Directory UMM :Data Elmu:jurnal:I:International Journal of Educational Management:Vol12.Issue5.1998:
Principals and job satisfaction
M ichael W. Graham
Pro fe sso r and Chair, De partme nt o f Educ atio nal Le ade rship, Co lle ge o f
Educ atio n and Human Se rvic e s, No rthwe st Misso uri State Unive rsity, Maryville ,
Misso uri
Philip E. M essner
Asso c iate Pro fe sso r and Co o rdinato r o f the Co o pe rative Do c to ral Pro gram,
De partme nt o f Educ atio nal Le ade rship, Co lle ge o f Educ atio n and Human
Se rvic e s, No rthwe st Misso uri State Unive rsity, Maryville , Misso uri
Building principals, as well as
most educators, are typically
satisfi ed with their overall
jobs. However, some specifi c
aspects of work are not rated
as favorably as others. This
study investigated the relationship of factors, such as
gender, size of enrollment,
and years of experience, to
principalship job satisfaction.
A survey sample of American
midwestern elementary,
middle, and senior high
school principals responded
to the Principals Job Satisfaction Survey (PJSS). The PJSS
was based on Herzberg’s
Motivation-Hygiene Theory.
Eight components of job
satisfaction were compared
with four principalship
descriptive variables. PJSS
was mailed to 500 principals
and 226 survey forms were
returned and useable, which
resulted in a 45.2 percent
return rate. Chi-square analyses revealed the relationships
and differences between the
independent and dependent
variables. It was found that
American midwestern principals were generally satisfi ed
with their current job, colleagues/co-workers and level
of responsibility. However,
they were less satisfi ed with
their pay, opportunities for
advancement, and fringe
benefi ts.
Inte rnatio nal Jo urnal o f
Educ atio nal Manage me nt
1 2 / 5 [ 1998] 1 9 6 –2 0 2
© MCB Unive rsity Pre ss
[ ISSN 0951-354X]
[ 196 ]
Th e ch a llen ges of th e pr in cipa lsh ip a r e exten sively docu m en ted a n d w idely r epor ted.
Ma ck ler (1996) r epor ts th a t r espect, r ecogn ition , a n d r ew a r ds of th e job a r e cr itica l in
effective wor k r ela tion sh ips. It h a s a lso been
r epor ted (Law ler, 1986) th a t m otiva tion a n d
per for m a n ce a r e str on gly a ssocia ted w ith
delayed sa tisfa ction . However, r ole a m bigu ity
r esu lts in job dissa tisfa ction a n d lower ed selfesteem (Ka iser, 1992). In fa ct, F r en ch a n d
Ca pla n (1973) fou n d th a t in dividu a ls wh o
exper ien ce con fl icts in r ole r espon sibility a r e
m or e lik ely to h ave ca r diova scu la r h ea r t
disea se. Boon e (1978) fou n d th a t th e job ch a r a cter istics m ost closely a ssocia ted w ith job
sa tisfa ction wer e feedba ck , va r iety, a u ton om y, pa r ticipa tion a n d r ole con fl ict. McKee
(1991) r epor ts th a t th e lea der sh ip style of
su per visor s m a de a differ en ce in fa cu lty job
sa tisfa ction . Su per visor s w ith h igh r ela tion sh ip beh avior str on gly a ffect em ployee job
sa tisfa ction in th e a r ea s of self-esteem , developm en t oppor tu n ities, a ccom plish m en t, job
expecta tion s, r espect, a n d fa ir tr ea tm en t,
a m ou n t of su per vision , in for m ed in job, a n d
pa r ticipa tion .
Motivation as a factor
Motiva tion h a s been iden tifi ed a s a n im por ta n t com pon en t of job sa tisfa ction . Her zber g’s
Motiva tion -Hygien e Th eor y is cla ssified a s
on e of th e con ten t th eor ies of m otiva tion .
Oth er s in th is ca te gor y in clu de Ma slow ’s
Hier a r ch y of N eeds a n d Alder fer ’s E RG
th eor y of existen ce, r ela tedn ess, a n d gr ow th .
Th er e a r e gen er a lly th r ee m a jor cr iticism s
dir ected to th ese th eor ies:
1 th er e is sca n t em pir ica l da ta to su ppor t
th eir con clu sion s;
2 th ey a ssu m e em ployees a r e ba sica lly a lik e;
and
3 th ey a r e n ot r ea lly th eor ies of m otiva tion
a t a ll, bu t r a th er th eor ies of sa tisfa ction
(Ha n som , 1996, p. 205).
Her zber g’s two fa ctor th eor y h a s been
r eviewed by Hou se a n d Wigdor (1967), wh o
h ave iden tifi ed fou r cr iticism s of th e m odel.
F ir st, it is m eth odologica lly bou n d in iden tifyin g cr itica l in ciden ts of sa tisfa ction a n d
dissa tisfa ction . Secon d, r a ter s a r e r equ ir ed to
eva lu a te beh avior s of r espon den ts, wh ich
m ay r esu lt in r a ter con ta m in a tion . Th ir d, th e
r esea r ch la ck ed a m ea su r e of over a ll sa tisfa ction , a n d fin a lly, situ a tion a l va r ia bles wer e
n ot tr ea ted in defin in g th e r ela tion sh ip
between sa tisfa ction a n d pr odu ctivity. Oth er
a u th or s h ave a lso been cr itica l of Her zber g,
th ese in clu de N a dler a n d Law ler (1979), wh o
con ten d th a t Her zber g m a k es th e follow in g
er r on eou s a ssu m ption s a bou t h is Motiva tion Hygien e Th eor y:
• a ll em ployees a r e a lik e;
• a ll situ a tion s a r e a lik e; a n d
• th er e is on e best w ay.
Re ga r dless of th ese cr iticism s, con ten t th eor ists su ch a s Her zber g h ave m a de a sign ifi ca n t con tr ibu tion to th e discu ssion of job
sa tisfa ction .
Her zber g (1959, 1966) h a s con du cted stu dies
of job sa tisfa ction of wor k er s in a va r iety of
settin gs. His two-fa ctor a ppr oa ch , Motiva tion Hygien e Th eor y, con ten ds th a t th er e a r e elem en ts w ith in th e job a n d job en vir on m en t
wh ich lea d to sa tisfa ction or la ck of sa tisfa ction . It is h is belief th a t th e in tr in sic com pon en ts, or job con ten t, lea d to wor k er sa tisfa ction , a n d th er e a r e extr in sic com pon en ts, or
job en vir on m en t, wh ich detr a ct fr om sa tisfa ction . Th e m otiva tion fa ctor s a r e listed a s
sa tisfier s, so-ca lled beca u se th ey pr om pt u s to
h igh er levels of per for m a n ce. Th e h ygien e
fa ctor s, bor r ow in g fr om th e m edica l ter m
wh ich pr even t u s fr om optim u m
per for m a n ce, a r e ca lled dissa tisfier s.
Her zber g iden tifies th e follow in g five item s a s
sa tisfier s:
1 a ch ievem en t;
2 r ecogn ition ;
3 wor k itself;
4 r espon sibility; a n d
5 oppor tu n ity for a dva n cem en t.
He lists th e follow in g a s dissa tisfier s:
• com pa n y policy;
• su per vision ;
• sa la r y;
• in ter per son a l r ela tion sh ips; a n d
• wor k in g con dition s.
Wh ile m ost of Her zber g’s wor k w a s ca r r ied
ou t in th e in du str ia l settin g, sever a l stu dies
h ave been com pleted in edu ca tion . Th e
Mic hae l W. Graham and
Philip E. Me ssne r
Princ ipals and jo b satisfac tio n
Inte rnatio nal Jo urnal o f
Educ atio nal Manage me nt
1 2 / 5 [1 9 9 8 ] 1 9 6 –2 0 2
Motiva tion -Hygien e Th eor y w a s th e focu s of
th r ee stu dies of job sa tisfa ction of sch ool
pr in cipa ls. Th e pu r pose of ea ch stu dy w a s to
deter m in e if th e in tr in sic fa ctor s in deed
con tr ibu ted to job sa tisfa ction . All th r ee
r esea r ch pr ojects con fir m ed Her zber g’s
cla im s th a t a ch ievem en t, r ecogn ition ,
a dva n cem en t, n eed for a u ton om y, a n d selfa ctu a liza tion wer e th e m a jor fa ctor s in m otiva tin g pr in cipa ls to per for m a t th eir m a xim u m levels, th u s lea din g to h igh de gr ees of
job sa tisfa ction . Sign ifi ca n t job dissa tisfier s
wer e fou n d to be per son a l life, su per vision ,
r ela tion sh ips w ith su per ior s, r ela tion sh ips
w ith su bor din a tes, a n d r ela tion sh ips w ith
peer s. Th ese stu dies wer e con du cted by
Gr oss a n d N a pior (1967), An ton (1974) a n d
Sch m idt (1976).
Job satisfaction factors
Cen tr a l office su per visor s wer e a sk ed to list
two exper ien ces – on e th a t led to extr em ely
good feelin gs a bou t th e job a n d a n oth er th a t
led to extr em ely ba d feelin gs. Th ese wer e
cla ssified in to dissa tisfier s (“th e w in ter ”) a n d
sa tisfier s (“th e w a r m ”) by Cr ew s (1979). Th e
two m a in sou r ces of job dissa tisfa ction wer e
in ter per son a l r ela tion s a n d sch ool policy. Th e
top two sa tisfier s wer e a ch ievem en t a n d
r ecogn ition .
On e of th e few n a tion a l stu dies of job sa tisfa ction of sch ool su per in ten den ts w a s con du cted by Ch a n d (1982). Th e r esu lts r evea led
a str on g positive cor r ela tion between job
sa tisfa ction a n d feelin gs con cer n in g th e
su per in ten den t’s sta tu s in th e com m u n ity, a
sen se of a ch ievem en t in th e pr ofession , a n d
th e pr ospects of con tr a ct r en ew a l. Ch a n d a lso
fou n d th a t 83 per cen t of th e r espon den ts
r epor ted h igh over a ll sa tisfa ction , a n d 73
per cen t wou ld ch oose th e su per in ten den cy
a ga in if given a ch oice.
In a r ela ted stu dy of su per in ten den ts (Gr a h a m , 1985), 75 per cen t of th e su bjects wou ld
ch oose th e su per in ten den cy a ga in . Com pa r in g r ela tively n ew a dm in istr a tor s (th r ee
yea r s of exper ien ce or less) w ith veter a n
su per in ten den ts (15 yea r s or m or e), it w a s
discover ed th a t th e m or e exper ien ced sch ool
lea der s wer e sign ifica n tly m or e sa tisfied w ith
th eir co-wor k er s a n d pay. Th e in exper ien ced
su per in ten den ts wer e sign ifica n tly m or e
sa tisfied w ith oppor tu n ity for pr om otion .
Over a ll, th e r espon den ts r epor ted h igh levels
of sa tisfa ction in a ll a r ea s.
The gender factor
Wor ld w ide wom en ea r n on ly a bou t twoth ir ds a s m u ch a s m en (Wom en s In ter n a tion a l
N etw ork N ew s, 1991). However, wom en m a n a ger s a r e ga in in g gr ou n d. For exa m ple,
wom en m a n a gem en t a ccou n ta n ts a r e be gin n in g to cr a ck th e “gla ss ceilin g” (CPA J ou r n a l, 1996). In con tr a st, Sim pson (1995) r epor ts
th a t wom en h oldin g th e MBA de gr ee con tin u e to be less su ccessfu l th a n a r e m en in
r e ga r d to sa la r y a n d ca r eer a dva n cem en ts.
However, sign ifica n t ch a n ges h ave occu r r ed
in th e wor k pla ce in th e 1980s a n d 1990s. Ga in s
by wom en h ave pa r a lleled ch a n ge in wor k pla ce cu ltu r e wh er e th e in dividu a l's esteem
a n d n eeds a r e a tten ded to m or e closely (Gibbs
et a l., 1995). Wom en a ppr oa ch m a n a gem en t
differ en tly th a n do m en . For exa m ple, wom en
“br in g con cer n , n u r tu r in g a n d ca r in g to th e
wor k pla ce” (Wom en in B u sin ess, 1997).
Bu r k e a n d McKeen (1994) r epor t th e follow in g su ccess fa ctor s for wom en in th e ea r ly
sta ges of th eir m a n a gem en t ca r eer s:
• a ccess to edu ca tion a n d developm en t
tr a in in g;
• developm en t of m en tor s a n d spon sor s; a n d
• th e level of ch a llen ge a n d dem a n ds r ela ted
to h om e a n d fa m ily r espon sibilities.
Un less th ese fa ctor s a r e a tten ded, wom en
ten d to exper ien ce less job sa tisfa ction th a n
do m en (Win ga r d a n d P a titu , 1993). Bla ck m or e a n d Ken w ay (1993, p.98) sta te:
... edu ca tion a l a dm in istr a tion r em a in s, for
th e m ost pa r t, obstin a tely gen der -blin d ...
a n d th a t th e m a le-str ea m / m a in str ea m is
u n lik ely to m ove in a fem in ist dir ection ...
The study
Th e defin ition of job sa tisfa ction u sed in th is
stu dy w a s: “An a ffective r espon se by in dividu a ls r esu ltin g fr om a n a ppr a isa l of th eir wor k
r oles in th e job th a t th ey pr esen tly h old”
(Glick , 1992). An eigh t-item su r vey, th e Pr in cipa ls J ob S a tisfa ction S u r v ey (P J SS), w a s
developed to iden tify th e level of job sa tisfa ction of Am er ica n m idwester n pu blic sch ool
pr in cipa ls for th e follow in g fa ctor s:
collea gu es/ co-wor k er s; th e job you cu r r en tly
h old; level of r espon sibility; oppor tu n ity for
pr om otion / a dva n cem en t; pay; wor k in g con dition s; fr in ge ben efits; a n d you r su per visor.
Th e r espon din g pr in cipa ls in dica ted th eir
level of sa tisfa ction for ea ch of th e eigh t fa ctor s by m a r k in g on th e follow in g sca le: (A)
ver y sa tisfied, (B) sa tisfied, (C) n eu tr a l, (D)
dissa tisfied, a n d (E ) ver y dissa tisfied. For
ea se of a n a lysis th e “A” a n d “B” sca les wer e
colla psed in on e sca le, “sa tisfied”; a n d th e
“D” a n d “E ” sca les wer e colla psed in to on e
sca le, “u n sa tisfied”. Th is r esu lted in a th r ee
ca te gor y sca le for da ta a n a lysis a n d in ter pr eta tion , sa tisfied, n eu tr a l, a n d u n sa tisfied. Th e
P J SS w a s m a iled to Am er ica n m idwester n
[ 197 ]
Mic hae l W. Graham and
Philip E. Me ssne r
Princ ipals and jo b satisfac tio n
Inte rnatio nal Jo urnal o f
Educ atio nal Manage me nt
1 2 / 5 [1 9 9 8 ] 1 9 6 –2 0 2
pu blic sch ool pr in cipa ls (n = 500) a s obta in ed
fr om a m a ilin g list pr ovided by th e Missou r i
Depa r tm en t of E lem en ta r y a n d Secon da r y
E du ca tion . Th er e wer e 226 com pleted a n d
r etu r n ed su r vey for m s deter m in ed to be
u sea ble. Th is r esu lted in a 45.2 per cen t r etu r n
r a te. Th e stu dy gr ou p w a s com pr ised of 62.4
per cen t m a le (138) a n d 37.6 per cen t fem a le
Table I
Summary o f re sults fo r princ ipal de sc ripto rs
and PJSS fac to rs by rank
PJSS factor
Percent satisfied
92.9
91.2
88.9
74.8
71.7
67.7
61.5
60.2
Current job
Colleagues/ co-workers
Level of responsibility
Working conditions
Supervisor
Fringe benefits
Opportunity for advancement
Pay
Note: N = 226
(83) sch ool pr in cipa ls. Th e bu ildin g levels
r epr esen ted in th e pr in cipa lsh ips wer e distr ibu ted a s follow s: 65 elem en ta r y pr in cipa lsh ips (28.8 per cen t); 55 m iddle sch ool pr in cipa lsh ips (24.3 per cen t); 62 ju n ior h igh
sch ool/ sen ior h igh sch ool pr in cipa lsh ips
(27.4 per cen t); a n d 44 oth er pr in cipa lsh ips
(19.5 per cen t). Th e n u m ber of yea r s of pr in cipa lsh ip exper ien ce w a s a lso stu died: 47 h a d
h eld a pr in cipa lsh ip for “0 to 3 yea r s” (20.8
per cen t); 67 h eld for “4 to 8 yea r s” (29.6 per cen t); 48 h eld for “9 to 14 yea r s” (21.2 per cen t);
a n d 64 h eld for “15 or m or e yea r s” (28.3 per cen t). F in a lly, th e bu ildin g size (i.e., n u m ber
of stu den ts en r olled) for th e pr in cipa lsh ips
w a s deter m in ed: 62 h eld pr in cipa lsh ips in
bu ildin gs w ith “250 or less” stu den ts (27.4
per cen t); 85 w ith “251 to 550” stu den ts (37.6
per cen t); a n d 79 w ith “a bove 550” stu den ts
(35.0 per cen t).
Th e typica l r espon den t in th is stu dy w a s a
m a le between th e a ges of 41 a n d 50, wor k in g
in a bu ildin g w ith a n en r ollm en t of 251 to 550
stu den ts. He h a s a tota l of between fou r a n d
Table II
Co mpariso n o f building e nro llme nt size and PJSS fac to rs
PJSS factor
SLa
Co-workers
Sb
Percent response by building size
250 and below
251 to 550
Above 550
( n = 62)
( n = 85)
( n = 79)
df
Chi-sq
92.8
1.6
1.6
92.9
3.5
3.5
88.6
10.1
1.3
4
6.90
Nc
Dd
87.1
4.8
8.1
98.8
0.0
1.2
93.7
5.1
1.3
4
11.56
Level of
responsibility
Sb
Nc
Dd
82.3
6.5
11.3
90.6
7.1
2.4
92.4
2.5
5.1
4
7.31
Opportunity
for advancement
Sb
53.2
30.6
16.1
61.2
31.8
7.1
68.4
20.3
11.4
4
6.27
43.5
14.5
41.9
69.4
21.2
9.4
63.3
17.7
19.0
4
22.97
Nc
Dd
67.7
21.0
11.3
75.3
14.1
10.6
79.7
12.7
7.6
4
2.98
Fringe benefits
Sb
Nc
Dd
56.5
19.4
24.2
68.2
18.8
12.9
75.9
12.7
11.4
4
7.46
Supervisor
Sb
59.7
16.1
24.2
81.2
16.5
2.4
70.9
15.2
13.9
4
16.40
Nc
Dd
Current job
Pay
Sb
Nc
Dd
Sb
Nc
Dd
Working
conditions
Sb
Nc
Dd
Notes: Alpha level = 0.10; Critic al value = 7.78; SLa = Satisfac tion level; Sb = Satisfied; Nc = Neutral;
Dd = Dissatisfied
[ 198 ]
Mic hae l W. Graham and
Philip E. Me ssne r
Princ ipals and jo b satisfac tio n
Inte rnatio nal Jo urnal o f
Educ atio nal Manage me nt
1 2 / 5 [1 9 9 8 ] 1 9 6 –2 0 2
eigh t yea r s of exper ien ce a s pu blic sch ool
a dm in istr a tor. Differ en ces a m on g th e th r ee
gr ou ps of elem en ta r y, m iddle, a n d sen ior h igh
sch ool pr in cipa ls wer e iden tifi ed:
1 E lem en ta r y pr in cipa ls wer e m ostly
fem a le.
2 Sen ior h igh pr in cipa ls h a d ser ved lon ger
in th eir cu r r en t position (fou r to eigh t
yea r s).
3 Sen ior h igh pr in cipa ls h a d spen t m or e
yea r s in th e pr in cipa lsh ip (n in e to 14
yea r s).
Th e da ta wer e r edu ced by com pu tin g th e
fr equ en cy of r espon se by P J SS fa ctor s a n d
pr in cipa l descr iptor s. Th en th e da ta wer e
fu r th er su m m a r ized for in ter pr eta tion by
com pu tin g th e fr equ en cy a n d per cen t of
r espon se between P J SS fa ctor s a n d pr in cipa lsh ip descr iptor s. E a ch of th e eigh t P J SS a r ea s
per ta in in g to job sa tisfa ction fa ctor s (i.e.,
depen den t va r ia bles) w a s com pa r ed to fou r
pr in cipa lsh ip dem ogr a ph ic descr iptor s (i.e,
in depen den t va r ia bles) to deter m in e a n y
r ela tion sh ips. Th e descr iptor s gr a de spa n of
th e bu ildin g, yea r s of exper ien ce a s a pr in cipa l, gen der, a n d bu ildin g en r ollm en t wer e
com pa r ed to th e level of job sa tisfa ction w ith
th e collea gu es/ co-wor k er, job, r espon sibility,
oppor tu n ity for pr om otion , pay, wor k in g
con dition s, fr in ge ben efits, a n d su per visor
P J SS fa ctor s. Th ese eigh t com pon en ts closely
pa r a lleled Her zber g’s Motiva tion -Hygien e
Th eor y fa ctor s. Ch i-squ a r e a n a lysis w a s u sed
to iden tify sign ifica n t r ela tion sh ips between
th e in depen den t a n d depen den t va r ia bles.
Th e r esu lts of th is a n a lysis a r e pr esen ted in
th e follow in g section s.
Results of the study
A r eview of th e da ta sh ow th a t th e r espon din g
pr in cipa ls wer e gen er a lly sa tisfied w ith th eir
cu r r en t job (92.9 per cen t), collea gu es/ cowor k er s (91.2 per cen t) a n d level of r espon sibility (88.9 per cen t) (see Ta ble I). F u r th er
in ter pr eta tion of th is ta ble h a s r evea led th a t
th e pr in cipa ls in th is stu dy wer e gen er a lly
less sa tisfied w ith th eir pay (60.2 per cen t),
Table III
Co mpariso n o f building le ve l and PJSS fac to rs
PJSS factor
SLa
Co-workers
Sb
Percent response by building level
Elementary
M iddle
Jr/ Sr High
Other
( n = 65)
( n = 55)
( n = 62)
( n = 44)
df
Chi-sq
92.3
1.5
6.2
90.9
7.3
1.8
90.3
9.7
0.0
97.7
2.3
0.0
6
11.28
95.4
1.5
3.1
98.2
1.8
0.0
90.3
6.5
3.2
90.9
4.5
4.5
6
4.64
Nc
Dd
89.2
6.2
4.6
89.8
3.4
6.8
88.3
5.0
6.7
84.1
6.8
9.1
6
1.20
Opportunity
for advancement
Sb
Nc
Dd
58.5
30.8
10.8
67.3
23.6
9.1
68.8
23.4
7.8
50.0
31.8
18.2
6
3.87
Pay
Sb
55.4
21.5
23.1
65.5
12.7
21.8
61.3
21.0
17.7
59.1
15.9
25.0
6
2.72
70.8
18.5
10.8
85.5
9.1
5.5
71.0
16.1
12.9
72.7
18.2
9.1
6
4.92
Nc
Dd
61.5
21.5
16.9
74.5
18.2
7.3
66.1
17.7
16.1
70.5
6.8
22.7
6
6.89
Sb
Nc
Dd
69.2
20.0
10.8
74.5
14.5
10.9
71.0
12.9
16.1
72.7
15.9
11.4
6
2.16
Nc
Dd
Current job
Sb
Nc
Dd
Level of
responsibility
Sb
Nc
Dd
Working
conditions
Fringe benefits
Supervisor
Sb
Nc
Dd
Sb
Notes: Alpha level = 0.10; Critic al value = 10.60;
Dd = Dissatisfied
SLa
= Satisfac tion level;
Sb
= Satisfied;
Nc
= Neutral;
[ 199 ]
Mic hae l W. Graham and
Philip E. Me ssne r
Princ ipals and jo b satisfac tio n
Inte rnatio nal Jo urnal o f
Educ atio nal Manage me nt
1 2 / 5 [1 9 9 8 ] 1 9 6 –2 0 2
oppor tu n ities for a dva n cem en t (61.5 per cen t),
a n d fr in ge ben efits (67.7 per cen t).
Addition a l elu cida tion of th e fin din gs w a s
a tta in ed th r ou gh th e u se of Ch i-squ a r e a n a lysis. Th ese com pu ta tion s iden tifi ed sta tistica lly sign ifi ca n t r ela tion sh ips in seven of 24
com pa r ison s. Th ese a r e n ota ble exception s
th a t m ay lea d to in ter estin g discu ssion s. For
ea se of in ter pr eta tion , fou r sepa r a te ta bles
wer e con str u cted for da ta display. Th e fin din gs a r e discu ssed below.
As sh ow n in Ta ble II, th r ee sign ifi ca n t r ela tion sh ips wer e fou n d. F ir st, a gr ea ter per cen ta ge of pr in cipa ls (98.8 per cen t) in m id-size
sch ools wer e m or e sa tisfied w ith th eir cu r r en t job th a n th ose pr in cipa ls fr om sm a ller
(87.1 per cen t) or la r ger sch ools (93.7 per cen t).
Secon d, pr in cipa ls in sm a ller sch ools (43.5
per cen t) wer e less sa tisfied w ith th eir pay
th a n pr in cipa ls in m id-size (69.4 per cen t) a n d
la r ger sch ools (63.3 per cen t). Lik ew ise, pr in cipa ls in sm a ller sch ools (59.7 per cen t) wer e
less sa tisfied w ith th eir su per visor s th a n
pr in cipa ls in m id-size (81.2 per cen t) a n d
la r ger sch ools (70.9 per cen t).
A com pa r ison of bu ildin g edu ca tion a l level
a n d th e P J SS fa ctor s yielded th e follow in g
r esu lts (see Ta ble III). P r in cipa ls in m iddle
sch ools (90.9 per cen t) a n d ju n ior a n d sen ior
h igh sch ools (90.9 per cen t) wer e less sa tisfied
w ith th eir collea gu es/ co-wor k er s th a n pr in cipa ls in elem en ta r y sch ools (92.3 per cen t) a n d
oth er sch ools (97.7 per cen t). Th is w a s th e on ly
sign ifica n t r ela tion sh ip for th e bu ildin g level
descr iptor.
Wh en th e gen der descr iptor w a s stu died
(see Ta ble IV), two sign ifi ca n t r ela tion sh ips
wer e fou n d. F ir st, m a le pr in cipa ls (63.0 per cen t) wer e m or e sa tisfied w ith th eir pay th a n
fem a le pr in cipa ls (53.0 per cen t). Th is sa m e
fin din g w a s obser ved for sa tisfa ction for
fr in ge ben efits. Fem a le pr in cipa ls (61.4 per cen t) wer e less sa tisfied w ith th eir fr in ge
ben efit pa ck a ge th a n wer e m a le pr in cipa ls
(70.3 per cen t).
Th e fin a l stu dy w a s con cer n ed w ith
r ela tion sh ips of P J SS fa ctor s w ith yea r s of
exper ien ce, a s sh ow n in Ta ble V. Aga in , two
sign ifica n ce r ela tion sh ips wer e fou n d for th is
Table IV
Co mpariso n o f princ ipal ge nde r and PJSS fac to rs
Percent response by gender
M ale
Female
( n = 138)
( n = 83)
PJSS factor
SLa
df
Chi-sq
Co-workers
Sb
Nc
Dd
94.9
4.3
0.7
91.6
7.2
1.2
2
0.99
Current job
Sb
94.9
2.9
2.2
92.8
3.6
3.6
2
0.51
92.0
3.6
4.3
83.1
8.4
8.4
2
4.14
Nc
Dd
65.9
23.9
10.1
53.0
34.9
12.0
2
3.84
Sb
Nc
63.0
20.3
53.0
15.7
Dd
16.7
31.3
2
6.50
Sb
76.1
15.9
8.0
74.7
14.5
10.8
2
0.56
70.3
18.1
11.6
61.4
15.7
22.9
2
4.96
76.1
12.3
11.6
66.3
21.7
12.0
2
3.57
Nc
Dd
Level of
responsibility
Opportunity
for advancement
Pay
Working
conditions
Fringe benefits
Sb
Nc
Dd
Sb
Nc
Dd
Sb
Nc
Dd
Supervisor
Sb
Nc
Dd
Notes: Alpha level = 0.10; Critic al value = 4.60; SLa = Satisfac tion level; Sb = Satisfied; Nc = Neutral;
Dd = Dissatisfied
[ 200 ]
Mic hae l W. Graham and
Philip E. Me ssne r
Princ ipals and jo b satisfac tio n
Inte rnatio nal Jo urnal o f
Educ atio nal Manage me nt
1 2 / 5 [1 9 9 8 ] 1 9 6 –2 0 2
com pa r ison . P r in cipa ls w ith fou r to eigh t
yea r s of exper ien ce (47.8 per cen t) wer e th e
lea st sa tisfied w ith th eir oppor tu n ities for
a dva n cem en t a n d pr om otion . Lik ew ise, pr in cipa ls w ith fewer yea r s of exper ien ce wer e
less sa tisfied w ith th eir pay th a n pr in cipa ls
w ith 15 or m or e yea r s of exper ien ce (70.3
per cen t).
What have we learned?
Th e follow in g con clu sion s a bou t Am er ica n
m idwester n pr in cipa ls' job sa tisfa ction
a ppea r to be w a r r a n ted fr om th e fin din gs
r epor ted a bove.
• Am er ica n m idwester n pr in cipa ls wer e
gen er a lly sa tisfied w ith th eir cu r r en t job,
collea gu es/ co-wor k er s a n d level of r espon sibility. However, th ey wer e less sa tisfied
w ith th eir pay, oppor tu n ities for a dva n cem en t, a n d fr in ge ben efits.
• Am er ica n m idwester n pr in ciples in m idsize sch ools wer e th e m ost sa tisfied w ith
th eir cu r r en t job.
• However, Am er ica n m idwester n pr in cipa ls
in sm a ller sch ools wer e th e lea st sa tisfied
w ith th eir pay, fr in ge ben efits, a n d
su per visor.
• P r in cipa ls in m iddle sch ools a n d ju n ior a n d
sen ior h igh sch ools wer e th e lea st sa tisfied
w ith th eir collea gu es/ co-wor k er s.
• Am er ica n m idwester n fem a le pr in cipa ls
wer e less sa tisfied w ith th eir pay a n d fr in ge
ben efit pa ck a ge th a n wer e m a le pr in cipa ls.
• Am er ica n m idwester n pr in cipa ls w ith
m oder a te exper ien ce wer e th e lea st sa tisfied w ith a dva n cem en t oppor tu n ities,
wh er ea s, pr in cipa ls w ith fewer yea r s of
exper ien ce wer e less sa tisfied w ith th eir
pay.
Educational management
implications
Th e sch ool pr in cipa lsh ip h a s been descr ibed
a s th e m ost difficu lt m iddle m a n a gem en t
position in Am er ica . In ligh t of th is fa ct,
Am er ica n sch ool su per in ten den ts sh ou ld
Table V
Co mpariso n o f ye ars e xpe rie nc e and PJSS fac to rs
Percent response by years experience
0 to 3
4 to 8
9 to 14
15 plus
( n = 47)
( n = 67)
( n = 480) ( n = 64)
PJSS factor
SLa
df
Chi-sq
Co-workers
Sb
Nc
Dd
91.5
2.1
6.4
91.0
7.5
1.5
87.5
6.2
6.2
93.8
6.2
0.0
6
5.32
Current job
Sb
97.9
0.0
2.1
91.0
3.0
6.0
84.8
8.7
6.5
96.9
3.1
0.0
6
8.22
87.2
8.5
4.3
91.0
3.0
6.0
85.4
8.3
6.2
90.6
3.1
6.2
6
3.34
Nc
Dd
72.3
25.5
2.1
47.8
34.3
17.9
64.6
22.9
12.5
65.6
25.0
9.4
6
11.25
Pay
Sb
Nc
Dd
57.4
19.1
23.4
56.7
13.4
29.9
54.2
35.4
10.4
70.3
9.4
20.3
6
17.96
Working
conditions
Sb
68.1
17.0
14.9
74.6
16.4
9.0
72.9
16.7
10.4
81.2
12.5
6.2
6
2.53
59.6
25.5
14.9
62.7
14.9
22.4
79.2
12.5
8.3
70.3
15.6
14.1
6
8.21
78.7
8.5
12.8
71.6
19.4
9.0
60.4
20.8
18.8
75.0
14.1
10.9
6
6.48
Nc
Dd
Level of
responsibility
Opportunity
for advancement
Fringe benefits
Sb
Nc
Dd
Sb
Nc
Dd
Sb
Nc
Dd
Supervisor
Sb
Nc
Dd
Notes: Alpha level = 0.10; Critic al value = 10.60; SLa = Satisfac tion level; Sb = Satisfied; Nc = Neutral;
Dd = Dissatisfied
[ 201 ]
Mic hae l W. Graham and
Philip E. Me ssne r
Princ ipals and jo b satisfac tio n
Inte rnatio nal Jo urnal o f
Educ atio nal Manage me nt
1 2 / 5 [1 9 9 8 ] 1 9 6 –2 0 2
r ecogn ize th a t th eir bu ildin g pr in cipa ls h ave
n eed for in cr ea sed pay a n d fr in ge ben efits,
especia lly fem a le pr in cipa ls; a n d in cr ea sed
oppor tu n ities for pr om otion a n d a dva n cem en t. Th er e sh ou ld a lso be in cr ea sed r ecogn ition on th e pa r t of su per in ten den ts th a t r ela tion sh ips between bu ildin g pr in cipa ls a n d
th eir su per visor s n eed to be im pr oved.
References
An ton , K. (1974), “Iden tifi ca tion a n d a n a lysis of
pr essu r es on th e secon da r y sch ool pr in cipa l
r ela tive to job sa tisfa ction ”, Un pu blish ed
doctor a l disser ta tion , Iow a Sta te Un iver sity.
Bla ck m or e, J . a n d Ken w ay, J . (E ds) (1993), Gen d er
M a tters in Ed u ca tion a l A d m in istra tion a n d
Policy: A Fem in ist In trod u ction , F a lm er P r ess,
Lewes.
Boon e, C.W. (1978), “Th e r ela tion sh ip between
job ch a r a cter istics, r ole con fl ict, r ole a m bigu ity, in ter n a l locu s of con tr ol, a n d job sa tisfa ction of colle ge a n d u n iver sity a dm in istr a tor s”, u n pu blish ed doctor a l disser ta tion ,
Un iver sity of Den ver.
Bu r k e, R.J. a n d McKeen , C.A. (1994), “Tr a in in g
a n d developm en t a ctivities a n d ca r eer su ccess
of m a n a ger ia l a n d pr ofession a l wom en ”, T h e
J ou r n a l of M a n a gem en t Dev elopm en t, Vol. 13
N o. 5, pp. 53-63.
Ch a n d, K. (1982), “J ob sa tisfa ction of su per in ten den ts in th e Un ited Sta tes”, u n pu blish ed
doctor a l disser ta tion , N ew Yor k Un iver sity.
CPA J ou r n a l (1996), “Fem a le m a n a gem en t
a ccou n ta n ts a r e better off ”, CPA J ou r n a l,
Ma r ch , Vol. 66 N o. 3, p. 13.
Cr ew s, C. (1979), “In str u ction a l su per vision : th e
w in ter a n d th e w a r m ”, Ed u ca tion a l L ea d er sh ip, Vol. 36 N o. 7, pp. 519-21.
F r en ch , J .R.P. a n d Ca pla n , P. (1973), “Or ga n iza tion a l str ess a n d in dividu a l str a in ”, in
Ma r r ow, A.J . (E d.), T h e Fa ilu re of S u ccess,
Am a con , N ew Yor k , N Y.
Gibbs, B., Glen den n in g, R. a n d McCa r th y, J .
(1995), “Lea r n in g in th e wor k pla ce th r ou gh
em ployee developm en t: th r ee per spectives”,
T ra in in g a n d M a n a gem en t Dev elopm en t
M eth od s, Vol. 9 N o. 1, pp. 11-25.
Glick , N.L. (1992), “J ob sa tisfa ction a m on g a ca dem ic a dm in istr a tor s”, R esea rch in High er
Ed u ca tion , Vol. 33 N o. 5, pp. 625-39.
[ 202 ]
Gr a h a m , M.W. (1985), “F a ctor s a ffectin g job sa tisfa ction a n d tu r n over a m on g pu blic sch ool
su per in ten den ts in Iow a a n d Min n esota ”,
Un pu blish ed doctor a l disser ta tion , Iow a Sta te
Un iver sity.
Gr oss, N. a n d N a pior, D. (1967), T h e J ob a n d Ca reer
S a tisfa ction of M en S ch ool Pr in cipa ls,
(N a tion a l P r in cipa lsh ip Stu dy Ser ies Mon ogr a ph N o. 5), Ha r va r d a n d Ca m br idge Gr a du a te Sch ool of E du ca tion , Ca m br idge, MA.
Ha n son , E .M. (1996), Ed u ca tion a l A d m in istra tion
a n d Orga n iz a tion a l B eh a vior, Allyn a n d
Ba con , N edh a m Heigh ts, MA.
Her zber g, F. (1959), T h e M otiva tion to Work , J oh n
Wiley a n d Son s, N ew Yor k , N Y.
Her zber g, F. (1966), Work a n d th e N a tu re of M a n ,
Wor ld P u blish in g Com pa n y, Clevela n d, OH.
Hou se, R.J. a n d Wigdor, L. (1967), “Her zber g's du a lfa ctor th eor y of job sa tisfa ction a n d m otiva tion : A r eview of eviden ce a n d a cr iticism ”,
Person n el Psych olog y, Vol. 20, pp. 369-89.
Ka iser, J .S. (1992), Ed u ca tion a l A d m in istra tion ,
Stylex P u blish in g Com pa n y, Mequ on , WI.
Law ler, E .E ., III. (1986), High In volv em en t
M a n a gem en t, J ossey-Ba ss, Sa n F r a n ciso, CA.
Ma ck ler, J . (1996), “A su r vivor ’s gu ide to th e
pr in cipa lsh ip: over com in g th e ch a llen ges”,
N A S S P B u lletin , Febr u a r y, pp. 84-9.
McKee, J .G. (1991), “Lea der sh ip styles of com m u n ity colle ge pr esiden ts a n d fa cu lty job sa tisfa ction ”, Com m u n ity-J u n ior College, Vol. 15,
pp. 33-47.
N a dler, D.A. a n d Law ler, III, E .E . (1979), M otiva tion : A Dia gn ostic A pproa ch , McGr aw -Hill,
N ew Yor k , N Y.
Sch m idt, G.L. (1976), “J ob sa tisfa ction a m on g
secon da r y sch ool a dm in istr a tor s”, Ed u ca tion a l A d m in istra tion Qu a r terly, Vol. 12 N o. 2,
pp. 68-86.
Sim pson , R. (1995), “Is m a n a gem en t edu ca tion on
th e r igh t tr a ct for wom en ?”, Wom en in
M a n a gem en t R eview, Vol. 10 N o. 6, pp. 3-8.
Win ga r d, M. a n d P a titu , C.L. (1993), Ed u ca tion a l
A d m in istra tion A b stra cts, Vol. 28 N o. 4,
October, p. 445.
Wom en in B u sin ess (1997), “Ha s m a n a gem en t gon e
soft? Yes – a n d it wor k s”, Wom en in B u sin ess,
May/ J u n e, Vol. 49 N o. 1, pp. 32-8.
Wom en 's In ter n a tion a l N etw ork N ew s (1991),
“Un equ a l pay”, Wom en 's In ter n a tion a l N etw ork N ew s, Vol. 17 N o. 4, p. 80.
M ichael W. Graham
Pro fe sso r and Chair, De partme nt o f Educ atio nal Le ade rship, Co lle ge o f
Educ atio n and Human Se rvic e s, No rthwe st Misso uri State Unive rsity, Maryville ,
Misso uri
Philip E. M essner
Asso c iate Pro fe sso r and Co o rdinato r o f the Co o pe rative Do c to ral Pro gram,
De partme nt o f Educ atio nal Le ade rship, Co lle ge o f Educ atio n and Human
Se rvic e s, No rthwe st Misso uri State Unive rsity, Maryville , Misso uri
Building principals, as well as
most educators, are typically
satisfi ed with their overall
jobs. However, some specifi c
aspects of work are not rated
as favorably as others. This
study investigated the relationship of factors, such as
gender, size of enrollment,
and years of experience, to
principalship job satisfaction.
A survey sample of American
midwestern elementary,
middle, and senior high
school principals responded
to the Principals Job Satisfaction Survey (PJSS). The PJSS
was based on Herzberg’s
Motivation-Hygiene Theory.
Eight components of job
satisfaction were compared
with four principalship
descriptive variables. PJSS
was mailed to 500 principals
and 226 survey forms were
returned and useable, which
resulted in a 45.2 percent
return rate. Chi-square analyses revealed the relationships
and differences between the
independent and dependent
variables. It was found that
American midwestern principals were generally satisfi ed
with their current job, colleagues/co-workers and level
of responsibility. However,
they were less satisfi ed with
their pay, opportunities for
advancement, and fringe
benefi ts.
Inte rnatio nal Jo urnal o f
Educ atio nal Manage me nt
1 2 / 5 [ 1998] 1 9 6 –2 0 2
© MCB Unive rsity Pre ss
[ ISSN 0951-354X]
[ 196 ]
Th e ch a llen ges of th e pr in cipa lsh ip a r e exten sively docu m en ted a n d w idely r epor ted.
Ma ck ler (1996) r epor ts th a t r espect, r ecogn ition , a n d r ew a r ds of th e job a r e cr itica l in
effective wor k r ela tion sh ips. It h a s a lso been
r epor ted (Law ler, 1986) th a t m otiva tion a n d
per for m a n ce a r e str on gly a ssocia ted w ith
delayed sa tisfa ction . However, r ole a m bigu ity
r esu lts in job dissa tisfa ction a n d lower ed selfesteem (Ka iser, 1992). In fa ct, F r en ch a n d
Ca pla n (1973) fou n d th a t in dividu a ls wh o
exper ien ce con fl icts in r ole r espon sibility a r e
m or e lik ely to h ave ca r diova scu la r h ea r t
disea se. Boon e (1978) fou n d th a t th e job ch a r a cter istics m ost closely a ssocia ted w ith job
sa tisfa ction wer e feedba ck , va r iety, a u ton om y, pa r ticipa tion a n d r ole con fl ict. McKee
(1991) r epor ts th a t th e lea der sh ip style of
su per visor s m a de a differ en ce in fa cu lty job
sa tisfa ction . Su per visor s w ith h igh r ela tion sh ip beh avior str on gly a ffect em ployee job
sa tisfa ction in th e a r ea s of self-esteem , developm en t oppor tu n ities, a ccom plish m en t, job
expecta tion s, r espect, a n d fa ir tr ea tm en t,
a m ou n t of su per vision , in for m ed in job, a n d
pa r ticipa tion .
Motivation as a factor
Motiva tion h a s been iden tifi ed a s a n im por ta n t com pon en t of job sa tisfa ction . Her zber g’s
Motiva tion -Hygien e Th eor y is cla ssified a s
on e of th e con ten t th eor ies of m otiva tion .
Oth er s in th is ca te gor y in clu de Ma slow ’s
Hier a r ch y of N eeds a n d Alder fer ’s E RG
th eor y of existen ce, r ela tedn ess, a n d gr ow th .
Th er e a r e gen er a lly th r ee m a jor cr iticism s
dir ected to th ese th eor ies:
1 th er e is sca n t em pir ica l da ta to su ppor t
th eir con clu sion s;
2 th ey a ssu m e em ployees a r e ba sica lly a lik e;
and
3 th ey a r e n ot r ea lly th eor ies of m otiva tion
a t a ll, bu t r a th er th eor ies of sa tisfa ction
(Ha n som , 1996, p. 205).
Her zber g’s two fa ctor th eor y h a s been
r eviewed by Hou se a n d Wigdor (1967), wh o
h ave iden tifi ed fou r cr iticism s of th e m odel.
F ir st, it is m eth odologica lly bou n d in iden tifyin g cr itica l in ciden ts of sa tisfa ction a n d
dissa tisfa ction . Secon d, r a ter s a r e r equ ir ed to
eva lu a te beh avior s of r espon den ts, wh ich
m ay r esu lt in r a ter con ta m in a tion . Th ir d, th e
r esea r ch la ck ed a m ea su r e of over a ll sa tisfa ction , a n d fin a lly, situ a tion a l va r ia bles wer e
n ot tr ea ted in defin in g th e r ela tion sh ip
between sa tisfa ction a n d pr odu ctivity. Oth er
a u th or s h ave a lso been cr itica l of Her zber g,
th ese in clu de N a dler a n d Law ler (1979), wh o
con ten d th a t Her zber g m a k es th e follow in g
er r on eou s a ssu m ption s a bou t h is Motiva tion Hygien e Th eor y:
• a ll em ployees a r e a lik e;
• a ll situ a tion s a r e a lik e; a n d
• th er e is on e best w ay.
Re ga r dless of th ese cr iticism s, con ten t th eor ists su ch a s Her zber g h ave m a de a sign ifi ca n t con tr ibu tion to th e discu ssion of job
sa tisfa ction .
Her zber g (1959, 1966) h a s con du cted stu dies
of job sa tisfa ction of wor k er s in a va r iety of
settin gs. His two-fa ctor a ppr oa ch , Motiva tion Hygien e Th eor y, con ten ds th a t th er e a r e elem en ts w ith in th e job a n d job en vir on m en t
wh ich lea d to sa tisfa ction or la ck of sa tisfa ction . It is h is belief th a t th e in tr in sic com pon en ts, or job con ten t, lea d to wor k er sa tisfa ction , a n d th er e a r e extr in sic com pon en ts, or
job en vir on m en t, wh ich detr a ct fr om sa tisfa ction . Th e m otiva tion fa ctor s a r e listed a s
sa tisfier s, so-ca lled beca u se th ey pr om pt u s to
h igh er levels of per for m a n ce. Th e h ygien e
fa ctor s, bor r ow in g fr om th e m edica l ter m
wh ich pr even t u s fr om optim u m
per for m a n ce, a r e ca lled dissa tisfier s.
Her zber g iden tifies th e follow in g five item s a s
sa tisfier s:
1 a ch ievem en t;
2 r ecogn ition ;
3 wor k itself;
4 r espon sibility; a n d
5 oppor tu n ity for a dva n cem en t.
He lists th e follow in g a s dissa tisfier s:
• com pa n y policy;
• su per vision ;
• sa la r y;
• in ter per son a l r ela tion sh ips; a n d
• wor k in g con dition s.
Wh ile m ost of Her zber g’s wor k w a s ca r r ied
ou t in th e in du str ia l settin g, sever a l stu dies
h ave been com pleted in edu ca tion . Th e
Mic hae l W. Graham and
Philip E. Me ssne r
Princ ipals and jo b satisfac tio n
Inte rnatio nal Jo urnal o f
Educ atio nal Manage me nt
1 2 / 5 [1 9 9 8 ] 1 9 6 –2 0 2
Motiva tion -Hygien e Th eor y w a s th e focu s of
th r ee stu dies of job sa tisfa ction of sch ool
pr in cipa ls. Th e pu r pose of ea ch stu dy w a s to
deter m in e if th e in tr in sic fa ctor s in deed
con tr ibu ted to job sa tisfa ction . All th r ee
r esea r ch pr ojects con fir m ed Her zber g’s
cla im s th a t a ch ievem en t, r ecogn ition ,
a dva n cem en t, n eed for a u ton om y, a n d selfa ctu a liza tion wer e th e m a jor fa ctor s in m otiva tin g pr in cipa ls to per for m a t th eir m a xim u m levels, th u s lea din g to h igh de gr ees of
job sa tisfa ction . Sign ifi ca n t job dissa tisfier s
wer e fou n d to be per son a l life, su per vision ,
r ela tion sh ips w ith su per ior s, r ela tion sh ips
w ith su bor din a tes, a n d r ela tion sh ips w ith
peer s. Th ese stu dies wer e con du cted by
Gr oss a n d N a pior (1967), An ton (1974) a n d
Sch m idt (1976).
Job satisfaction factors
Cen tr a l office su per visor s wer e a sk ed to list
two exper ien ces – on e th a t led to extr em ely
good feelin gs a bou t th e job a n d a n oth er th a t
led to extr em ely ba d feelin gs. Th ese wer e
cla ssified in to dissa tisfier s (“th e w in ter ”) a n d
sa tisfier s (“th e w a r m ”) by Cr ew s (1979). Th e
two m a in sou r ces of job dissa tisfa ction wer e
in ter per son a l r ela tion s a n d sch ool policy. Th e
top two sa tisfier s wer e a ch ievem en t a n d
r ecogn ition .
On e of th e few n a tion a l stu dies of job sa tisfa ction of sch ool su per in ten den ts w a s con du cted by Ch a n d (1982). Th e r esu lts r evea led
a str on g positive cor r ela tion between job
sa tisfa ction a n d feelin gs con cer n in g th e
su per in ten den t’s sta tu s in th e com m u n ity, a
sen se of a ch ievem en t in th e pr ofession , a n d
th e pr ospects of con tr a ct r en ew a l. Ch a n d a lso
fou n d th a t 83 per cen t of th e r espon den ts
r epor ted h igh over a ll sa tisfa ction , a n d 73
per cen t wou ld ch oose th e su per in ten den cy
a ga in if given a ch oice.
In a r ela ted stu dy of su per in ten den ts (Gr a h a m , 1985), 75 per cen t of th e su bjects wou ld
ch oose th e su per in ten den cy a ga in . Com pa r in g r ela tively n ew a dm in istr a tor s (th r ee
yea r s of exper ien ce or less) w ith veter a n
su per in ten den ts (15 yea r s or m or e), it w a s
discover ed th a t th e m or e exper ien ced sch ool
lea der s wer e sign ifica n tly m or e sa tisfied w ith
th eir co-wor k er s a n d pay. Th e in exper ien ced
su per in ten den ts wer e sign ifica n tly m or e
sa tisfied w ith oppor tu n ity for pr om otion .
Over a ll, th e r espon den ts r epor ted h igh levels
of sa tisfa ction in a ll a r ea s.
The gender factor
Wor ld w ide wom en ea r n on ly a bou t twoth ir ds a s m u ch a s m en (Wom en s In ter n a tion a l
N etw ork N ew s, 1991). However, wom en m a n a ger s a r e ga in in g gr ou n d. For exa m ple,
wom en m a n a gem en t a ccou n ta n ts a r e be gin n in g to cr a ck th e “gla ss ceilin g” (CPA J ou r n a l, 1996). In con tr a st, Sim pson (1995) r epor ts
th a t wom en h oldin g th e MBA de gr ee con tin u e to be less su ccessfu l th a n a r e m en in
r e ga r d to sa la r y a n d ca r eer a dva n cem en ts.
However, sign ifica n t ch a n ges h ave occu r r ed
in th e wor k pla ce in th e 1980s a n d 1990s. Ga in s
by wom en h ave pa r a lleled ch a n ge in wor k pla ce cu ltu r e wh er e th e in dividu a l's esteem
a n d n eeds a r e a tten ded to m or e closely (Gibbs
et a l., 1995). Wom en a ppr oa ch m a n a gem en t
differ en tly th a n do m en . For exa m ple, wom en
“br in g con cer n , n u r tu r in g a n d ca r in g to th e
wor k pla ce” (Wom en in B u sin ess, 1997).
Bu r k e a n d McKeen (1994) r epor t th e follow in g su ccess fa ctor s for wom en in th e ea r ly
sta ges of th eir m a n a gem en t ca r eer s:
• a ccess to edu ca tion a n d developm en t
tr a in in g;
• developm en t of m en tor s a n d spon sor s; a n d
• th e level of ch a llen ge a n d dem a n ds r ela ted
to h om e a n d fa m ily r espon sibilities.
Un less th ese fa ctor s a r e a tten ded, wom en
ten d to exper ien ce less job sa tisfa ction th a n
do m en (Win ga r d a n d P a titu , 1993). Bla ck m or e a n d Ken w ay (1993, p.98) sta te:
... edu ca tion a l a dm in istr a tion r em a in s, for
th e m ost pa r t, obstin a tely gen der -blin d ...
a n d th a t th e m a le-str ea m / m a in str ea m is
u n lik ely to m ove in a fem in ist dir ection ...
The study
Th e defin ition of job sa tisfa ction u sed in th is
stu dy w a s: “An a ffective r espon se by in dividu a ls r esu ltin g fr om a n a ppr a isa l of th eir wor k
r oles in th e job th a t th ey pr esen tly h old”
(Glick , 1992). An eigh t-item su r vey, th e Pr in cipa ls J ob S a tisfa ction S u r v ey (P J SS), w a s
developed to iden tify th e level of job sa tisfa ction of Am er ica n m idwester n pu blic sch ool
pr in cipa ls for th e follow in g fa ctor s:
collea gu es/ co-wor k er s; th e job you cu r r en tly
h old; level of r espon sibility; oppor tu n ity for
pr om otion / a dva n cem en t; pay; wor k in g con dition s; fr in ge ben efits; a n d you r su per visor.
Th e r espon din g pr in cipa ls in dica ted th eir
level of sa tisfa ction for ea ch of th e eigh t fa ctor s by m a r k in g on th e follow in g sca le: (A)
ver y sa tisfied, (B) sa tisfied, (C) n eu tr a l, (D)
dissa tisfied, a n d (E ) ver y dissa tisfied. For
ea se of a n a lysis th e “A” a n d “B” sca les wer e
colla psed in on e sca le, “sa tisfied”; a n d th e
“D” a n d “E ” sca les wer e colla psed in to on e
sca le, “u n sa tisfied”. Th is r esu lted in a th r ee
ca te gor y sca le for da ta a n a lysis a n d in ter pr eta tion , sa tisfied, n eu tr a l, a n d u n sa tisfied. Th e
P J SS w a s m a iled to Am er ica n m idwester n
[ 197 ]
Mic hae l W. Graham and
Philip E. Me ssne r
Princ ipals and jo b satisfac tio n
Inte rnatio nal Jo urnal o f
Educ atio nal Manage me nt
1 2 / 5 [1 9 9 8 ] 1 9 6 –2 0 2
pu blic sch ool pr in cipa ls (n = 500) a s obta in ed
fr om a m a ilin g list pr ovided by th e Missou r i
Depa r tm en t of E lem en ta r y a n d Secon da r y
E du ca tion . Th er e wer e 226 com pleted a n d
r etu r n ed su r vey for m s deter m in ed to be
u sea ble. Th is r esu lted in a 45.2 per cen t r etu r n
r a te. Th e stu dy gr ou p w a s com pr ised of 62.4
per cen t m a le (138) a n d 37.6 per cen t fem a le
Table I
Summary o f re sults fo r princ ipal de sc ripto rs
and PJSS fac to rs by rank
PJSS factor
Percent satisfied
92.9
91.2
88.9
74.8
71.7
67.7
61.5
60.2
Current job
Colleagues/ co-workers
Level of responsibility
Working conditions
Supervisor
Fringe benefits
Opportunity for advancement
Pay
Note: N = 226
(83) sch ool pr in cipa ls. Th e bu ildin g levels
r epr esen ted in th e pr in cipa lsh ips wer e distr ibu ted a s follow s: 65 elem en ta r y pr in cipa lsh ips (28.8 per cen t); 55 m iddle sch ool pr in cipa lsh ips (24.3 per cen t); 62 ju n ior h igh
sch ool/ sen ior h igh sch ool pr in cipa lsh ips
(27.4 per cen t); a n d 44 oth er pr in cipa lsh ips
(19.5 per cen t). Th e n u m ber of yea r s of pr in cipa lsh ip exper ien ce w a s a lso stu died: 47 h a d
h eld a pr in cipa lsh ip for “0 to 3 yea r s” (20.8
per cen t); 67 h eld for “4 to 8 yea r s” (29.6 per cen t); 48 h eld for “9 to 14 yea r s” (21.2 per cen t);
a n d 64 h eld for “15 or m or e yea r s” (28.3 per cen t). F in a lly, th e bu ildin g size (i.e., n u m ber
of stu den ts en r olled) for th e pr in cipa lsh ips
w a s deter m in ed: 62 h eld pr in cipa lsh ips in
bu ildin gs w ith “250 or less” stu den ts (27.4
per cen t); 85 w ith “251 to 550” stu den ts (37.6
per cen t); a n d 79 w ith “a bove 550” stu den ts
(35.0 per cen t).
Th e typica l r espon den t in th is stu dy w a s a
m a le between th e a ges of 41 a n d 50, wor k in g
in a bu ildin g w ith a n en r ollm en t of 251 to 550
stu den ts. He h a s a tota l of between fou r a n d
Table II
Co mpariso n o f building e nro llme nt size and PJSS fac to rs
PJSS factor
SLa
Co-workers
Sb
Percent response by building size
250 and below
251 to 550
Above 550
( n = 62)
( n = 85)
( n = 79)
df
Chi-sq
92.8
1.6
1.6
92.9
3.5
3.5
88.6
10.1
1.3
4
6.90
Nc
Dd
87.1
4.8
8.1
98.8
0.0
1.2
93.7
5.1
1.3
4
11.56
Level of
responsibility
Sb
Nc
Dd
82.3
6.5
11.3
90.6
7.1
2.4
92.4
2.5
5.1
4
7.31
Opportunity
for advancement
Sb
53.2
30.6
16.1
61.2
31.8
7.1
68.4
20.3
11.4
4
6.27
43.5
14.5
41.9
69.4
21.2
9.4
63.3
17.7
19.0
4
22.97
Nc
Dd
67.7
21.0
11.3
75.3
14.1
10.6
79.7
12.7
7.6
4
2.98
Fringe benefits
Sb
Nc
Dd
56.5
19.4
24.2
68.2
18.8
12.9
75.9
12.7
11.4
4
7.46
Supervisor
Sb
59.7
16.1
24.2
81.2
16.5
2.4
70.9
15.2
13.9
4
16.40
Nc
Dd
Current job
Pay
Sb
Nc
Dd
Sb
Nc
Dd
Working
conditions
Sb
Nc
Dd
Notes: Alpha level = 0.10; Critic al value = 7.78; SLa = Satisfac tion level; Sb = Satisfied; Nc = Neutral;
Dd = Dissatisfied
[ 198 ]
Mic hae l W. Graham and
Philip E. Me ssne r
Princ ipals and jo b satisfac tio n
Inte rnatio nal Jo urnal o f
Educ atio nal Manage me nt
1 2 / 5 [1 9 9 8 ] 1 9 6 –2 0 2
eigh t yea r s of exper ien ce a s pu blic sch ool
a dm in istr a tor. Differ en ces a m on g th e th r ee
gr ou ps of elem en ta r y, m iddle, a n d sen ior h igh
sch ool pr in cipa ls wer e iden tifi ed:
1 E lem en ta r y pr in cipa ls wer e m ostly
fem a le.
2 Sen ior h igh pr in cipa ls h a d ser ved lon ger
in th eir cu r r en t position (fou r to eigh t
yea r s).
3 Sen ior h igh pr in cipa ls h a d spen t m or e
yea r s in th e pr in cipa lsh ip (n in e to 14
yea r s).
Th e da ta wer e r edu ced by com pu tin g th e
fr equ en cy of r espon se by P J SS fa ctor s a n d
pr in cipa l descr iptor s. Th en th e da ta wer e
fu r th er su m m a r ized for in ter pr eta tion by
com pu tin g th e fr equ en cy a n d per cen t of
r espon se between P J SS fa ctor s a n d pr in cipa lsh ip descr iptor s. E a ch of th e eigh t P J SS a r ea s
per ta in in g to job sa tisfa ction fa ctor s (i.e.,
depen den t va r ia bles) w a s com pa r ed to fou r
pr in cipa lsh ip dem ogr a ph ic descr iptor s (i.e,
in depen den t va r ia bles) to deter m in e a n y
r ela tion sh ips. Th e descr iptor s gr a de spa n of
th e bu ildin g, yea r s of exper ien ce a s a pr in cipa l, gen der, a n d bu ildin g en r ollm en t wer e
com pa r ed to th e level of job sa tisfa ction w ith
th e collea gu es/ co-wor k er, job, r espon sibility,
oppor tu n ity for pr om otion , pay, wor k in g
con dition s, fr in ge ben efits, a n d su per visor
P J SS fa ctor s. Th ese eigh t com pon en ts closely
pa r a lleled Her zber g’s Motiva tion -Hygien e
Th eor y fa ctor s. Ch i-squ a r e a n a lysis w a s u sed
to iden tify sign ifica n t r ela tion sh ips between
th e in depen den t a n d depen den t va r ia bles.
Th e r esu lts of th is a n a lysis a r e pr esen ted in
th e follow in g section s.
Results of the study
A r eview of th e da ta sh ow th a t th e r espon din g
pr in cipa ls wer e gen er a lly sa tisfied w ith th eir
cu r r en t job (92.9 per cen t), collea gu es/ cowor k er s (91.2 per cen t) a n d level of r espon sibility (88.9 per cen t) (see Ta ble I). F u r th er
in ter pr eta tion of th is ta ble h a s r evea led th a t
th e pr in cipa ls in th is stu dy wer e gen er a lly
less sa tisfied w ith th eir pay (60.2 per cen t),
Table III
Co mpariso n o f building le ve l and PJSS fac to rs
PJSS factor
SLa
Co-workers
Sb
Percent response by building level
Elementary
M iddle
Jr/ Sr High
Other
( n = 65)
( n = 55)
( n = 62)
( n = 44)
df
Chi-sq
92.3
1.5
6.2
90.9
7.3
1.8
90.3
9.7
0.0
97.7
2.3
0.0
6
11.28
95.4
1.5
3.1
98.2
1.8
0.0
90.3
6.5
3.2
90.9
4.5
4.5
6
4.64
Nc
Dd
89.2
6.2
4.6
89.8
3.4
6.8
88.3
5.0
6.7
84.1
6.8
9.1
6
1.20
Opportunity
for advancement
Sb
Nc
Dd
58.5
30.8
10.8
67.3
23.6
9.1
68.8
23.4
7.8
50.0
31.8
18.2
6
3.87
Pay
Sb
55.4
21.5
23.1
65.5
12.7
21.8
61.3
21.0
17.7
59.1
15.9
25.0
6
2.72
70.8
18.5
10.8
85.5
9.1
5.5
71.0
16.1
12.9
72.7
18.2
9.1
6
4.92
Nc
Dd
61.5
21.5
16.9
74.5
18.2
7.3
66.1
17.7
16.1
70.5
6.8
22.7
6
6.89
Sb
Nc
Dd
69.2
20.0
10.8
74.5
14.5
10.9
71.0
12.9
16.1
72.7
15.9
11.4
6
2.16
Nc
Dd
Current job
Sb
Nc
Dd
Level of
responsibility
Sb
Nc
Dd
Working
conditions
Fringe benefits
Supervisor
Sb
Nc
Dd
Sb
Notes: Alpha level = 0.10; Critic al value = 10.60;
Dd = Dissatisfied
SLa
= Satisfac tion level;
Sb
= Satisfied;
Nc
= Neutral;
[ 199 ]
Mic hae l W. Graham and
Philip E. Me ssne r
Princ ipals and jo b satisfac tio n
Inte rnatio nal Jo urnal o f
Educ atio nal Manage me nt
1 2 / 5 [1 9 9 8 ] 1 9 6 –2 0 2
oppor tu n ities for a dva n cem en t (61.5 per cen t),
a n d fr in ge ben efits (67.7 per cen t).
Addition a l elu cida tion of th e fin din gs w a s
a tta in ed th r ou gh th e u se of Ch i-squ a r e a n a lysis. Th ese com pu ta tion s iden tifi ed sta tistica lly sign ifi ca n t r ela tion sh ips in seven of 24
com pa r ison s. Th ese a r e n ota ble exception s
th a t m ay lea d to in ter estin g discu ssion s. For
ea se of in ter pr eta tion , fou r sepa r a te ta bles
wer e con str u cted for da ta display. Th e fin din gs a r e discu ssed below.
As sh ow n in Ta ble II, th r ee sign ifi ca n t r ela tion sh ips wer e fou n d. F ir st, a gr ea ter per cen ta ge of pr in cipa ls (98.8 per cen t) in m id-size
sch ools wer e m or e sa tisfied w ith th eir cu r r en t job th a n th ose pr in cipa ls fr om sm a ller
(87.1 per cen t) or la r ger sch ools (93.7 per cen t).
Secon d, pr in cipa ls in sm a ller sch ools (43.5
per cen t) wer e less sa tisfied w ith th eir pay
th a n pr in cipa ls in m id-size (69.4 per cen t) a n d
la r ger sch ools (63.3 per cen t). Lik ew ise, pr in cipa ls in sm a ller sch ools (59.7 per cen t) wer e
less sa tisfied w ith th eir su per visor s th a n
pr in cipa ls in m id-size (81.2 per cen t) a n d
la r ger sch ools (70.9 per cen t).
A com pa r ison of bu ildin g edu ca tion a l level
a n d th e P J SS fa ctor s yielded th e follow in g
r esu lts (see Ta ble III). P r in cipa ls in m iddle
sch ools (90.9 per cen t) a n d ju n ior a n d sen ior
h igh sch ools (90.9 per cen t) wer e less sa tisfied
w ith th eir collea gu es/ co-wor k er s th a n pr in cipa ls in elem en ta r y sch ools (92.3 per cen t) a n d
oth er sch ools (97.7 per cen t). Th is w a s th e on ly
sign ifica n t r ela tion sh ip for th e bu ildin g level
descr iptor.
Wh en th e gen der descr iptor w a s stu died
(see Ta ble IV), two sign ifi ca n t r ela tion sh ips
wer e fou n d. F ir st, m a le pr in cipa ls (63.0 per cen t) wer e m or e sa tisfied w ith th eir pay th a n
fem a le pr in cipa ls (53.0 per cen t). Th is sa m e
fin din g w a s obser ved for sa tisfa ction for
fr in ge ben efits. Fem a le pr in cipa ls (61.4 per cen t) wer e less sa tisfied w ith th eir fr in ge
ben efit pa ck a ge th a n wer e m a le pr in cipa ls
(70.3 per cen t).
Th e fin a l stu dy w a s con cer n ed w ith
r ela tion sh ips of P J SS fa ctor s w ith yea r s of
exper ien ce, a s sh ow n in Ta ble V. Aga in , two
sign ifica n ce r ela tion sh ips wer e fou n d for th is
Table IV
Co mpariso n o f princ ipal ge nde r and PJSS fac to rs
Percent response by gender
M ale
Female
( n = 138)
( n = 83)
PJSS factor
SLa
df
Chi-sq
Co-workers
Sb
Nc
Dd
94.9
4.3
0.7
91.6
7.2
1.2
2
0.99
Current job
Sb
94.9
2.9
2.2
92.8
3.6
3.6
2
0.51
92.0
3.6
4.3
83.1
8.4
8.4
2
4.14
Nc
Dd
65.9
23.9
10.1
53.0
34.9
12.0
2
3.84
Sb
Nc
63.0
20.3
53.0
15.7
Dd
16.7
31.3
2
6.50
Sb
76.1
15.9
8.0
74.7
14.5
10.8
2
0.56
70.3
18.1
11.6
61.4
15.7
22.9
2
4.96
76.1
12.3
11.6
66.3
21.7
12.0
2
3.57
Nc
Dd
Level of
responsibility
Opportunity
for advancement
Pay
Working
conditions
Fringe benefits
Sb
Nc
Dd
Sb
Nc
Dd
Sb
Nc
Dd
Supervisor
Sb
Nc
Dd
Notes: Alpha level = 0.10; Critic al value = 4.60; SLa = Satisfac tion level; Sb = Satisfied; Nc = Neutral;
Dd = Dissatisfied
[ 200 ]
Mic hae l W. Graham and
Philip E. Me ssne r
Princ ipals and jo b satisfac tio n
Inte rnatio nal Jo urnal o f
Educ atio nal Manage me nt
1 2 / 5 [1 9 9 8 ] 1 9 6 –2 0 2
com pa r ison . P r in cipa ls w ith fou r to eigh t
yea r s of exper ien ce (47.8 per cen t) wer e th e
lea st sa tisfied w ith th eir oppor tu n ities for
a dva n cem en t a n d pr om otion . Lik ew ise, pr in cipa ls w ith fewer yea r s of exper ien ce wer e
less sa tisfied w ith th eir pay th a n pr in cipa ls
w ith 15 or m or e yea r s of exper ien ce (70.3
per cen t).
What have we learned?
Th e follow in g con clu sion s a bou t Am er ica n
m idwester n pr in cipa ls' job sa tisfa ction
a ppea r to be w a r r a n ted fr om th e fin din gs
r epor ted a bove.
• Am er ica n m idwester n pr in cipa ls wer e
gen er a lly sa tisfied w ith th eir cu r r en t job,
collea gu es/ co-wor k er s a n d level of r espon sibility. However, th ey wer e less sa tisfied
w ith th eir pay, oppor tu n ities for a dva n cem en t, a n d fr in ge ben efits.
• Am er ica n m idwester n pr in ciples in m idsize sch ools wer e th e m ost sa tisfied w ith
th eir cu r r en t job.
• However, Am er ica n m idwester n pr in cipa ls
in sm a ller sch ools wer e th e lea st sa tisfied
w ith th eir pay, fr in ge ben efits, a n d
su per visor.
• P r in cipa ls in m iddle sch ools a n d ju n ior a n d
sen ior h igh sch ools wer e th e lea st sa tisfied
w ith th eir collea gu es/ co-wor k er s.
• Am er ica n m idwester n fem a le pr in cipa ls
wer e less sa tisfied w ith th eir pay a n d fr in ge
ben efit pa ck a ge th a n wer e m a le pr in cipa ls.
• Am er ica n m idwester n pr in cipa ls w ith
m oder a te exper ien ce wer e th e lea st sa tisfied w ith a dva n cem en t oppor tu n ities,
wh er ea s, pr in cipa ls w ith fewer yea r s of
exper ien ce wer e less sa tisfied w ith th eir
pay.
Educational management
implications
Th e sch ool pr in cipa lsh ip h a s been descr ibed
a s th e m ost difficu lt m iddle m a n a gem en t
position in Am er ica . In ligh t of th is fa ct,
Am er ica n sch ool su per in ten den ts sh ou ld
Table V
Co mpariso n o f ye ars e xpe rie nc e and PJSS fac to rs
Percent response by years experience
0 to 3
4 to 8
9 to 14
15 plus
( n = 47)
( n = 67)
( n = 480) ( n = 64)
PJSS factor
SLa
df
Chi-sq
Co-workers
Sb
Nc
Dd
91.5
2.1
6.4
91.0
7.5
1.5
87.5
6.2
6.2
93.8
6.2
0.0
6
5.32
Current job
Sb
97.9
0.0
2.1
91.0
3.0
6.0
84.8
8.7
6.5
96.9
3.1
0.0
6
8.22
87.2
8.5
4.3
91.0
3.0
6.0
85.4
8.3
6.2
90.6
3.1
6.2
6
3.34
Nc
Dd
72.3
25.5
2.1
47.8
34.3
17.9
64.6
22.9
12.5
65.6
25.0
9.4
6
11.25
Pay
Sb
Nc
Dd
57.4
19.1
23.4
56.7
13.4
29.9
54.2
35.4
10.4
70.3
9.4
20.3
6
17.96
Working
conditions
Sb
68.1
17.0
14.9
74.6
16.4
9.0
72.9
16.7
10.4
81.2
12.5
6.2
6
2.53
59.6
25.5
14.9
62.7
14.9
22.4
79.2
12.5
8.3
70.3
15.6
14.1
6
8.21
78.7
8.5
12.8
71.6
19.4
9.0
60.4
20.8
18.8
75.0
14.1
10.9
6
6.48
Nc
Dd
Level of
responsibility
Opportunity
for advancement
Fringe benefits
Sb
Nc
Dd
Sb
Nc
Dd
Sb
Nc
Dd
Supervisor
Sb
Nc
Dd
Notes: Alpha level = 0.10; Critic al value = 10.60; SLa = Satisfac tion level; Sb = Satisfied; Nc = Neutral;
Dd = Dissatisfied
[ 201 ]
Mic hae l W. Graham and
Philip E. Me ssne r
Princ ipals and jo b satisfac tio n
Inte rnatio nal Jo urnal o f
Educ atio nal Manage me nt
1 2 / 5 [1 9 9 8 ] 1 9 6 –2 0 2
r ecogn ize th a t th eir bu ildin g pr in cipa ls h ave
n eed for in cr ea sed pay a n d fr in ge ben efits,
especia lly fem a le pr in cipa ls; a n d in cr ea sed
oppor tu n ities for pr om otion a n d a dva n cem en t. Th er e sh ou ld a lso be in cr ea sed r ecogn ition on th e pa r t of su per in ten den ts th a t r ela tion sh ips between bu ildin g pr in cipa ls a n d
th eir su per visor s n eed to be im pr oved.
References
An ton , K. (1974), “Iden tifi ca tion a n d a n a lysis of
pr essu r es on th e secon da r y sch ool pr in cipa l
r ela tive to job sa tisfa ction ”, Un pu blish ed
doctor a l disser ta tion , Iow a Sta te Un iver sity.
Bla ck m or e, J . a n d Ken w ay, J . (E ds) (1993), Gen d er
M a tters in Ed u ca tion a l A d m in istra tion a n d
Policy: A Fem in ist In trod u ction , F a lm er P r ess,
Lewes.
Boon e, C.W. (1978), “Th e r ela tion sh ip between
job ch a r a cter istics, r ole con fl ict, r ole a m bigu ity, in ter n a l locu s of con tr ol, a n d job sa tisfa ction of colle ge a n d u n iver sity a dm in istr a tor s”, u n pu blish ed doctor a l disser ta tion ,
Un iver sity of Den ver.
Bu r k e, R.J. a n d McKeen , C.A. (1994), “Tr a in in g
a n d developm en t a ctivities a n d ca r eer su ccess
of m a n a ger ia l a n d pr ofession a l wom en ”, T h e
J ou r n a l of M a n a gem en t Dev elopm en t, Vol. 13
N o. 5, pp. 53-63.
Ch a n d, K. (1982), “J ob sa tisfa ction of su per in ten den ts in th e Un ited Sta tes”, u n pu blish ed
doctor a l disser ta tion , N ew Yor k Un iver sity.
CPA J ou r n a l (1996), “Fem a le m a n a gem en t
a ccou n ta n ts a r e better off ”, CPA J ou r n a l,
Ma r ch , Vol. 66 N o. 3, p. 13.
Cr ew s, C. (1979), “In str u ction a l su per vision : th e
w in ter a n d th e w a r m ”, Ed u ca tion a l L ea d er sh ip, Vol. 36 N o. 7, pp. 519-21.
F r en ch , J .R.P. a n d Ca pla n , P. (1973), “Or ga n iza tion a l str ess a n d in dividu a l str a in ”, in
Ma r r ow, A.J . (E d.), T h e Fa ilu re of S u ccess,
Am a con , N ew Yor k , N Y.
Gibbs, B., Glen den n in g, R. a n d McCa r th y, J .
(1995), “Lea r n in g in th e wor k pla ce th r ou gh
em ployee developm en t: th r ee per spectives”,
T ra in in g a n d M a n a gem en t Dev elopm en t
M eth od s, Vol. 9 N o. 1, pp. 11-25.
Glick , N.L. (1992), “J ob sa tisfa ction a m on g a ca dem ic a dm in istr a tor s”, R esea rch in High er
Ed u ca tion , Vol. 33 N o. 5, pp. 625-39.
[ 202 ]
Gr a h a m , M.W. (1985), “F a ctor s a ffectin g job sa tisfa ction a n d tu r n over a m on g pu blic sch ool
su per in ten den ts in Iow a a n d Min n esota ”,
Un pu blish ed doctor a l disser ta tion , Iow a Sta te
Un iver sity.
Gr oss, N. a n d N a pior, D. (1967), T h e J ob a n d Ca reer
S a tisfa ction of M en S ch ool Pr in cipa ls,
(N a tion a l P r in cipa lsh ip Stu dy Ser ies Mon ogr a ph N o. 5), Ha r va r d a n d Ca m br idge Gr a du a te Sch ool of E du ca tion , Ca m br idge, MA.
Ha n son , E .M. (1996), Ed u ca tion a l A d m in istra tion
a n d Orga n iz a tion a l B eh a vior, Allyn a n d
Ba con , N edh a m Heigh ts, MA.
Her zber g, F. (1959), T h e M otiva tion to Work , J oh n
Wiley a n d Son s, N ew Yor k , N Y.
Her zber g, F. (1966), Work a n d th e N a tu re of M a n ,
Wor ld P u blish in g Com pa n y, Clevela n d, OH.
Hou se, R.J. a n d Wigdor, L. (1967), “Her zber g's du a lfa ctor th eor y of job sa tisfa ction a n d m otiva tion : A r eview of eviden ce a n d a cr iticism ”,
Person n el Psych olog y, Vol. 20, pp. 369-89.
Ka iser, J .S. (1992), Ed u ca tion a l A d m in istra tion ,
Stylex P u blish in g Com pa n y, Mequ on , WI.
Law ler, E .E ., III. (1986), High In volv em en t
M a n a gem en t, J ossey-Ba ss, Sa n F r a n ciso, CA.
Ma ck ler, J . (1996), “A su r vivor ’s gu ide to th e
pr in cipa lsh ip: over com in g th e ch a llen ges”,
N A S S P B u lletin , Febr u a r y, pp. 84-9.
McKee, J .G. (1991), “Lea der sh ip styles of com m u n ity colle ge pr esiden ts a n d fa cu lty job sa tisfa ction ”, Com m u n ity-J u n ior College, Vol. 15,
pp. 33-47.
N a dler, D.A. a n d Law ler, III, E .E . (1979), M otiva tion : A Dia gn ostic A pproa ch , McGr aw -Hill,
N ew Yor k , N Y.
Sch m idt, G.L. (1976), “J ob sa tisfa ction a m on g
secon da r y sch ool a dm in istr a tor s”, Ed u ca tion a l A d m in istra tion Qu a r terly, Vol. 12 N o. 2,
pp. 68-86.
Sim pson , R. (1995), “Is m a n a gem en t edu ca tion on
th e r igh t tr a ct for wom en ?”, Wom en in
M a n a gem en t R eview, Vol. 10 N o. 6, pp. 3-8.
Win ga r d, M. a n d P a titu , C.L. (1993), Ed u ca tion a l
A d m in istra tion A b stra cts, Vol. 28 N o. 4,
October, p. 445.
Wom en in B u sin ess (1997), “Ha s m a n a gem en t gon e
soft? Yes – a n d it wor k s”, Wom en in B u sin ess,
May/ J u n e, Vol. 49 N o. 1, pp. 32-8.
Wom en 's In ter n a tion a l N etw ork N ew s (1991),
“Un equ a l pay”, Wom en 's In ter n a tion a l N etw ork N ew s, Vol. 17 N o. 4, p. 80.