.

52
Moxley, L. S. (1977). Job Satisfaction of Faculty Teaching Higher Education: An Ex-
amination of Herzberg’s Dual-Factor Theory and Porter’s Need Satisfaction Re-
search, Unpublished doctoral dissertation, University of Michigan.
Olanrewaju, L. A. (2001). Job Satisfaction of the Business Faculty in the Virginia
Community College System: An Examination of Herzberg’s Motivation-hygiene
Theory, Unpublished doctoral dissertation, George Mason University.
Schwartz, M. M., Jenusaitis, E., & Stark, H. (1963). Motivational Factors among Su-
pervisors in the Utility Industry. Personnel Psychology, 16, 45-53.
Smerek, R. E., & Peterson, M. (2006). Examining Herzberg’s Theory: Improving Job
Satisfaction among Non-academic Employees at a University. Research in Higher
Education, 48 (2), 229-250.
Spector, P. E. (1997). Job Satisfaction: Application, Assessment, Causes, and Conse-
quences. Thousand Oaks (CA): Sage.
Vroom, V. H. (1964). Work and Motivation. Oxford (UK): Wiley.
Wood, O. R. (1976). Measuring Job Satisfaction of the Community College Staff.
Community College Review, 3 (3), 56-64.
Copyright © FrancoAngeli
Copy for personal use only. No part of this publication may be shared
or made available to the public on a private or public network,
neither for free nor for a fee.