UNIVERSfTY of NORTHERN BRITISH COLUMBIA LIBRARY Prince Georsa, B.C. Factors that Relate to Job Satisfaction in Canadian Universities: An Evaluation of Professional and Managerial Staff Relative to the University of Northern British Columbia's Exempt Employee Group. Ann Katherine Tobin B.Sc. , University of Victoria, 1993 M.Sc. , University of Northern British Columbia, 1997 Project Submitted In Partial Fulfillment Of The Requirements For The Degree Of Master Of Business Administration The University Of Northern British Columbia April 2007 ©Ann Tobin , 2007 A .c. .rtN ABSTRACT This project was motivated by the paucity of literature currently available regarding the factors that influence job satisfaction among Canadian university professional and managerial staff. In this study, the different variables that were used to test overall job satisfaction were the following: employee acknowledgement and recognition , employee compensation , the university's performance appraisal program , communication , employee autonomy over their work, employee voice and employment structures. The research concluded that employee compensation and acknowledgement had impacts on overall job satisfaction. The ability to resolve conflict was also mildly supported by the results. The most significant means for conflict resolution for professional and managerial university staff was found to be via negotiation. Employee voice also only had a partial impact on job satisfaction. Also, the ability for employees to be involved in the determination of grade levels was found to be the only aspect of employee voice which directly impacted job satisfaction. Being acknowledged as significant members of the university community and effective communication were similarly important to professional and managerial employees. Finally, performance appraisal and employment structures (union , nonunion or individuals) had no impact on job satisfaction. 11 Table of Contents ABSTRACT ............ .......... ............. ..... .. ........ ..... .... ....... .. .. .... ............ .. ...... ...... ........... .... .. .. .... ..... ..... .. ii Table of Contents ................ ... .. .. ... ............................. .... ........... .... .. ........... ................. .................. .. iii List of T abies .. .. ..... .............. ... ................... .... ..................... .... ................... ... ... .. ........ .... .... .... .. .... .... iv Acknowledgements ..... ... ............................................. ..... ... .... ................... .. .... .... .. ......... ...... .. ...... .... v INTRODUCTION .. ............ ......... ... ........... ......... ... ... ... .. ........... ........ ............... ..... ... ......... .... ........ ..... .1 The University of Northern British Columbia ........ ........ ..... ...... ... .. .. ........ .................... ......... .. ....... .4 Exempt Employee Group (EEG) .. .......... .......... ...... .... .. .... ............ .......... .. ................ ............... ...... 5 Exempt Employee Group Structure .............. .. ...... ...... ............... ....... ...... .................... ........ .. ...... .. 7 LITERATURE REVIEW ..... ........... ....... ... ...... .... ....... ... .......... ........ ... .... ...... ..... ..... .......... .......... ...... . 10 Job Satisfaction .......... ...... ................... ... ..... ......... ............. .. ...... ...... ..... .. .... ...... ........................ ... 10 Employee Voice ............... ...... .... ..... ....... ....... ... ....... .. ....... .......... .................. ......... ...... ... ... .......... 12 Hypothesis one : ............ ...................... ............... ................................................ ........ ....... ....... 13 Employee Structures .. .... .... .... .... ......... ... ...... .... ..... ....... .... .......... ... ... .. ... ........... .. ..... .... ........ ..... ... 14 Unions .... ...... .. .......... ........... ..... ..... ..... .. .. ... ... ...... .. ... ...... ............. ........ ............... .. ..... ........ ... .. .. 14 Associations ............ ................................. ................. ............................. ........................ ... .. .... 15 Hypothesis two: .......................................... .. ....... ......... ... ... ..... .... ........... ..... .... .... .. ... ...... ......... 16 Conflict Resolution ... .. ...... ...... ...... .. ..... ...... .... ..... ..... ....... ........... ... .......... .................... .. ........ ....... 16 Hypothesis three : .................... ......... .......... ............. ..... ... ...... ....... ...... .......... ...................... .. ... 17 Compensation ...... .. ....... ... ........... ........... ...... ......... ........... ......... ........ ..... .......... .. .. ........ ........ .... ... 17 Hypothesis four :...................................... ... ..... ............ .. ............. .......... ......... ..... ... ................ ... 18 Performance Appraisal ... ....... ..... ... ....... ........................... .................. ..... ............. .. .... ............ .... . 19 Hypothesis five: ....... .. ..................................................... ................. .. ........... .. .... .... .......... .... ...20 Communication ......................... ...... ..... .............. ........ .... .............. ... .. ............... ... ... ..................... 20 Hypothesis six: ................. ....... ..... ....... ...... .......... ........... .. .... .... .......... .......... .......... .... ... ....... ... 21 Recognition ...... .. ........... ......... .......... ......... .... ....... ... ....... .. .... ........ .......... .. .. ...... ............. ......... .... .21 Hypothesis seven : ................. ................... ... ........ ... .... ......... .... ........... .................... .. ...... .........22 Workplace Autonomy ... ... ....... ....... ...... ...... .... ....... ... .......... ........... .......... ...... ... .... ... ............. .... .... 23 Hypothesis eight: .. .. ..... ... ........ ....... ...... ..... .. .... ......... ............................... ....... ........... ........ .. .... .23 METHODS .. ... ........ ... ...... .............. ................ ..... ......... ... ........ ..... ..... ................. .............. ........ ........ 24 RESULTS .. ..... ....... ... ..... ..... .... .. .... ... ....... .... .... ..... ..... .... ................... ........................ .. ..... ............. ... 26 DISCUSSION ..... .. .... ............ .... ... .. .. ... .... ........ ..................... ........... .. ......... ............... ..... .. ........ ....... 36 Employment Structure ... ..... ...... .......... ... ...... ..... ....... ......... .... .. ...... ........... ...... ................. ... ... ....... 36 Employee Recognition and Autonomy ....... .. .............................................. ..... .. ..... ... ........... ....... 38 Employee Voice ............ .. ........... ................ ............. ... .. ..... ..... .. .... .......... ...... .. ... ......... .......... ... .... 38 Conflict Resolution ....... ........ ..... .......... .......... ...... .... .......... ........... .............. ......... ... .. .. ..... ..... ...... .40 Effective Communication ... .... .. .................. .. ... ........ .......... .... ........ ......... ... .. .............. ...... .... ........45 Compensation ... ....... ....... .......... ..................... .... ...... ........ .. ....... ............. .... ................... ....... ....... 46 Benefits ... ..... .......... ........... ........ .. ..... ...... ....... ............. ... ...................... .......... .. .... ... .. ............ .... 47 Grade levels ... .......... ............ .. ... .... .... ..... ... .............. ........ ........ ......... ......... ... .......... .... ............ .47 Wages .... ... ....................... .. ....... ..... ..... ......................... ............. .. ... .............. ........... ... ........... ..... .49 Pay Equity ... ... ....... .................. .................. ......... .. ........ ....... .. .. ..... ... ... .... ... .... .......... ......... ...... .49 Internal Pay Equity ... ... .. ........ ... ......... .... ............ .. ............. ...... .. ........... ......... ... ........ ... ............ .49 External Pay Equity .... .. ............ ... .... ... ..... .................. ........ .. .. ....... ... .... ......... .................... .... .. .50 Overall Wage Satisfaction ....................... ....... ..... ........... .. .. .... ..... .. .. .. .................. ............. .... .. .51 Performance Appraisal ... .......... ........ ..... ..... .. ... ..... ... ...... ... ... ........ ...... ..... ....... .. ... ......... ........... .... 52 Research Limitations ...... .............. ..................................................... ..... ... .. .. ...... ... ............. .......... .55 RECOMMENDATIONS .. .... ..... .. .. ......... .. ...... .... .... ..... .......................................... ........... ................ 55 Recommendation for Further Research ..... .. .... ........................... .. .. ...... .... ...... ..... .. ....... .... .. ........... 60 CONCLUSION ........................ ........ ........ .. ...... ... ...... ............. ..... ... ... ....... .... ....... ....... ..... .............. ... 61 APPENDICES ........ ... .... ....... .. ...... ......... .. ................................. ..... .. .. ..... ......... .. ... ..... ... ................... 63 Appendix One .. ............... ....... ........ ... ..... ............. ........... ... ..... ....................... .......... .... .... .... .... .63 Appendix two ..... ......... ........... .. ... ...... ..... .... ................... ...... ...... ................ .. ................ ...... ....... 67 LITERATURE CITED ............. .... ..... ......... ....... .. ....... ............. .................... ........ ..... ........ ........... ...... 69 Ill List of Tables Table 1: Employee structures for each university participant 26 Table 2. Summary of Hypotheses tested by using the Kruskai-Wallis test. 27 Table 3: Kruskai-Wallis Test Used to Compare Factors and Overall Job Satisfaction among Professional and Managerial Employees of Canadian Universities. 28 Table 4: Pearson Correlation of Factors as related to Overall Job Satisfaction among Canadian University Professional and Managerial Employees 34 IV Acknowledgements Firstly, I would like to sincerely thank my supervisor, Dr. Rick Tallman for his insight, patience and famous last words "we are not there yet". I would like to take this opportunity to also thank my parents (Tom and Elizabeth) and my children (Jacob and Brenna) . Your continued support and ability to laugh has helped me grow as a person and for that I am eternally grateful. I love you . A special thank you to my big sister, Elizabeth , who for the last two years took care of my dog, Basil, on my "MBA weekends". Thanks to all of the participants of this project, without your assistance this research would not have been possible. A special thanks to Sylvain Allison for helping me with the French Canadian interviews. Merci beaucoup. To my MBA colleagues it has been a pleasure working with all of you. have learned so much from your brilliance and ability to share your experiences. Lastly, but not forgotten , to my special love Ron, the end has finally come. Thank you so much for all your help, sweetheart ; now we can get on with the rest of our life! v This work is dedicated to my parents, Tom and Liz, my children, Jacob and Thank you is never enough. . Brenna and to my partner, Ron. VI INTRODUCTION There is a paucity of scholarly literature available on job satisfaction of professional and managerial staff in Canadian universities. There is no peer reviewed documentation on university employee professional and managerial staff unions or non-union groups and job satisfaction. It is assumed that if employees form an association or union , that these types of structures provide voice in numbers and gives members a better opportunity to express their views, ideas, needs and wants to either their direct supervisor or senior administrators and this in turn will increase job satisfaction. In a unionized environment this may certainly be true as employees are not concerned about job security. Unions typically offer job protection from arbitrary managerial activities. This protection may give employees a stronger sense of security and provide them an opportunity to voice discontent against the employer. The assumption is that associations and unions provide structure and rules of engagement for both the employee and the employer. In most circumstances, these organizations also represent the interests of their membership, and therefore, the association or union can present the ideas of the collective to the senior administrators to initiate change or voice concerns. No one individual member is identified as the source of the idea, rather the idea is taken up by the collective of the group. If senior administrators view employees as valuable contributors to the institution, they need to take an active role in providing employees an opportunity to express ideas. Creating this type of opportunity can potentially improve employee performance, which in turn , may increase overall job satisfaction. Essentially by providing employees an opportunity to express their ideas, the message conveyed by senior administrators is that employees are important stakeholders in the organization . Intrinsically this type of acknowledgement improves morale which in turn improves productivity and job satisfaction. While some Canadian universities have non-unionized professional and/or staff associations, these associations still tend to bargain collectively on behalf of their members. Essentially, in these situations, the association has all the characteristics of a union except they are not certified. For example, in British Columbia, the professional and managerial staff in Simon Fraser University (SFU), the University of British Columbia (UBC) and the Thompson Rivers University (TRU) belong to the Association of Administrative and Professional Staff (AAPS). The AAPS is a provincial body that is involved with non-unionized bargaining between employees and employers. The professional and managerial staff at the University of Victoria (UVic) belongs to the Professional Employees Association (PEA). The PEA is a certified union body which represents the interests of its members like any other certified union does. The focus of this project is on the interactions of the University of Northern British Columbia's Exempt Employee Group (EEG) with senior University of Northern British Columbia (UNBC) administrators, and how UNBC's EEG counterparts in other Canadian universities are structured , what factors provide the greatest level of job satisfaction and how these employees interact with their senior administrators. 2 The UNBC EEG consists of professional and managerial staff. There were no other universities who identified their staff as being members of an EEG. Instead they were referred to as the professional and managerial staff. For the purposes of this project, the EEG at UNBC and the professional and managerial staff at other universities were considered peers. The EEG was formed in 1995, and to date, has maintained its same structure and function. The EEG members had not considered altering their current structure until the recent president joined UNBC. Over time, the EEG has evolved into an ad-hoc union. The main problem is that the EEG does not have any legal bargaining rights and entitlement granted to certified unions. For example, when it was time to discuss the EEG handbook or issues relating to wage and benefits, the EEG has had no power to refuse any compensation package presented to them by the senior administrators. This project is particularly relevant as it has a direct connection and impact on the existing EEG at UNBC. The project was designed to look at "best practices" in other universities and incorporate the principles that made these practices the best. Best practices were identified as they related to overall job satisfaction by the employees at the University. The research questions of this project are as follows: 1. Are there different structural forms under which professional and managerial employees in Canadian universities are organized? 2. Do these different structural forms result in greater levels of job satisfaction? 3 3. Is the UNBC structure optimal to produce high job satisfaction? 4. What are the most significant factors that have the greatest impact on overall job satisfaction for Canadian university professional and managerial employees? The professional and managerial staff of participating universities were divided into three main categories: (1) unionized, (2) non-union group or (3) independent. Most of the professional and managerial staff that were unionized were called an association despite the fact that they were a certified unionized body and recognized as such by their respective provincial government. The professional and managerial staff that were in non-unionized groups had various names defining who the group was. For example, some were organized as The Management Group in their university and others were denoted as the Professional and Managerial Staff Association. were not unionized. The associations, or groups, Professional and managerial individuals designated as independent and were neither unionized nor members of an association, and therefore, they did not have either any formal organizational structure or affiliation with one another. The University of Northern British Columbia The University of Northern British Columbia is a small research intensive university situated in Prince George, British Columbia. The university employs approximately 512 staff and faculty. There are four distinct employee groups at UNBC: (1) the Canadian Union of Public Employees (3799) , (2) Exempt Employee Group (EEG) , (3) the Faculty and the (4) Deans/Directors Group. The 4 organizational structure of UNBC is steeply hierarchal. The President is at the top of the hierarchy followed by the Provost, Chief Financial Officer, Vice Provost of Research and Graduate Programs, then the Deans or Directors, Chairs or Exempt employees and by the Faculty and CUPE staff. In this case, the faculty report to the Chair of their respective program and the CUPE staff report to the designated Exempt manager and the reporting proceeds upward to the President as required. Exempt Employee Group (EEG) The EEG is a formal advisory body that represents the needs, concerns and terms and conditions of employment of those UNBC employees who are exempt from the membership in the Canadian Union of Public Employees Local 3799 and the UNBC Faculty Association. As per the Labour Relations Board of British Columbia, employees who have access to confidential financial information that can be used in bargaining , or they have the responsibility to hire and fire subordinate staff are, by law, unable to form a certified union. In contrast Larios and Kleiner (2003) define exempt employment based on the hours work and whether or not the employees are compensated for the hours worked beyond their specified work week. Typically, an exempt employee is a salaried employee and they are not normally compensated for any overtime worked. At UNBC, the members of the EEG belong neither to CUPE, nor Faculty, nor the Deans and Directors. The EEG has benefits and responsibilities which distinguish them from the other UNBC employee groups. For example, regarding benefits an EEG is allotted four weeks of holiday in their first five years of 5 employment. After five years of service the vacation time increases to five weeks per year. Directors are given five weeks in their first five years of service. CUPE have three weeks of vacation entitlement, which increases to four weeks after their five years of service . With respect to responsibilities, both the EEG and the Directors have the authority to hire and dismiss staff. Even though a CUPE member may be in a position to supervise another CUPE member, they are not given the direct responsibility to hire and fire staff. The sentiment among EEG members is that the group is more closely aligned with the UNBC Directors than any other group on campus. In fact in other universities surveyed, the professional and managerial staff and Directors belong to one employee group. There are EEG members who have access to confidential financial information. The financial information is used by senior administrators when they negotiate new handbooks and pay increases for UNBC employee groups. This situation puts EEG members in a direct conflict of interest because they are being used by both the senior administrators and the EEG "negotiating" team to discuss pay increases that impact the same group to which they belong. EEG positions that deal with confidential information pertaining to compensation are the Budget Analyst, Treasury Service Manager and the Manager of Finance. Other positions in the EEG that would deal with confidential information are the Human Resource Advisors , the Executive Assistants to the President, Provost and Vice Provost. The EEG membership also includes middle managers that supervise CUPE staff. The EEG middle management positions are: the Bookstore Manager, the 6 Risk and Safety Manager, the Financial Manager, the CSAM Operations Manager, Senior Network Administrator, Counseling Centre Coordinator and the Research Services Manager. There are two distinct groups in the Exempt group the middle managers and the office administrators. There are approximately 36 members in this group. When comparing the UNBC EEG to the professional and managerial employees of other universities, in general , the Executive Assistants were not member of this group but rather had their own group structure. In the universities that had no formal group structure for their professional and managerial staff, the Executive Assistants also remained as individuals in the institution without having a formal group representing their needs. For the purpose of this project, when comparing the UNBC EEG to other institutions, the professional and managerial staff was used. Exempt Employee Group Structure The EEG has a President, Vice President and Secretary. These are two year voluntary terms. Despite the fact that the EEG is not unionized, every four years the elected members of the EEG Executive (and other internally appointed delegates) meet with the UNBG Senior Administrators to discuss the terms of their respective handbooks and wage increases. In practice, this is a form of collective bargaining despite the fact that the EEG is not a certified body and has no legal recourse if they disagree with the terms and conditions being presented to them by Senior Administrators. This format of discussion has been problematic in the past because the majority of the EEG executives have reported to the same vice president who was in charge of finalizing the package 7 for wages, benefits and handbook issues. This caused unease among the EEG and puts them at a disadvantage of having unbiased interactions with the responsible vice president. The ability to discuss issues in good faith is problematic when there are no boundaries established. The primary problem is that Senior UNBC Administrators have inadvertently placed the EEG members in a position where they do not have the option to refuse any offers put forward to them. There is no real purpose to the EEG. The group consists of a mix of employees who are forced together every four years to discuss wages and benefits with the vice president mandated to develop an agreement. Aside from pseudo-negotiation, there is nothing that ties the group together. This is not to say that members of the group are not collegial with one another. The fact of the matter is that there is not enough cross-over in the day-to-day operations among EEG members to provide group cohesion. Even in the EEG there is a sentiment that the group membership may need to be re-evaluated. There are two distinct groups, the Executive Assistants and the professional and managerial staff. When it is time to pseudo bargain, the interest of these two groups are not necessarily aligned. For example, the professional and managerial EEG members wished to increase their professional development allocation. The current allocation is $350 per member, which for some, is not enough money to pay conference dues. In contrast, the Executive Assistants were content with the allocation as it met their needs for any necessary professional development. Some members were willing to accept what ever allocation was provided for professional development while others 8 were not. This is just one example where the interests of the members are not aligned and the current membership and structure of the EEG may not be able to address these types of inconsistencies. Among the universities interviewed for this project, it was made clear that the Executive Assistants were not considered to be members or a part of the professional and managerial staff. 9 LITERATURE REVIEW The following is a review of works that explore some factors which influence employee job satisfaction. performance appraisal The factors were conflict resolution , systems, employee voice, employment structures, compensation, employee rights, employee communication, employee recognition loyalty and autonomy. The theory is that if these factors are present, then employees will have a higher level of job satisfaction possible than if they are not present. For example, if an employer has thorough and fair conflict resolution policies available to professional and managerial staff, these same employees will experience greater levels of job satisfaction knowing that there are fair processes in place. In order to understand how these factors impact job satisfaction , it is important to first define what is meant by job satisfaction in the context of th is paper. Job Satisfaction Zellars et at. (2001) define job satisfaction as an emotional and cognitive state resulting from evaluating one's task, activity, job or other related experience. Preuss and Lautoch (2002) and Frenkel (2002) conclude that job satisfaction encompasses employee reactions and perception of the nature of their work, pay and promotion and it includes the dynamic of workplace relations in the work environment. In many instances, the work environment is a place where adults can make connections and friendships which add to the fulfillment of their jobs. 10 Other factors which influence the level of employee job satisfaction were identified by Edgar and Greare's (2005). They found that that job satisfaction was strongly positively correlated with training and development. Likewise , if employees are able to have greater influence over the direction of their positions and they are requested to contribute in decisionmaking , these factors also lead to greater job satisfaction (Preuss and Lautoch, 2002). Through the incorporation and implementation of employees' ideas, employees feel as they though are important to the organization. Preuss and Lautoch (2002) also found that when employees' ideas and input was sought, their productivity improved. More satisfied and committed workers are likely to generate better ideas, exert extra effort and ultimately contribute more to firm performance (Preuss and Lautoch, 2002). Aside from the factors which can positively influence employee job satisfaction , there are also some factors which can negatively impact it. Lack of communication and lack of direction are but a few of these factors. In instances where employees are unsatisfied and have very low job satisfaction, unless the reasons why they feel this way are identified and resolved , the employee is likely to leave the organization or express their displeasure (Janssen eta/. , 1998). The exit of an employee can be an additional cost to the company as they are then required to train a new employee. The alternative to exit is to provide a work environment where employees are able to express the reasons why they are not satisfied with their jobs. Employee voice is one factor that has a direct impact on job satisfaction. 11 Employee Voice Employee voice is a term that is widely used in human resource practice and it originated in Hirschman 's 1970 model of exit, voice, neglect and loyalty (Janssen eta/. , 1998; Dundon eta/. , 2005). He defined the voice system as any attempt to change an objectionable state of affairs and it generally related to communication from a subordinate towards a supervisor (Janssen eta/., 1998). Typically there are two elements that make up employee voice: (1) expression by employees to management regarding their complaints in a work-related context and (2) it involves the employees in the decision-making process and is referred to as participative management (McCabe and Rabil , 2002). The ways in which employees feel that they can contribute to the employer is a critical factor in determining the effectiveness of employee voice. Luchak (2003) suggests that there are two different types of employee voice: (1) direct voice (which is more flexible and provides the parties with an opportunity to address problems before they escalate into disputes) and (2) representative voice (which is more structural and issue orientated and addresses problems after a dispute has been defined). The notion is that whichever form of voice is utilized, it has a direct impact on job satisfaction. Hagedoorn et a/. (1999) suggested that the typical employees who use employee voice are those employees who have either negative or positive job satisfaction. In other words, employees want the right to provide their ideas and opinions regardless of job satisfaction. In contrast to Hagedoorn et afs (1999) findings , Spencer (1986) suggested that if a company had a mechanism for employee voice to be 12 expressed , production increased due to the fact that job satisfaction is also increased. Employee voice is needed if employees are considered to be important stakeholders by management and it needs to be viewed as an opportunity to improve the overall organization. If this is the case, management needs to have accurate information about the employees and provide the employees a safe atmosphere to express either negative or positive voice regarding work operations without fear of retribution. Typically in an effective system , voice is not filtered through layers of management. The objective for representative voice is to create a flatter and more transparent system for employees to express their concerns to those individuals who can make the necessary changes (Dundon eta/. , 2005) . If senior university administrators are interested in hearing the voice of subordinates, the challenge is to devise a system in which voice can be heard throughout the organization and at the appropriate levels where effective changes can be made. The goal of employee voice is to make an impact and change the existing structure of the work place in order to increase employee job satisfaction. Hypothesis one: Professional and managerial employees of Canadian universities will have greater job satisfaction if they have an opportunity to voice their opinion , ideas and unhappiness in the organization . 13 Employee Structures There are three different kinds of employee structures that will be considered for this project. The three different structures are: unions, non-unions and individuals. Canadian university professional and managerial employees are generally classified into one of these three different employee structures. There was no literature discussing the relationship between job satisfaction and individualization. For the purposes of this project, non-union employee structures are considered associations. Unions There are a number of different studies over the past twenty years that have shown that unions reduce job satisfaction (Gordon and Densi , 1995). It is not atypical for union workers to have poorer work environment making union jobs inherently more unpleasant than non-union jobs. Working conditions directly impacts the level of job satisfaction. Gordon and Densi (1995) suggested that if there are improved working conditions then the job satisfaction increased. Gordon and Densi (1995) also found that union members expressed greater dissatisfaction with their jobs than did non-union workers, but were less inclined to quit those jobs. The reason for this may be that they were unable to find work of comparable salary in a non-unionized environment. Also , the expression of job dissatisfaction may be correlated with the job security and permit members to readily to speak out against adverse working conditions. In contrast to what Gordon and Densi (1995) reported , Renaud (2002) found that the negative relationship between union status and job satisfaction disappeared when an adequate control for working conditions was 14 applied. Perhaps the relationship and job satisfaction is more compl icated than previously thought and provided that all working conditions are equal between unionized and non-unionized employees there is no difference in job satisfaction and employee structure. Associations Associations provide various services (e.g. social and professional) to their members (Viswesvaran and Desphande , 1998). unionized employee group. They are a formal non- Although the literature suggests that employee associations do not bargain (lchniowski and Zax, 1990), this is not necessarily the case. For example , at USC and SFU the supervisory staff are represented by an employee association the AAPS. The senior administrators of USC and SFU have entered into legal agreements that acknowledge the rights of the AAPS to exist. The AAPS covers many different areas similar to a collective agreement such as: grievance procedures and collective bargaining. Due to the confidential nature of their work, neither the SFU nor the USC AAPS have Executive Administrative staff in its membership. The employee associations at these universities do bargain collectively with senior administrators Job satisfaction may be due to the fact that employees feel a connection to the larger body and enjoy being a part of an organization. For example, in Ontario, all of the university associations meet once a year for a conference. This provides association members an opportunity to socialize and make connections with peers around the province. At this point in time there has been no impetus for UNSC's EEG to form an association. 15 Employees are already affiliated with one another through the mere fact that they belong to the same employee group. Hypothesis two: Professional Canadian university employees who belong to associations will have the greatest amount of job satisfaction , followed by unionized employees and finally individual employees. Conflict Resolution There are many different forms of conflict resolution which can be implemented in the work environment. These forms of resolution can be either formal or informal processes. The impact of not dealing with conflict in the work environment can directly decrease the level of job satisfaction and negatively impact employee health (Zellars et at. , 2001 ). The organization as a whole will suffer when there is unresolved conflict. The procedures that are established by the employer need to be viewed as being fair and impartial. If employees know that there is a judicious process in place for them to utilize they are more likely to both use it and have increased satisfaction in their jobs (Virovere et at. , 2002). Some of the formal ways conflict is resolved is through any one of the following: grievance procedures, arbitration , mediation , negotiation, through the use of an Ombudsman and the establishment of formal procedures and policies contained in employee handbooks, collective agreements or policy manuals (McCabe and Lewin , 1992). Employee wellbeing and overall job satisfaction can be used by senior managers as a measure of the efficacy for the conflict resolution procedures that are in place (Edgar and Geare, 2005). 16 Colvin (2002) found that job satisfaction in employees increased when there were fair conflict resolution processes available for employees. He also found that greater employee involvement was associated with a decrease in workplace conflict. The informal conflict processes should not be underestimated. With an open-door policy, the idea is to encourage employees to talk about frustrations in informal settings. The aim is to improve communication between subordinates and supervisors and to resolve employee complaints without damaging the relationship of the employee. In its proper perspective, an open-door policy is one of management's tools for maintaining morale and organizational justice. Opendoor policies are standard supervisory procedures that incorporate chain-ofcommand steps whereby employees complain first to their immediate supervisors, possible proceeding with one or two hierarchal steps to resolve complaints (Harlos, 2001 ). A formal process is not always required. The opendoor policy provides the informal mechanism to resolve conflicts amicably which can in-turn directly impact the job satisfaction of the employee seeking the resolution. Hypothesis three: Universities that have conflict resolution procedures will have more satisfied professional and managerial employees. Compensation There are direct connections between the level of compensation earned by an employee and the level of job satisfaction they have. Compensation is considered at two different levels: internal and external. 17 lgalens and Roussel (1999) found that the more employees are satisfied with the internal equity of their pay, the more they tend to be satisfied with their jobs. In the same study, lgalens and Roussel found some interesting information regarding the external pay compensation and job satisfaction among exempt employees. They discovered that the more employees feel that they were treated fairly, compared to other employees outside their organization , the more they are satisfied with regards to their job. This is an interesting concept and begs the questions whether or not the employees are already paid on par with peers externally. The sentiment among most Canadian universities who participated in this study is that their income is below their peers in both other public and private sector organizations. lgalens and Roussel concluded that compensation , in the form of benefits, neither increased nor decreased overall levels of job satisfaction. They speculated that benefits (insurance coverage, complimentary pension plan, employ welfare programs and recreational opportunities) were considered a right; and therefore, were not considered by employees to be a part of the overall compensation received by the employees. Merit pay, as a part of compensation , is directly linked to performance appraisal and will be considered in the next portion of the literature review. Hypothesis four: Employees who believe that they are being compensated fairly will have greater job satisfaction than those who do not. 18 Performance Appraisal There was mixed findings in the literature regarding the effectiveness of performance appraisal programs and the connection with job satisfaction. Much of the literature suggests that it is not the performance appraisal itself, rather, it is how they are implemented which impacts an employees' level of job satisfaction. For example, Ndambakuwa and Mufundu (2006) found that when the University of Zimbabwe implemented a performance appraisal system, employee (both faculty and staff) levels of job satisfaction and performance decreased by half. Part of the problem was that managers and administrators were not prepared to properly administer the appraisal and the lack of their preparation directly impacted the level of employee job satisfaction. They did find that a successful performance appraisal system does lead to increased job satisfaction among staff as it provides them an opportunity to evaluate and develop both the organization and themselves as individuals. Pettijohn eta/ (2001 ), found that employees experience the greatest level of job satisfaction when they understand the criteria used, agree with the criteria and believe that the appraisal process is fair. Having a fair process is particularly important as it relates to merit and the compensation levels of employees. Eskew eta/ (1996) concluded that successfulness of merit pay plan is dependent upon a clearly perceived link between pay and performance and the perceived fairness of the procedures used. Other criteria that were discovered to be important in the performance appraisal process were the opportunity for the subordinates to participate during their evaluation and be directly involved with career discussions (Nathan et a/, 19 1991 ). Typically, performance appraisals are seen as an opportunity for employees to have input into the direction of their careers and make their supervisors aware of any intended progression in the organization. It is also a chance for supervisors to assist subordinates in attaining these goals. Hypothesis five: Canadian universities that have a well established performance appraisal process which clearly defines the goals and objectives will have more satisfied employees than employees of universities that do not have such a system in place. Communication Baird eta!, (1978) have concluded that the single most influential factor in enhancing job satisfaction is superior-subordinate communication. They found that is makes no difference what the supervisor says, so long as he or she says something. If supervisors and subordinates are unable to communicate effectively with each other, it will be very difficult for work objectives to be met and for the supervisor to understand the career goals of the subordinates. Along the same lines as Baird eta/. , llozor eta/. (2001) also conclude that reduced communication in the workplace reduced job satisfaction and sometimes leads to employees leaving their jobs out of shear frustration. They suggested a number of strategies in which management can implement to increase overall job satisfaction among employees are to do the following: clearly communicate job responsibilities, clearly communicate goals and objectives, clearly communicate deadlines and job expectations and speak freely and regularly with employees. 20 Effective communication can not be underestimated. Employees benefit from having clear direction and being made aware of the expectations that are required of them. Communication , like voice, is an opportunity for conflicts to be resolved , ideas to be explored and direction to be given. Without having effective means to communicate, according to the research the worst case scenario is realized , and that is employee exodus from the organization. In order to avoid such a scenario from occurring, employees need to have a work environment that supports on going dialogue and communication throughout all levels of the organization. Hypothesis six: Canadian universities with effective communication between supervisors and subordinates will have more satisfied professional and managerial employees than employees of those universities that do not have established communication. Recognition Formal recognition programs such as employee of the month and attendance awards no longer work. Nelson (2004) surmises that the days of infrequent recognition by using the types of awards previously mentioned are ineffective and employees need to be recognized on a continuous basis. The recognition does not need to occur through formal processes but is just as effective if it is done sincerely and wholeheartedly. Congratulating an employee and thanking them for the contributions they have made to the workplace is seen by employees as being a more meaningful form of recognition. Kudos can be given in person or through the use of email. The form of recognition, Nelson 21 suggests, is not as significant as that the acknowledgement is made. The fact that the employees are trusted and respected is the type of recognition they seek in order to improve their job satisfaction (Nelson , 2004). Other ways to provide employees recognition is by giving them the autonomy and authority to make thei r own decisions regarding how best to do their work. Autonomy will be discussed in the last part of this section. Supervisors need to permit subordinates to pursue ideas that they might have for improving things at work and giving them a choice of work assignments. Providing employees a choice of work assignments may not be feasible in all situations, or something that can be done all of the time; however, it is viewed by employees as a form of recognition by acknowledging the good work they have done and permitting them to do something of interest. If however, an employer does decide to implement formal recognition , in order to make it meaningful to employees and increase the job satisfaction, the objectives for the reward need to be clearly stated, the reward needs to be equitable and achievable for everyone and the organization needs to use a quantitative form of evaluation so that each of the criteria can be measured fairly (Gryna, 1992). Hypothesis seven: Professional and managerial staff who are recognized for their work will have greater job satisfaction than employees who go unrecognized. 22 Workplace Autonomy There was little information on autonomy and the impact it has on job satisfaction. However, Daniels and Bailey (1999) did find that individuals who participate in decision-making are able to influence their working environment and had direct benefits of increased job satisfaction. Daniels and Bailey's research finding support the findings by Nelson (2004) , in which rewarding employees by giving them more autonomy in their jobs helps to motivate and provide employees with greater satisfaction. The same can be said about enabling employees to participate in the decision-making process. Providing employees an opportunity to voice their opinions and giving them a say in decisions can give employees a positive feeling about their jobs. Hypothesis eight: Professional and managerial employees who maintain greater autonomy and decision-making power over their work environment will have greater job satisfaction than peers at other universities who do not have the same opportunities. 23 METHODS The lack of previous information on the factors that influence job satisfaction among Canadian university professional and managerial staff necessitated an exploratory research design. Individual employee representatives from the professional and managerial staff groups were contacted in each of 49 Canadian universities. Contact information was sought from the universities web page. If information was not readily available on the webpage, or if it was difficult to find , an employee in Human Resources was contacted to provide further direction. A contact name was requested for the specified group of interest which most resembled UNBC's EEG members. A description of the EEG detailing who the group was and the type of positions in the group was provided. In instances where employees were not organized into a distinct group, the Human Resources Director was interviewed on behalf of these employees. Upon identification of an individual contact in the university, the representative was contacted by phone and asked if they would be interested in participating in the study. A future meeting time was set. Prior to the interview the consent form and project description were sent via email. The survey was performed via telephone interview. There were instances when participants requested the survey to be forwarded to them via email. The respondents sent the survey back via facsimile or mail. The survey focused on nine main factors that influenced overall job satisfaction . The survey is provided in Appendix One. The factors and questions under investigation were conflict resolution , performance appraisal and job 24 evaluation , employee voice, employment structure, employee compensation , employee rights , communication , recognition and acknowledgement, and autonomy. The questionnaire was designed to provide yes or no answers and gave an opportunity for respondents to further describe details about specific procedures. 25 - RESULTS As my sample size was small there was a concern that the small size would preclude the statistical program from finding significant differences. As a result, a 90% confidence limit was used for this project with a probability of 0.1 to indicate significant relationships. There were three distinct structures of professional and management staff in the universities: union , non-union group and individuals (neither union nor group). Table 1 is a summary of the professional and managerial staff structures in each university that participated in the study. Table 1 Employee structures for each university participant Employee Structure Number of universities Union 6 Non-union Group 23 Individuals (neither union nor 13 grouped). Out of the 42 universities that were included in this study, only 14% of them had unionized professional and managerial staff. Non-unionized groups were the highest affiliation of employees with 55% of the participating universities falling into this category. The final category was individual representation in which there were 31% of the universities had professional and managerial staff. A Kruskai-Wallis test was used to test the hypotheses in Table 2. 26 Table 2. Summary of Hypotheses tested by using the Kruskai-Wallis test and the Pearson Correlation. Hypothesis Number Hypothesis Defined One Professional and managerial employees of Canadian universities will have greater job satisfaction if they have an opportunity to voice their opinion, ideas and unhappiness in the organization. Two Professional Canadian university employees who belong to associations will have the greatest amount of job satisfaction, followed by unionized employees and finally individual employees. Three Universities that have conflict resolution procedures will have more satisfied professional and managerial employees. Employees who are believe that they Four are being compensated fairly will have greater job satisfaction than those who do not. Five Canadian universities that have a well established performance appraisal process which clearly defines the goals and objectives will have more satisfied employees than employees of universities that do not have access such a system in place. Six Canadian universities with effective communication between supervisors and subordinates will have more satisfied professional and managerial employees than employees of those universities that do not have established communication. Table 3 is a summary of these results. 27 Table 3. Kruskai-Wallis Test Used to Compare Factors and Overall Job Satisfaction . I an d Managena . I Em ::>loyees I . .. among Pro f ess1ona of C ana d'1an U n1vers1t1es. Grouping Variable Group N Mean Chi df Asymp. Rank Square Sig. 1. Negotiate wages and No 16.31 8 0.320 1 0.572 benefits 21 14.50 Yes 13.33 2. Negotiate rules and working No 6 conditions 0.353 1 0.552 Yes 23 15.43 3. Represent employees No 13 14.77 0.021 1 0.885 regarding complaints Yes 16 15.19 4. Formal document specifying No 21.00 3 2.203 1 rights of the members 0.155 Yes 26 14.31 5. Document subject to No 7 17.71 1.142 1 0.285 negotiations Yes 22 14.14 19.70 No 6. Employees represented on 5 influential university committees 2.242 1 0.134 Yes 24 14.02 7. Have a say in position No 12 14.42 0.117 1 0.734 descriptions Yes 17 15.41 No 13 11.65 8. Have a say in the grade level of the positions 4.431 1 0.035 Yes 16 17.72 15.22 9. Negotiate performance No 9 incentives for these employees 0.011 1 0.917 Yes 20 14.90 No 15.56 10. Represent employees in 8 0.059 1 any other way 0.809 Yes 21 14.79 11. Individuals can negotiate salary 12. University has a grievance/complaint procedure 13. Employees have an influence in the job evaluation 14. Performance appraisal for development 15. Performance appraisal for wage increase 16. Internal Pay Equity 17. External Pay Equity 18. Overall wage satisfaction 19. University has effective communication No Yes No Yes No Yes No Yes No Yes No Yes No Yes No Yes No Yes 28 13 28 14 28 21.85 20.61 25.11 19.70 33 13 28 19 23 7 33 20 14 5 33 17 22 21.53 21.31 20.86 22.82 20.41 12.57 22.18 14.70 21.50 11.80 20.67 15.50 23.48 9 21.39 0.126 1 0.723 2.370 1 0.124 0.001 1 0.972 0.023 1 0.897 0.521 1 0.470 4.868 1 0.027 5.510 1 0.019 5.840 1 0.016 3.942 1 0.047 Table 3. continued Kruskai-Wallis Test Used to Compare Factors and Overall Job Satisfaction among Professional and Managerial Employees of Canadian Universities. Grouping Variable 20. Access to mediation 21. Access to negotiation 22. Access to arbitration 23. Good work is acknowledged 24. University supports career development 25. University supports professional training 26. Overall job satisfaction based on employment structure Group N No Yes No Yes No Yes No Yes 11 30 16 25 27 14 12 20 Mean Rank 21.91 20.67 24.66 18.66 22.57 17.96 13.58 18.25 No Yes No Yes Union Nonunion individual 5 36 7 34 6 23 10.60 22.44 15.57 22.12 17.50 21.26 13 23.77 Chi Square df Asymp. 0.000 1 0.987 2.363 1 0.024 1.413 1 0.234 1.829 1 0.176 7.126 1 0.008 3.348 1 0.067 1.425 2 0.490 Sig_. Hypothesis one was tested by considering the difference in job satisfaction between those who said yes and those who said no on variables 6, 7, 8 and 13. Respectively variables 6, 7, 8 and 13 are as follows: employees are represented on influential university committees, group has a say in positions descriptions, group has a say in the grade level of a position and employees have an influence in the evaluation of their job. The ability to represent employees on university committees had no difference on overall job satisfaction (X2= 2.24, p=0.13). Likewise questions 7 and 13 had no difference on job satisfaction with the following test results observed respectively (variable 7: X2=0.12, p=0.73; variable 13: X2= 0.00, p= 0.97). 29 The final factor tested for hypothesis one was the ability for professional and managerial employees to be involved with determining their grade levels. The results from Table 3 indicate there was a difference in overall job satisfaction for those employees who were permitted to offer feedback and be directly involved in the determination of their grade level (X2= 4.431, p=0.035). Therefore, hypothesis one was partially supported. Hypothesis two, if employees belong to an association they will have a higher level of job satisfaction, was rejected. Variable 26 tested the types of employee structures, association, union and individual employee representation against job satisfaction. The outcome was that no one type of employee structure was favourable over another (X2= 1.425, p=0.490). Variables 4 (formal document specifying rights of members; X2=2.203; p=0.155), 12 (university has a grievance/complaint procedure; X2=2.37; p=0.12), 20 (access to mediation; X2=0.00; p=0.99), 21 (access to negation, X2=2.36, p=0.02) and 22 (access to mediation, X2=1.83, p=0.18) were used to determine whether respondents who answered yes or no had greater levels of job satisfaction or not. Hypothesis three stated that universities that have conflict resolution procedures will have more satisfied professional and managerial employees. According to the results, hypothesis three is only partially supported by employees who have access to negotiation and those employees who do not. Hypothesis four stated that employees who believe that they are being compensated fairly will have greater job satisfaction than those who do not. Compensation included wages and benefits. 30 Aside from typical benefits one might consider (e.g. extended health and dental), benefits also included training and career development. Career development was distinguished separately from professional training. Where professional training was defined as the ability to attend conferences or specialty seminars, career development was considered to be degrees, university courses, diplomas or certification. Hypothesis four was tested by considering the difference in job satisfaction between those participants who responded yes and no to the following variables: 1, 9, 11, 16, 17, 18, 24 and 25. Variable 1 was the group negotiates wages and benefits. This did not appear to influence employee job satisfaction (X2= 0.32, p=0.57). Likewise, variables 9 and 11 also did not support the hypothesis. Variable 9, the group can negotiate performance incentives (X2= 0.01, p=0.92), and variable 11, individuals can negotiate their own salary (X2= 0.53, p=0.72) did not have a significant impact on job satisfaction between either the yes or no respondents. The values for the following variables 16 (internal pay equity; X2= 4.87, p=0.03), 17 (external pay equity; X2= 5.51, p=0.02) and 18 (overall wage satisfaction X2=5.84; p=0.02) were used to determine whether or not compensation influenced overall job satisfaction. These results support they hypothesis that wage compensation has an overall impact on job satisfaction. Variables 24 (university supports career development) and 25 (university supports professional training) were focused on the potential benefits available for university professional and managerial staff. These two variables were used to measure the difference between yes and no respondents and the impact of having the opportunity to obtain career development or professional training has 31 on job satisfaction. There was a difference in job satisfaction between the yes and no respondents. Those individuals who had worked at a university that supported career development were generally more satisfied than those who did not have it (X2= 7.126, p=0.008). Factor 25, the university supports training and professional development, (X2= 3.348 , p=0.067) also resulted in higher job satisfaction in individuals who are able to get this form of compensation. Given these results , hypothesis four, employees who feel they are compensated for fairly will have greater job satisfaction was supported. Hypothesis five stated that Canadian universities that have a well established performance appraisal process, which clearly defines the goals and objectives, will have more satisfied employees than employees of universities that do not have such a system . Variable 14 and 15 were used to determine whether or not universities who had an appraisal processed had higher levels of satisfied employees. Variable 14 stated that the performance appraisal is for developmental purposes (X2 = 0.02, p=0.90). Variable 15 states that the performance appraisal system is for wage incentives (X2 = 0.52, p=0.47). Given the results of this survey, hypothesis five was not supported by the research findings. Hypothesis six stated that Canadian universities with effective communication between supervisors and subordinates will have more satisfied professional and managerial employees than employees of those universities that do not have established communication. Variables used to measure this hypothesis were numbers 19 and 23. The results for variables 19 and 23 were 32 as follows : variable 19, the university has effective communication in place (X2=3.942, p=0.05) and variable 26 good work is acknowledged (X2= 1.829, p=0.17). Hypothesis six was partially supported by the data. Respondents indicated that it was hard for them to comment whether or not good work was acknowledged by supervisors. This may be one reason for the discrepancy in the results . A Pearson correlation test was used to test the overall job satisfaction of professional and managerial staff and their relationship with senior administrators, the autonomy they believe they have in their work environment and their overall ability to influence change in their work environment. Hypothesis seven stated that professional and managerial staff that are recognized for their work will have greater job satisfaction than employees who go unrecognized. Hypothesis eight stated that professional and managerial employees who maintain greater autonomy and decision-making power over their work environment will have greater job satisfaction than peers at other universities who do not have the same opportunities. Both hypothesis seven and eight were supported by the data presented in Table 4. 33 .56 .62 .78 .77 .98 .70 .31 3.62 4.48 3.65 3.12 3.55 3.63 3.08 2. Employees believe they have influence in their work. 3. Employees believe they influence change in the university. 4. Employees believe their work is considered important by senior managers. 5. Employees have a strong emotional attachment to the university. 6. University's senior administrators recognize the overall contribution of the group. 7. The group feels recognized by the senior administrators. 8. The senior administrators understand the role of the group and who the grou~ is. Note:* means p < .1, **means p < .05 .72 3.46 SD 1. Overall Job Satisfaction Mean 0.28* 0.56** 0.40** -0.03 0.31 * 0.38* 0.47** 1 0.00 -0.08 0.54** 0.24 0.42** 0.46** 0.04 0.58** 3 0.09 0.45** 0.48** 2 -0.04 0.62** 0.49** -0.06 4 0.32 -0.11 0.13 5 0.36* 0.56** 6 0.29* 7 Table 4 Pearson Correlation of Factors as related to Overall Job Satisfaction among Canadian University Professional and Managerial Employees. The above results suggest that there was a medium positive correlation between employees job satisfaction and the influence employees believe that they have in their work (r=0.47, p=0.002) and employees also have a medium positive correlation in their ability to make changes in the university (r=0.38, p=0.014) . There were also positive correlations between employees belief that senior administrators recognize the overall contribution of the group (r=0.40, p=0.008) and the group feels recognized by senior administrators (r=0.56, p