USF Libraries
USF Digital Collections

Job satisfaction among high school assistant principals in seven Florida counties

MISSING IMAGE

Material Information

Title:
Job satisfaction among high school assistant principals in seven Florida counties
Physical Description:
Book
Language:
English
Creator:
Taylor, John R
Publisher:
University of South Florida
Place of Publication:
Tampa, Fla
Publication Date:

Subjects

Subjects / Keywords:
Education
Leadership
Secondary
MSQ
Principalship
Dissertations, Academic -- Educational Leadership -- Doctoral -- USF   ( lcsh )
Genre:
bibliography   ( marcgt )
theses   ( marcgt )
non-fiction   ( marcgt )

Notes

Summary:
ABSTRACT: This study replicated the study by Mary E. Neal, Job Satisfaction of Florida's High School Assistant Principals as a Factor in the Maintenance of an Administrative Workforce (2002) and extended the research by examining the job satisfaction of high school assistant principals in seven Florida county school districts. The present study utilized quantitative and qualitative data. Respondents (n = 128) were surveyed using the Minnesota Satisfaction Questionnaire (MSQ short form), Individual Demographic Questionnaire, and Telephone Interview Questionnaire. One assistant principal from each of seven counties volunteered to complete the Telephone Interview Questionnaire. The 128 respondents represented 60% of 214 assistant principals contacted. The majority (74.18%) of Florida high school assistant principals participating in this study expressed satisfaction with their jobs. The greatest dissatisfaction area (52%) was compensation. More assistant principals were dissatisfied with their salary than any other area. Thirty-five percent of the participants were 31-40 years old, 79% had a Master's degree, 33% had been a high school assistant principal 1-3 years, 60% worked 51-60 hours per week, 57% were at suburban schools, 48% were at schools with 26%-50% of students on free and/or reduced lunch, and 32% were at schools with student enrollments between 1601-2400. The majority of participants (42%) in this study were at schools which received a school grade of "C" on the Florida Comprehensive Assessment Test. None of the four independent variables (school size, tenure, age, or gender) was statistically significant to the dependent variables of general satisfaction, intrinsic satisfaction, or extrinsic satisfaction. Four additional independent variables (salary, free/reduced lunch, school grade, and principalship interest) were analyzed with the dependent variables (general satisfaction, intrinsic satisfaction, or extrinsic satisfaction). A multipleregression revealed significance between general satisfaction and school grade (p < .05) and intrinsic satisfaction and school grade (p < .05). High school assistant principals in lower performing schools were less satisfied than assistant principals in higher performing schools. The relationship between extrinsic satisfaction and free/reduced lunch (p=.07) is worthy of notice. Telephone interviews provided qualitative data suggesting respondents lack desire to pursue the high school principalship. This supports the growing concern regarding high school principal shortages. The correlation (r = .35, p < .0001) between age and principalship (no-interest) indicated that as high school assistant principals got older they lost interest in becoming high school principals. As administrators spend time in their role as assistant principals they need to be mentored, trained, and encouraged to pursue their personal development of becoming a principal as soon as they are able. If assistant principals are not persuaded to move into principalships as soon as they are ready, their interest in that pursuit may quickly wane. It is important that school districts identify and maintain current job satisfaction data if they plan to persuade assistant principals into becoming principals. School districts must assess what satisfies and dissatisfies assistant principals if they want to be successful in recruiting positive, capable leadership for the role of high school principal.
Thesis:
Dissertation (Ed.D.)--University of South Florida, 2007.
Bibliography:
Includes bibliographical references.
System Details:
System requirements: World Wide Web browser and PDF reader.
System Details:
Mode of access: World Wide Web.
Statement of Responsibility:
by John R. Taylor.
General Note:
Title from PDF of title page.
General Note:
Document formatted into pages; contains 177 pages.
General Note:
Includes vita.

Record Information

Source Institution:
University of South Florida Library
Holding Location:
University of South Florida
Rights Management:
All applicable rights reserved by the source institution and holding location.
Resource Identifier:
aleph - 001927861
oclc - 192043846
usfldc doi - E14-SFE0001932
usfldc handle - e14.1932
System ID:
SFS0026250:00001


This item is only available as the following downloads:


Full Text

PAGE 1

Job Satisfaction Among High School Assistant Principals in Seven Florida Counties by John R. Taylor A dissertation submitted in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of Doctor of Education Department of Educational Leadership and Policy Studies College of Education University of South Florida Co-Major Professor: Arthur Shapiro, Ph.D. Co-Major Professor: Steve Permuth, Ed.D. William Benjamin, Ph.D. Robert Dedrick, Ph.D. Date of Approval: March 22, 2007 Keywords: education, leadership, MSQ, principalship, secondary Copyright 2007, John R. Taylor

PAGE 2

Dedication This dissertation is dedicated to my parents, Robert and Lilian Taylor, who passed away at too young an age. Their love for one another and for God taught me the most important aspects of life. They instilled within me the values of hard work and doing my best.

PAGE 3

Acknowledgements I would like to thank my wife, Kathryn “Kittye” Edmonston Taylor, for her love and patience throughout this project. It was her encouragement and support that enabled me to continue this to completion. She has been my rock and refuge in time of need. Kittye is the love of my life and I love her with all of my heart. I would also like to extend a very special thanks to my dear friend, Fay Edwards, who has always believed in me and supported me throughout our many years of friendship. To my doctoral committee: Dr. Arthur Shapiro, Dr. Steve Permuth, Dr. William Benjamin, and Dr. Robert Dedrick, I extend my greatest thanks and indebtedness for your time, dedication, and never ending assistance. To my colleagues in Pasco County who have been a wonderful support of encouragement, thank you for your friendship and allowing me to serve alongside of you. Most importantly, I would like to give thanks to God for giving me the opportunity to be used by Him and to accomplish the seemingly impossible. I give thanks to my Lord for instilling within me the ability and fortitude to persevere to the end. “Now to the King eternal, immortal, invisible, the only God, be honor and glory for ever and ever. Amen” (I Timothy 1:17).

PAGE 4

i TABLE OF CONTENTS LIST OF TABLES........................................................................................................iii LIST OF FIGURES........................................................................................................vi ABSTRACT..................................................................................................................vii CHAPTER 1. INTRODUCTION .....................................................................................1 Statement of the Problem.....................................................................................4 Purpose................................................................................................................5 Research Questions..............................................................................................6 Definitions of Terms............................................................................................6 Limitations of the Study.......................................................................................7 Organization of the Study.....................................................................................8 CHAPTER 2. REVIEW OF LITERATURE..................................................................10 Job Satisfaction Theories....................................................................................10 Job Satisfaction Studies......................................................................................22 Studies Related to Demographic Variables.........................................................29 School Size.............................................................................................29 Tenure....................................................................................................30 Age........................................................................................................31 Gender....................................................................................................33 The Role and Responsibilities of the Assistant Principal....................................37 The Principal Shortage.......................................................................................50 Summary...........................................................................................................55 CHAPTER 3. METHOD ..............................................................................................57 Design of the Study............................................................................................58 Participants........................................................................................................61 Measures............................................................................................................76 Minnesota Satisfaction Questionnaire.....................................................76 Individual Demographic Questionnaire...................................................89 Telephone Interview Questionnaire........................................................89 Procedures.........................................................................................................91 Pilot Study..............................................................................................91 Data Collection Process..........................................................................93 Analysis of Data.................................................................................................97

PAGE 5

ii Summary...........................................................................................................99 CHAPTER 4. RESULT S............................................................................................. 101 Analysis of Res earch Ques tions ....................................................................... 101 Research Qu estion One ......................................................................... 102 Research Qu estion Two ........................................................................ 105 Research Ques tion Th ree ...................................................................... 109 Analysis of Additional Independent Va riable s.................................................. 118 General Sa tisfactio n.............................................................................. 118 Intrinsic Sa tisfactio n............................................................................. 121 Extrinsic Sa tisfactio n............................................................................ 124 Analysis of Telephone In terview Questi onnair e............................................... 128 Partic ipants ........................................................................................... 128 Question naire ....................................................................................... 129 Them es................................................................................................. 129 Summa ry......................................................................................................... 132 CHAPTER 5. SUMMARY OF RESULTS, CONCLUSIONS, IMPLICATIONS, AND RECOMMEND ATIONS ........................................................................ 135 Proble m........................................................................................................... 135 Purpos e............................................................................................................ 136 Research Qu estion s.......................................................................................... 136 Method of Summary ........................................................................................ 137 Summary of Findi ngs ....................................................................................... 138 Research Qu estion One ......................................................................... 138 Research Qu estion Two ........................................................................ 139 Research Ques tion Th ree ...................................................................... 140 Conclusi ons ..................................................................................................... 142 Implicat ions ..................................................................................................... 146 Limitati ons ....................................................................................................... 149 Recommendations for Further Re search ........................................................... 150 Summary ......................................................................................................... 153 REFERENC ES............................................................................................................ 155 APPENDICE S............................................................................................................. 163 Appendix A: ChiSquare Ta bles ....................................................................... 164 Appendix B: Individual De mographic Ques tionnair e....................................... 170 Appendix C: Telephone In terview Questi onnair e............................................. 173 Appendix D: Init ial Cover Letter ...................................................................... 174 Appendix E: Fo llow-Up Le tter ......................................................................... 175 Appendix F: Final Follow-Up Letter ................................................................ 177 ABOUT THE AUTHOR....................................................................................End Page

PAGE 6

iii LIST OF TABLES Table 2.1 A Comparison of the Frequency with Which Participants in the Career Study Experienced a Variety of Satisfactions as Teachers and as Assistant Principals......................................................................................26 Table 2.2 A Comparison of the Frequency with Which Upward Mobile Participants in the Career Study Experienced a Variety of Satisfactions in the Assistant Principalship and Advanced Positions..................................27 Table 2.3 Distribution of Principals and Assistant Principals by Age...........................32 Table 2.4 Sex of Assistant Principals by Region..........................................................34 Table 2.5 Sex of Assistant Principals by Community Population.................................35 Table 2.6 Sex of Assistant Principals by School Type..................................................35 Table 2.7 Activities Which Assistant Principals Share or Have Full Responsibility..............................................................................................43 Table 2.8 Assistant Principals’ Ratings of Their Administrative Duties for Degree of Responsibility..............................................................................45 Table 2.9 Assistant Principals’ Ratings of Their Administrative Duties for Degree of Importance...................................................................................46 Table 2.10 Assistant Principals’ Ratings of Their Administrative Duties for Degree of Responsibility and Degree of Importance.....................................47 Table 3.1 Number of Schools and Assistant Principals (AP’s) Participating in Study............................................................................................................62 Table 3.2 Respondents Demographic Information (Age, and Gender)..........................63 Table 3.3 Respondents’ Demographic Information (Highest Level of Education, Number Years in Public Education, and Number of Years as High School Assistant Principal)...........................................................................64

PAGE 7

iv Table 3.4 Respondents’ Demographic Information (Salary, Avg # Hours Worked, Interest in Principalship) ...............................................................66 Table 3.5 Respondents’ Demographic Information (Enrollment, Location, and # of AP’s).......................................................................................................67 Table 3.6 Respondents’ Demographic Information (Free/Reduced Lunch, School Grade, and # teachers on staff) .....................................................................69 Table 3.7 Five Factor Results of Principal Axis Factor Analysis with Promax Rotation ......................................................................................................85 Table 3.8 Two Factor Results of Factor Analysis.........................................................87 Table 4.1 Minnesota Satisfaction Questionnaire Category, Dimension, Mean, Standard Deviation, Sk ewness, and Kurtos is.............................................. 103 Table 4.2 Responses to General Jo b Satisfaction Ques tions/It ems .............................. 104 Table 4.3 Responses to Intrinsic Jo b Satisfaction Ques tions/It ems ............................. 106 Table 4.4 Responses to Extrinsic Jo b Satisfaction Ques tions/It ems ............................ 108 Table 4.5 Job Satisfaction: Mean, Standa rd Deviation, Skew ness, Kurt osis ................ 110 Table 4.6 General Satisfaction Means and Standard Deviation in Relation to Independent Variables School Si ze, Tenure, Age, and Ge nder .................... 111 Table 4.7 Multiple Regression Results for General Satisfaction with Predictor Variables Age, Gender, Te nure, and Sch ool Si ze ....................................... 113 Table 4.8 Intrinsic Satisfaction Means and Standard Deviation in Relation to Independent Variables School Si ze, Tenure, Age, and Ge nder .................... 114 Table 4.9 Multiple Regression Results for Intrinsic Satisfaction with Predictor Variables Age, Gender, Te nure, and Sch ool Si ze........................................ 115 Table 4.10 Extrinsic Satisfaction Means and Standard Deviation in Relation to Independent Variables School Size, Tenure, Age, and Gend er ................... 116 Table 4.11 Multiple Regression Results for Extrinsic Satisfaction with Predictor Variables Age, Gender, Te nure, and Sch ool Si ze ....................................... 117

PAGE 8

v Table 4.12 General Satisfaction Means and Standard Deviation in Relation to Independent Variables Salary, Free/Reduced Lunch, School Grade, and Principalshi p Intere st........................................................................... 119 Table 4.13 Multiple Regression results for General Satisfaction and Four Additional Predictor Variables: Salary, Free/Reduced Lunch, School Grade, and Principa lship Inte rest ................................................................ 120 Table 4.14 Intrinsic Satisfaction Means and Standard Deviation in Relation to Independent Variables Salary, Free/Reduced Lunch, School Grade, and Principalshi p Intere st........................................................................... 122 Table 4.15 Multiple Regression results for Intrinsic Satisfaction and Four Additional Predictor Variables: Salary, Free/Reduced Lunch, School Grade, and Principa lship Inte rest ................................................................ 124 Table 4.16 Extrinsic Satisfaction Means and Standard Deviation in Relation to Independent Variables Salary, Free/Reduced Lunch, School Grade, and Principalshi p Intere st........................................................................... 125 Table 4.17 Multiple Regression results for Extrinsic Satisfaction and Four Additional Predictor Variables: Salary, Free/Reduced Lunch, School Grade, and Principa lship Inte rest ................................................................ 127 Table 4.18 Correlation Matrix of Eight Predicto r Variab les ......................................... 128 Table 5.1 Tenure of Assistant Pr incipals in Neal ’s 2002 St udy ................................... 145 Table 5.2 Tenure of Assistant Principals in This St udy .............................................. 145 Table A1 Chi-Square Table Results of Variables Gend er and Age ............................. 164 Table A2 Chi-Square Table Results of Variables Gend er and Te nure ......................... 165 Table A3 Chi-Square Table Results of Variables Gender an d School Size ................. 166 Table A4 Chi-Square Table Result s of Variables Ag e and Te nure ............................. 167 Table A5 Chi-Square Table Results of Variables Age an d School Size ...................... 168 Table A6 Chi-Square Table Results of Variables Tenure and School Size..................169

PAGE 9

vi LIST OF FIGURES Figure 2.1 Model of the Determinants of Satisfaction....................................................16 Figure 3.1 Gender and Age............................................................................................71 Figure 3.2 Gender and Tenure.......................................................................................72 Figure 3.3 Gender and School Size................................................................................73 Figure 3.4 Age and Tenure............................................................................................74 Figure 3.5 Age and School Size.....................................................................................75 Figure 3.6 Tenure and School Size.................................................................................76

PAGE 10

vii JOB SATISFACTION AMONG HIGH SCHOOL ASSISTANT PRINCIPALS IN SEVEN FLORIDA COUNTIES John R. Taylor ABSTRACT This study replicated the study by Mary E. Neal, Job Satisfaction of Florida’s High School Assistant Principals as a Factor in the Maintenance of an Administrative Workforce (2002) and extended the research by examining the job satisfaction of high school assistant principals in seven Florida county school districts. The present study utilized quantitative and qualitative data. Respondents ( n = 128) were surveyed using the Minnesota Satisfaction Questionnaire (MSQ short form), Individual Demographic Questionnaire, and Telephone Interview Questionnaire. One assistant principal from each of seven counties volunteered to complete the Telephone Interview Questionnaire. The 128 respondents represented 60% of 214 assistant principals contacted. The majority (74.18%) of Florida high school assistant principals participating in this study expressed satisfaction with their jobs. The greatest dissatisfaction area (52%) was compensation. More assistant principals were dissatisfied with their salary than any other area.

PAGE 11

viii Thirty-five percent of the participants were 31-40 years old, 79% had a Master’s degree, 33% had been a high school assistant principal 1-3 years, 60% worked 51-60 hours per week, 57% were at suburban schools, 48% were at schools with 26%-50% of students on free and/or reduced lunch, and 32% were at schools with student enrollments between 1601-2400. The majority of participants (42%) in this study were at schools which received a school grade of “C” on the Florida Comprehensive Assessment Test. None of the four independent variables (school size, tenure, age, or gender) was statistically significant to the dependent variables of general satisfaction, intrinsic satisfaction, or extrinsic satisfaction. Four additional independent variables (salary, free/reduced lunch, school grade, and principalship interest) were analyzed with the dependent variables (general satisfaction, intrinsic satisfaction, or extrinsic satisfaction). A multiple regression revealed significance between general satisfaction and school grade ( p <.05) and intrinsic satisfaction and school grade ( p <.05). High school assistant principals in lower performing schools were less satisfied than assistant principals in higher performing schools. The relationship between extrinsic satisfaction and free/reduced lunch ( p =.07) is worthy of notice. Telephone interviews provided qualitative data suggesting respondents lack desire to pursue the high school principalship. This supports the growing concern regarding high school principal shortages. The correlation ( r = .35, p <.0001) between age and principalship (no-interest) indicated that as high school assistant principals got older they lost interest in becoming high school principals. As administrators spend time in their role as assistant principals they need to be mentored, trained, and encouraged to pursue their personal development

PAGE 12

ix of becoming a principal as soon as they are able. If assistant principals are not persuaded to move into principalships as soon as they are ready, their interest in that pursuit may quickly wane. It is important that school districts identify and maintain current job satisfaction data if they plan to persuade assistant principals into becoming principals. School districts must assess what satisfies and dissatisfies assistant principals if they want to be successful in recruiting positive, capable leadership for the role of high school principal.

PAGE 13

1 1 CHAPTER 1 INTRODUCTION Although much has been written about job satisfaction in general, very little research has been conducted in relation to high school assistant principals and their job satisfaction. Herrington and Wills (2005) have stated, “During the past few years, superintendents and district human resource officers have reported increasing difficulty in filling vacant school leadership positions” (p. 182). With predictions of nationwide principal shortages (Capelluti & Nye, 2005; Fenwick & Pierce, 2001), investigating the job satisfaction level of assistant principals in Florida is worthy of study. Current assistant principal job satisfaction levels are important because they will soon become the pool of candidates from which future principal selections are made. Since Florida districts tend to be very large, without qualified, trained, and satisfied principal candidates, there won’t be enough candidates to fill the upcoming principal vacancies. Job satisfaction has a long history of study. Hoppock (1935) suggested that job satisfaction comes from a variety of circumstances and can be tentatively defined as “any combination of psychological, physiological, and environmental circumstances that causes a person truthfully to say, ‘I am satisfied with my job’” (p. 47). According to Hoppock, job satisfaction depends on a variety of factors working in concert with one another to provide the necessary balance, which gives the worker a sense of satisfaction. An imbalance of factors would produce dissatisfaction. Gruneberg (1979) viewed job

PAGE 14

2 2 satisfaction as an individual’s emotional reactions to a specific job. Weller and Weller (2002) saw job satisfaction as “a mixture of psychological, task-related, and environmental variables” (p. 43). Decades ago, the assistant principal had been considered the forgotten stepchild in administrative study and research (Austin & Brown, 1970). Sharp and Walter stated more recently, “the job of the assistant principal is generally considered as the entry-level position into the field of school administration” (2003, p. 219). The duties and responsibilities of the assistant principal vary from school to school, but they do have some tasks in common. According to Marshall (1992), they include meeting in conferences with parents and students, handling behavior issues, working on the master schedule, dealing with attendance, and providing guidance and counseling to students. Due to the serious rise of school violence over the past several years, school safety is also an area of responsibility assistant principals address on a daily basis. Why high school assistant principals are satisfied or dissatisfied with any aspect of the job they perform is important to identify because it enables individual schools and districts to promote the positive accomplishments of their administrators and work on areas of weakness. For example, by promoting the positive accomplishments of an assistant principal (e.g., recognizing needed training and providing it for his or her teachers) he or she will be encouraged to do even more for the school staff. Inversely, if the assistant principal lacks certain skills (e.g., planning a master schedule) the results could be detrimental to everyone connected with the school. It is vital for the assistant principal to receive the necessary training to perform that portion of his or her job at a

PAGE 15

3 3 level of satisfaction. In following this practice, individuals, schools, and districts may all benefit. This researcher located one other Florida study, conducted by Mary E. Neal in 2002, on the job satisfaction of public high school assistant principals. The intention of this researcher was to replicate and extend her study on job satisfaction among high school assistant principals in the same seven Florida counties. Neal’s study focused on seven Florida counties and was a follow-up study of Thornton’s (1996) research on job satisfaction among middle school assistant principals in three Florida counties (Orange, Osceola, and Seminole). Neal expanded her sample to include seven Florida counties. Both Thornton and Neal used the Job Descriptive Index (JDI) as their instrument to measure job satisfaction, but neither included qualitative data in their studies. In an effort to extend Neal’s research in a significant way, three types of extensions were incorporated to make this replication worthwhile. As suggested by Gall, Borg, and Gall (1996), this study has be extended: “to check the validity of research findings across different populations, to check trends or change over time … to check important findings using different methodology” (pp. 53-54). This study (1) used a different population by inviting the current high school assistant principals to participate, (2) compares the analysis of Neal’s previous study on job satisfaction with this one, noting any trends or changes over time, and (3) uses different methodology by utilizing the Minnesota Satisfaction Questionnaire (short form, 20 questions), an Individual Demographic Questionnaire (Appendix B), and conducting a Telephone Interview Questionnaire (Appendix C).

PAGE 16

4 4 This researcher conducted a pilot study using the Minnesota Satisfaction Questionnaire (short form), Individual Demographic Questionnaire, and Telephone Interview Questionnaire among five Florida high school administrators (two principals and three assistant principals). Feedback from the pilot study participants was used to determine if any changes were needed concerning the instruments’ design or contents. This researcher wanted to know if a different sample (different mix of administrators in the seven Florida counties) and different methods (MSQ, short form) would reveal the same results as Neal’s study. Also, what trends or changes could be discovered by comparing the analysis of this study to Neal’s? Statement of the Problem Although, job satisfaction is one the most frequently studied variables in organizational behavior research (Spector, 1997), few researchers have given attention to the role of the high school assistant principal and job satisfaction. According to Fenwick and Pierce (2001), "states are reporting shortages of qualified principal candidates and many school districts are struggling to fill vacancies" (p. 25). Whitaker (2001) reveals, “these shortages occurred among all types of schools (rural, urban, suburban)" (p. 82). Herrington and Wills (2005) have stated, “During the past few years, superintendents and district human resource officers have reported increasing difficulty in filling vacant school leadership positions” (p. 182). Current assistant principals are often asked to fill the roles of principals due to the immediate and ongoing statewide (Florida) and national shortage of principals. Many studies have been done on high school principal job satisfaction, but very few studies have been conducted on the job satisfaction of high school assistant

PAGE 17

5 5 principals. This researcher has only found two such studies, one done in Florida by Neal (2002) and another conducted in Mississippi by Chen (2000). Purpose The purpose of this study was to conduct research and to share its findings with those in high school administration and those considering such a career to evaluate the variables contributing to job satisfaction or dissatisfaction. This study examined the job satisfaction of high school assistant principals in seven Florida counties to determine if they were satisfied with their jobs. First, this study measured, using the Minnesota Satisfaction Questionnaire, the general job satisfaction level of high school assistant principals in seven Florida counties. Second, this study measured, using the Minnesota Satisfaction Questionnaire, job satisfaction levels of high school assistant principals in seven Florida counties based on intrinsic and extrinsic job satisfaction factors. Third, this study identified the relationship between general, intrinsic, and extrinsic job satisfaction as measured by the Minnesota Satisfaction Questionnaire and the demographic variables: school size, tenure (length of time as a high school assistant principal), age, and gender, among high school assistant principals in seven Florida counties. An additional purpose of this study was to conduct an exploratory analysis of additional factors.

PAGE 18

6 6 Research Questions The following three research questions were examined: 1. What is the general satisfaction level of high school assistant principals in seven Florida counties as measured by the Minnesota Satisfaction Questionnaire? 2. What is the level of job satisfaction among high school assistant principals in seven Florida counties based on the intrinsic and extrinsic job satisfaction factors as measured by the Minnesota Satisfaction Questionnaire? 3. What is the relationship between general, intrinsic, and extrinsic job satisfaction, as measured by the Minnesota Satisfaction Questionnaire, and the demographic variables: school size, tenure, age, and gender, among high school assistant principals in seven Florida counties? Definitions of Terms Job satisfaction “is simply how people feel about their jobs and different aspects of their jobs. It is the extent to which people like (satisfaction) or dislike (dissatisfaction) their jobs” (Spector, 1997, p.2). Job satisfaction facets (any aspect of the job, communication, coworkers, pay, recognition, etc.) or variables are commonly used as indicators when measuring job satisfaction. High school assistant principal – individuals who “generally supervise all of the non-instructional time of students" (Phi Kappa Delta, 1990, p. i). The individual who is significantly involved with student achievement and the instructional programming of the school (Kelly, 1987).

PAGE 19

7 7 Intrinsic – Internal factors inherent within each individual (personal values, belief systems, etc.) Extrinsic – Factors which provide external influences on the individual (work environment, recognition, etc.). Tenure – length of time (years) as a high school assistant principal. Limitations of the Study The population for this study was limited to high school assistant principals in seven Florida counties who had their email addresses posted on their schools’ websites and were willing to participate in the study. The limited population for this study warrants care and concern with the interpretation or generalizations of the findings. Since this study includes only high school assistant principals, efforts to generalize this study to middle school or elementary school assistant principals would not be appropriate. Another limitation of this study is its reliance on self-reported information. Respondents to the study may have given socially acceptable rather than objective responses to the questions asked. The lack of control over the variables is also a contributing factor to the limitations of this study. Respondents bring with them variables that the researcher has no control over (gender, age, tenure, etc.). Another limitation to be aware of is that no one factor may be the true causative agent that determines job satisfaction or dissatisfaction. Multiple factors in combination with one another may have a positive or negative impact on job satisfaction.

PAGE 20

8 8 Also, this study involved only assistant principals working in Florida high schools. Generalizing the findings of this study to high school assistant principals outside the state of Florida would not be appropriate. The instrument selected for the study, the Minnesota Satisfaction Questionnaire (MSQ), Short Form (1977), was initially developed to measure the job satisfaction in vocational careers. The MSQ was modified slightly to accommodate the need of an educational administrative perspective. Two wordings were modified: “company” was changed to “school system”, and “boss” was changed to “principal.” These modifications were done with the approval from Vocational Psychology Research at the University of Minnesota. Organization of the Study Chapter 1 presents an overview of the research problem. An introduction, statement of the problem, purpose of the study, research questions, and definitions of terms were given. The chapter concludes with a section on identifying the study’s limitations. Chapter 2 introduces literature related to the study. The chapter includes job satisfaction theories, job satisfaction studies, studies related to demographic variables (school size, tenure, age, and gender), the role and responsibilities of the assistant principal, the principal shortage, and a summary. Chapter 3 elaborates on method which includes the research design. The participants, measures, procedures, and data analyses are discussed. The chapter concludes with a chapter summary.

PAGE 21

9 9 Chapter 4 reports on the findings and results of the study. The chapter discusses the pilot study, data collection process, and treatment of the data. Also, analysis of the Minnesota Satisfaction Questionnaire, research questions, and Telephone Interview Questionnaire are provided. The chapter ends with a summary of findings and a chapter summary. Chapter 5 includes the problem, purpose, research questions, method of summary, summary of findings, conclusions, implications and limitations. The chapter concludes recommendations for future research and a summary.

PAGE 22

10 10 CHAPTER 2 REVIEW OF LITERATURE The purpose of this study is to (1) measure, using the Minnesota Satisfaction Questionnaire, the general job satisfaction level of high school assistant principals in Florida; (2) measure; using the Minnesota Satisfaction Questionnaire, the job satisfaction levels of high school assistant principals in Florida based on the intrinsic and extrinsic job satisfaction factors; and (3) identify if there is a relationship between general, intrinsic, and extrinsic job satisfaction as measured by the Minnesota Satisfaction Questionnaire and the demographic variables: school size, tenure (length of time as a high school assistant principal), age, and gender, among high school assistant principals in the state of Florida. The review of the literature for this study is divided into five sections: (1) job satisfaction theories, (2) job satisfaction studies, (3) studies related to selected demographic variables (school size, tenure, age and gender), (4) the role and responsibilities of the high school assistant principal, and (5) the principal shortage. Job Satisfaction Theories When one compares satisfaction to what is known about motivation, little is known about the causes and consequences of satisfaction. Lawler (1994) contends that our understanding of what causes job satisfaction has not increased over the past 30 years due to two main reasons: (1) typically, the research has not been theoretical and (2) the

PAGE 23

11 11 studies have not tested for causal relationships. He believes that a large quantity of uninterpretable facts have been created as a result of research not guided by theory. For example, many studies have found a positive relationship between productivity and job satisfaction, while others found no substantiation of this relationship. This discrepancy can be explained, but the explanation would have to be based on a theory of satisfaction, and in 1994 no such theory existed. While Lawler claims there are no welldeveloped theories of satisfaction and little theoretically based research has been done; some counter that a variety of theories on job satisfaction have been developed. In fact, there has been much discussion and debate among theorists as to what actually causes job satisfaction. Job satisfaction studies have taken on different forms and emphases depending on who is conducting the study. Ensign and Adler (1985) stated “job satisfaction is an indication of how individuals feel about their job when their expectations are compared to what is actually received from different factors of the work situation” (p. 100). Lunenburg and Ornstein (1996) state that job satisfaction depends on the level of importance administrators place on human resources. They support the idea that the more value administrators place on their employees, the greater the levels of morale and job satisfaction occur. According to drive theory, satisfaction is due to the complete filling of one’s primary drives. Lawler (1994) reminds us that Maslow uses the term satisfaction to mean a psychological feeling of being content by receiving enough of a desired object. In Hoppock’s 1935 work, the Western Electric studies revealed the need to study employees’ perceptions and feelings about their jobs. Likewise, Robbins (1994)

PAGE 24

12 12 explained, “job satisfaction seeks to measure affective responses to the work environment. It is concerned with how employees feel about the organization's expectations, reward practices, methods for handling conflict, and the like" (p. 246). Job satisfaction studies have also been done under the heading of organizational behavior. Psychologists interested in work organizations have done most of this research. Research on organizational behavior dates back to the 1930s. Since then, job satisfaction has been used to refer to behaviors and attitudes of individuals toward their jobs (Lawler, 1994). Organizational behavior has been defined as “the systematic study of the actions and attitudes that people exhibit within organizations” (Robbins, 1994, p. 2). The attitude of job satisfaction, as seen in organizational behavior, is important to the management of employees for three reasons: (1) there may be a link between satisfaction and productivity, (2) bosses have the responsibility to provide their employees with jobs that are challenging, satisfying, and intrinsically rewarding, and (3) satisfaction appears to be negatively related to absenteeism and turnover (Robbins, 1994). Lawler (1994) also agrees that job satisfaction is “related to absenteeism and turnover, both of which are very costly to organizations. Thus, there is a very 'practical' economic reason for organizations to be concerned with job satisfaction, since it can influence organizational effectiveness” (p. 81). Lawler (1994) suggests, “since satisfaction is related to turnover, those people who are most highly dissatisfied are also most likely to leave” (p. 182), which may be a significant indicator in reference to the principal shortage issue. Some researchers feel that job satisfaction theories can be divided up into certain categories, classes, or types. For example, Gruneberg (1979) believes that there are

PAGE 25

13 13 basically two categories into which job satisfaction theories are divided. Gruneberg (1979) suggests that the first category is content theories, which includes Maslow's needs hierarchy theory and Herzberg's two-factor theory. The second category is process theories, which includes three classes: (1) expectations and equity theory supported by Lawler, O'Gara, Porter, and Pritchard, (2) reference group theory supported by Klein and Maher, and (3) needs/value fulfillment theories supported by Vroom. He went on to explain the two kinds of classes that fall into the two categories previously mentioned. The first class are those that try to give an account of what needs, values or expectations are important to individuals in determining their degree of job satisfaction (content theories) and the second class of theories attempt to give an account of how the individual's needs, values and expectations interact with the job to provide job satisfaction and dissatisfaction (process theories). Content theories can be used to determine what motivates people rather than how people are motivated. The primary variable in most of these theories is the different types of needs. Milkovich and Newman (1984) explain that two of the most well known content theories are those proposed by Maslow (1954) and Herzberg, Mausner, and Snyderman (1959). Maslow's theory is structured on a hierarchy of five needs: (1) Physiological needs, (2) Safety needs, (3) Social needs, (4) Esteem needs, and (5) Selfactualization needs. Each of these five needs is believed to motivate behavior in varying degrees. Maslow’s theory claims that each lower level need must be met before one can ascend to a higher level need in the hierarchy. Concern arose with the belief that there was a positive correlation between job satisfaction and employee motivation. Ensign and Adler (Eds., 1985) remind us that the

PAGE 26

14 14 second content theory was Frederick Herzberg's study regarding hygiene and motivator factors, conducted in the early 1960s, which led to the idea of job enrichment. Job enrichment strives to provide the worker with a job that meets the following three conditions: (1) the worker can identify a series of tasks or activities that result in a definable product or service, (2) as much decision-making control as possible over how to carry out the complete piece of work is delegated to the worker, and (3) the work itself gives direct feedback to the worker on how well the job is done (Ensign & Adler, 1985). Gruneberg (1979) claimed that job involvement was a major characteristic of job satisfaction, but he did not view the two terms as synonymous. He held that the characteristics of the job were the major factors in determining whether or not satisfaction would be achieved from the job. Gruneberg believed that practically all organizational psychologists shared this view, regardless of their theoretical orientation, and many have come to agree with Herzberg that any improvement in job satisfaction depends on restructuring jobs so that personal growth and development are possible. Herzberg's theory supports the presence of two types of factors across every organization: hygienes (extrinsic) and motivators (intrinsic). Hygiene factors include such things as working conditions, supervision, company policy, interpersonal relations and salary. Motivators include recognition, achievement, opportunities for advancement and responsibility (Herzberg, 1959). Research studies conducted on the factors of satisfaction have looked mainly at two relationships: (1) the relationship between satisfaction and the characteristics of the job, and (2) the relationship between satisfaction and the characteristics of the person. It should not come as any surprise that the research shows that satisfaction is a function of

PAGE 27

15 15 both the person and the environment (Lawler, 1994). Figure 2.1 presents a model of the determinants of facet satisfaction. The model is intended to help us understand what determines a person's satisfaction with any facet of his or her job.

PAGE 28

16 16 Figure 2.1 Model of the Determinants of Satisfaction a = b satisfaction a > b dissatisfaction a < b guilt, inequity, discomfort Skill Experience Training Effort Perceived personal Age job inputs Seniority Education Company loyalty Perceived Past performance Perceived inputs amount that a Present performance and outcomes of should be referent others received Level Difficulty Perceived job Timespan characteristics Amount of Responsibility -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------Perceived outcomes of referent others Perceived amount b received Actual outcomes Received (Lawler, 1994, p. 97)

PAGE 29

17 17 Another perspective is to view the evolution of four different job satisfaction theories. Lawler (1994) reminds us that equity theory and discrepancy theory were developed following fulfillment theory, partially in reaction to the deficiencies of fulfillment theory, while the two-factor theory was developed last in an effort to create a completely new approach to thinking about satisfaction. Vroom (1964) measured job satisfaction by the amount of positively valued outcomes the job provided to the individual. Fulfillment theory measured job satisfaction based on the effects of one or a group of outcomes an individual received. Adams (1963) is a proponent of the equity theory, which is primarily a motivation theory. Adams supports the belief that job satisfaction occurs when a perceived equity exists. The equity theory bases the level of satisfaction on the ratio of what a person receives from his or her job in relation to what that person puts into the job. Several researchers of the discrepancy theory, such as Katzell, Locke, Porter, and Wanous, believe that job satisfaction is established by the differences between the actual outcomes a person receives and some other outcome level. Some define the outcome level as what the person feels should be received, and for others it is what they expect to receive. When there is a difference between what is received and some other outcome level, dissatisfaction results. The two-factor theory was developed in a 1957 publication by Herzberg, Mausner, Peterson, and Capwell. The writers state that job factors can be classified according to whether the factors contribute primarily to satisfaction or to dissatisfaction. In 1959, Herzberg, Mausner, and Snyderman published the results of their study. Since 1959, many research studies have been conducted on testing the two-factor theory.

PAGE 30

18 18 Lawler (1994) explains the two unique aspects of the two-theory that account for the attention it has received. First, the theory says that satisfaction and dissatisfaction do not exist on a continuum, but instead, two independent continua exist, one running from satisfied to neutral, and another running from dissatisfied to neutral. Second, the theory emphasizes that different job facets influence feelings of satisfaction and dissatisfaction. According to Herzberg's theory, a person can be both very satisfied and very dissatisfied. The theory implies that factors such as better working conditions cannot increase satisfaction; they can only affect the amount of dissatisfaction that is experienced by an individual. There is not enough evidence to prove that satisfaction and dissatisfaction are separate, making this the critical unproven aspect of the theory. Sometimes factors contribute to both satisfaction and dissatisfaction. In some populations factors contribute to satisfaction while, in other populations, these same factors contribute to dissatisfaction. These findings help to substantiate that satisfaction and dissatisfaction are on different continua. Nathan King (1970) explained that the primary determinants of job satisfaction in the two-factor theory are intrinsic, called motivators (responsibility, recognition, advancement, and achievement), while the primary determinants of job dissatisfaction are extrinsic, called hygienes (supervision, working conditions, administration, co-worker relations, and company policy). Researchers have obtained results conflicting with those of Herzberg. Turner and Lawrence (1965) conducted a study among employees of different cultural backgrounds, and found that certain properties of job satisfaction were more complex and could not be explained by Herzberg’s two-factor theory.

PAGE 31

19 19 Arthur, Hall, and Lawrence (1989) stated that, “probably the most comprehensive trait-factor theory is the theory of work adjustment” (p. 31). The theory of work adjustment grew out of the research of the Work Adjustment Project that was being conducted at the University of Minnesota. Scott, Dawis, England, and Lofquist (1990) realized that “an integrated theory was necessary for a systematic inquiry into work adjustment” (p. 54). The first version of the theory was published in 1964, was revised in 1968, and an extended form of the theory was published in 1969. Over the years, changes to the theory have appeared in many articles. Dawis and Lofquist (1990) explain that the theory of work adjustment is established on the concept of correspondence between the individual and the environment. This implies that a harmonious relationship between the individual and the environment can be developed. The relationship between the individual and the environment is mutually responsive. It is suggested that work adjustment is a function of two characteristics of the employee in interaction with his or her work environment. The first is satisfactoriness, which is the extent to which the worker is able to successfully perform job responsibilities. It is viewed to be a function of the correspondence between an individual's abilities and the ability requirements of the job. Second, satisfaction is viewed to be a function of the correspondence between the individual's vocational values or needs and the reinforcer systems of the work environment (Arthur, Hall, & Lawrence, 1989). Dawis and Lofquist (1990) explain satisfactoriness as the external indicator of correspondence; it comes from sources other than the individual worker. Satisfaction, on

PAGE 32

20 20 the other hand, is an internal indicator of correspondence; it represents the individual worker’s assessment of the extent to which the work environment satisfies his or her expectations. Each person brings certain skills to the work environment that produces certain rewards for that person. Each person’s skills and abilities enable him or her to respond to what the work environment requires. Likewise, the rewards of the work environment enable it to respond to the requirements of each person. The Minnesota Satisfaction Questionnaire was the instrument used in this current dissertation study, which is based on the work adjustment theory. The MSQ was developed as an instrument to measure the primary indicators of work adjustment. The MSQ was designed to sample both extrinsic and intrinsic variables. Ensign and Adler (1985) hypothesized that individuals who made job selections on intrinsic bases would be more satisfied and committed than those who made the decision based on extrinsic factors. However, results revealed that both intrinsic and extrinsic decision factors were positively related to satisfaction and commitment. Sometimes, a variable could have both a positive and negative influence. For example, the extrinsic job element, salary, was found to be positively related to future tenure intention, but negatively related to job satisfaction. When determining overall job satisfaction, Hulin and Water’s (1971) research supported the finding that intrinsic factors were more important than extrinsic factors. Kaplan, Tausky, and Bolaria (1969) noted that when (intrinsic) motivators were present at satisfactory levels, the employee experienced job satisfaction. However, the employee did not experience job dissatisfaction if the (intrinsic) motivators were not present. It was

PAGE 33

21 21 when the (extrinsic) hygienes were not present at satisfactory levels of fulfillment that caused the employee to experience job dissatisfaction. The study revealed the employee was at a neutral state, not at job satisfaction, when he or she experienced satisfactory fulfillment of (extrinsic) hygienes. Some believe that job satisfaction is simply a matter of one’s general attitude toward his or her job. Robbins (1994) supports the position that a person with a positive attitude is perceived as having a high level of job satisfaction, while a person who has a negative attitude about his or her job is seen as someone who is dissatisfied. Many times when attitudes are discussed, the real subject is job satisfaction. According to Hoy and Miskel (1996), job satisfaction takes several contributing variables over time to develop. However, job dissatisfaction can develop rapidly under the right conditions. Extrinsic factors cited in job dissatisfaction included working conditions, relationships with colleagues, and salary. Ensign and Adler (1985) note that job dissatisfaction is a social disease that has its effects in and beyond the workplace. Many times the organization or its management is seen as the source of employee dissatisfaction, when in reality it is a combination of problems stemming from the organization’s various social forces. These social forces include: the psychology of industry, arrogance, mass education, status, human rights, mass media, increased leisure time, and an American tradition of dissatisfaction. Job dissatisfaction is a very complex problem. Ensign and Adler (1985) discovered that the relationship between behavior and job satisfaction shows the “consequences of dissatisfaction with any factor may not be the same as the consequences of dissatisfaction with another factor. It also found that job

PAGE 34

22 22 satisfaction affects life satisfaction more than life satisfaction influences job satisfaction” (p. 100). Regardless of the theory or approach to job satisfaction, it seems that job satisfaction involves “the matching of the individual's needs, values and expectations to what the job offers… it is likely that no single theory accounts for all the phenomena all the time... we are far from a generally acceptable overall theory" (Gruneberg, 1979, p. 32). Job Satisfaction Studies Job satisfaction has been the focus of repeated study for over seventy years. In 1935, Hoppock cited 32 studies of job satisfaction, and by 1972, Kahn estimated there were over 2,000 studies of job satisfaction (Hopkins, 1983). The additional number of studies during the past 30 years has increased the total to an even larger number. During the past several years, graduate students working on their dissertations have conducted numerous studies on job satisfaction, but none have focused on the same subject (assistant principal), grade level (high school), location (Florida), and instrument (MSQ) as this study. Though “job satisfaction” is the common variable in each of these studies, they all vary in some other element. For example, the subject being studied is different: principal (Stemple, 2004), or secondary administrators (Armstrong, 2004; Waskiewicz, 1999; Ryan 1998). In some studies, the grade level is different: elementary school (Cornell, 2003), middle school (Greska, 2003; Newby, 1999; Thornton, 1996), or college (Anuna, 1997). Studies also vary in location, California (Brady, 2001), Idaho (Brogan, 2003), Iowa-Kansas-Nebraska (Ryan, 1998), Michigan (Barry 2002), Mississippi (Chen, 2000), Missouri (Hogue, 1999), North Carolina (Greska, 2003), Texas

PAGE 35

23 23 (Armstrong, 2004), Virginia (Stemple, 2004; Newby, 1999), or urban-suburban-rural (Sablatura, 2002). Neal’s (2002) Florida study of high school assistant principals is also different because she used a different instrument to collect her data. She conducted her study utilizing the Job Descriptive Index (JDI) while this study incorporates the Minnesota Satisfaction Questionnaire (MSQ). Bruce and Blackburn (1992) explain the difficulties studies face in uncovering relevant factors related to job satisfaction. The sheer number of studies on job satisfaction attests to its importance; however, there is much disagreement on how to cultivate what actually enhances employee job satisfaction and how it benefits the workplace environment. Job satisfaction is so multifaceted and dependent upon so many different factors that researchers are perplexed about why or how job satisfaction occurs. Cranny, Smith, and Stone (1992) believe that job satisfaction has been around in scientific psychology for a long time and shares many characteristics with intelligence that it is pass and unworthy of continued research. However, research on job satisfaction continues and each new study reveals its own unique conclusions. Spector (1997) stated that job satisfaction is “the extent to which people like (satisfaction) or dislike (dissatisfaction) their jobs. As it is generally assessed, job satisfaction is an attitudinal variable ... the attitudinal perspective has become the predominant one in the study of job satisfaction" (p. 2). According to a study conducted by Srivastva et al. (1975), the most clear-cut conclusion is that autonomy alone is enough to account for positive attitudinal results. This is an extremely important finding because it implies that if attitudes are the prime target, then allowing workers more autonomy will equate to an increase in their job satisfaction.

PAGE 36

24 24 Job satisfaction studies conducted by Hoppock (1935) revealed that there are varying degrees of satisfaction. What people are searching for is an optimum satisfaction which will relieve them from the urge to be doing something else, but leave them dissatisfied enough to have something left to work for. Being able to understand the causes of job satisfaction is important because it will also help us to understand what causes job dissatisfaction, which harms both the individual and society. Raelin (1980) explained that the researchers of job satisfaction generally agreed that job satisfaction takes into consideration two basic aspects: (1) the characteristics of the job and (2) the personal characteristics of the individual. When attaining job satisfaction, it was thought to bring about a better quality of life and better health (both mentally and physically) (Cranny et al., 1992). Hopkins (1983) recognized that job satisfaction has been treated as both independent and dependent variables. When job satisfaction is seen as an independent variable, it is the cause of other phenomena such as productivity and motivation. When job satisfaction is seen as the dependent variable, it is seen as being caused by other conditions such as the nature of the job and individual characteristics. Kavanagh and Halpern (1977) discovered that persons working in high-level jobs did not experience any greater satisfaction in their lives because of their higher status or income. Their study shows that individual differences play a more significant role than job position in an individual’s job satisfaction. An employee’s perceptions to many of the common factors in the job setting, such as the environment and supervision, influence the level of job satisfaction. Measuring

PAGE 37

25 25 job satisfaction requires the researcher to create a design that will tap into a variety of aspects of the individual and the job (Hopkins, 1983). Garawski (1977) surveyed a total sample of 164 assistant principals in southeastern Pennsylvania to determine to what extent their tasks and environmental conditions were related to job satisfaction. The tasks that generated the highest degree of job satisfaction included: teacher evaluation, teacher supervision, and preparation of the school’s master schedule. The survey also revealed that there was a strong positive correlation between satisfaction and the parameters of task responsibility, task importance, and discretionary authority. Though it was conducted over three decades ago, Austin and Brown's (1970) Career Study shows some very interesting statistics in regard to assistant principals' job satisfaction compared to their job satisfaction as teachers (Table 2.1). Also included in the same study is a comparison of assistant principals' job satisfaction to those moving upward into principal and college teacher positions (Table 2.2).

PAGE 38

26 26 TABLE 2.1 A Comparison of the Frequency with Which Participants in the Career Study Experienced a Variety of Satisfactions as Teachers and as Assistant Principals Percent Reporting “Very Satisfied” as Teachers n “Very Satisfied” as Assistant Principals n How satisfied were you with this position when you consider the expectations you had when you originally took the job? 70 48 How satisfied were you with the amount of time which you devoted to the job? 42 28 How satisfied were you with the results that you achieved? 52 35 How satisfied were you with your salary? 8 24 How satisfied were you with the amount of personal satisfaction the job gave you? 66 40 How satisfied were you with the amount of recognition the job gave you? 31 30 How satisfied were you with the physical working conditions? 32 30 How satisfied were you with the amount of assistance you received from your immediate superior(s)? 40 46 How satisfied were you with the rapport that you established with the student body? 77 57 Note Austin and Brown, 1970, p. 71.

PAGE 39

27 27 TABLE 2.2 A Comparison of the Frequency with Which Upward Mobile Participants in the Career Study Experienced a Variety of Satisfactions in the Assistant Principalship and Advanced Positions Percent Reporting “Very Satisfied” as Assistant Principals n “Very Satisfied” as Principals n “Very Satisfied” as College Teachers n How satisfied were you with this position when you consider the expectations you had when you originally took the job? 48 69 69 How satisfied were you with the amount of time which you devoted to the job? 28 40 45 How satisfied were you with the results that you achieved? 35 46 76 How satisfied were you with your salary? 24 33 62 How satisfied were you with the amount of personal satisfaction the job gave you? 40 66 76 How satisfied were you with the amount of recognition the job gave you? 30 54 76 How satisfied were you with the physical working conditions? 30 46 76 How satisfied were you with the amount of assistance you received from your immediate superior(s)? 46 39 76 How satisfied were you with the rapport that you established with the student body? 57 55 76 Note Austin and Brown, 1970, p. 73. The 1970 research study of Austin and Brown found that many assistant principals were dissatisfied in their positions. A sense of job satisfaction is generally achieved by assistant principals who have been rewarded for their efforts. However, this study revealed that the assistant principals felt they were given low-satisfaction job tasks such as attendance and student discipline. The study showed that assistant principals felt that most of the assignments they were given did not come with a high level of discretionary action. Much of their work was restricted by rules and they were not given

PAGE 40

28 28 the freedom to generate their own initiative to do more than was expected of the task. They discovered that assistant principals usually left for better salaries and higher status. Raelin (1980) found that job content was one of the most important components of job satisfaction. Sometimes, after entering into the new position of high school assistant principal, a person's enthusiasm is high and job satisfaction is elevated, but after time the person is faced with routine activities with few opportunities for change and a gradual discouragement and job dissatisfaction begins to set in (Schair & Schooler, 1998). According to a study conducted by Pellicer et al. (1988), the majority of principals and assistant principals were either satisfied or very satisfied with most aspects of their job. Assistant principals rated their jobs high in terms of job security, selffulfillment, opportunity to help others, and prestige. Assistant principals are least satisfied with the amount of hours they have to spend on the job. According to Glanz (2004), nearly all the respondents in his 1994 research study of 200 New York assistant principals responded that morale was low because they perceived they were in a thankless job. However, 55% of the assistant principals explained that working with certain students and teachers brought them a great amount of satisfaction. Weller and Weller (2002) observed that job satisfaction can dissolve more quickly than it can develop. Working conditions, relationships with peers and subordinates, and salary were among the most common causes of job dissatisfaction.

PAGE 41

29 29 Studies Related to Demographic Variables School Size The number of students enrolled in a school (school size) has been studied by researchers to determine job satisfaction among its employees and students. Although it is difficult to find studies relating to school size and assistant principals, there is information available in regard to teachers, principals, and students. Barker (1986) claims one of the advantages of a small school is that it does not inhibit personal interaction; it encourages it. It is not unusual in small schools for teachers, administrators, and school board members to know each other well. This often leads to acceptance of new ideas and a sense of belonging (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED265988). Johnson (2002) reported that the majority of teachers and parents involved with small schools have a strong sense of community. It is believed that reducing the size of high schools will benefit both teenagers and their families. It is thought that the students and teachers will be more motivated, discipline will be less of a problem, students will receive additional personal feedback, and fewer students will slip through cracks. In small schools, teachers seem to take a personal interest in their students and there is a greater level of parent involvement. Wasley and Lear (2001) noted job satisfaction among teachers at small schools. Teachers reported a greater sense of collaboration with other teachers, an increased sense of job satisfaction, and a better connection with parents. According to Irmsher (1997), small schools generate greater satisfaction and more positive attitudes (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED414615).

PAGE 42

30 30 There are many pros and cons concerning the variety of issues surrounding school size but satisfaction seems to be on the side of the smaller campus. According to the U.S. Department of Education, when small schools (less than 300 students) were compared with big schoo1s (1,000 or more students), small schools had a higher level of student satisfaction (Cutshall, 2003). As Gardner, Retblatt, and Beatty (2000) have noted "nonacademic measures including extracurricular participation, student satisfaction, sense of belonging, and parent involvement are particularly rich in small schools" (p. 27). Some efforts have been made to decentralize larger schools into small learning communities. Sometimes it begins as a school within a school, dividing up the students into academic or vocational areas of like interest. Ideally, a district will secure a location within the community that can house a small number of teachers and students to establish a smaller school. Allen (2002) reminds us that school size is an ongoing issue with links to academic achievement and social and emotional well-being. School size will continue to be debated in the current wave of school reform and large schools will continue to be a fact of life in the United States. Tenure Schair and Schooler (1998) have noted that after entering into a new position, a person's enthusiasm is high and job satisfaction is elevated, but after time, the person is faced with routine activities with few opportunities for change and a gradual discouragement and job dissatisfaction begins to set in. Herzberg, Mausner, Peterson, and Capwell (1957) discovered the occurrence of a U-shaped relationship between employee tenure, age, and job satisfaction. High job satisfaction was reported

PAGE 43

31 31 immediately at the start of the employee’s work experience, but declined during the employee’s late twenties and thirties, and then rose one final time. Hulin and Smith (1965) suggest that company tenure and age have significant positive relationships to job satisfaction. They propose that job satisfaction is due to the individual's ability over time to adjust his or her expectations better to what the job environment required. Austin and Brown’s (1970) study showed between 40% and 50% of all assistant principals continued on to higher professional positions. Few assistant principals choose to remain in that position as a career assistant principal. Only 39% urban and 29% suburban assistant principals expect to make the assistant principalship a lifetime career. Most assistant principals expect to be promoted within their own school districts to higher-level positions. According to Dawis and Lofquist’s (1990) theory of work adjustment, the stability of the relationship (correspondence) between the employee and the work environment is exhibited as tenure in the job. With the increase of correspondence, both the probability of tenure and the projected length of tenure increase. Studies related to job tenure and job satisfaction are continuing to be conducted in an effort to determine if a relationship exists between the two. Gruneberg (1979) has acknowledged that there is not a clear connection between job satisfaction and tenure. Age Schair and Schooler (1998) have reported that studies conducted on the relationship between job satisfaction and age generally reports that older workers are more satisfied with their jobs than are younger workers. Usually older workers have

PAGE 44

32 32 established tenure and hold the more desirable jobs, leaving the undesirable jobs to the younger workers. In reference to the age disparity among principals and assistant principals, Pellicer, Anderson, Keefe, Kelley, and McCleary (1988) have noted that there is a wide spectrum of ages among both assistant principals and principals. During the 1960s and 1970s, the number of principals who were younger than 35 years old decreased. While during the same time period, those older than 55 years first decreased (1965-1977) and then increased (1977-1988). While assistant principals are usually younger than principals, the age differences between them are not as much as one might expect. During the late 1980s, Pellicer et al. (1988), provided data indicating that 80% of principals and 82% of assistant principals were between the ages of 35 and 54 years old. A slightly higher percentage of principals were older than 54 years and a slightly higher percentage of assistant principals were younger than 35 years old. The following table displays how principals and assistant principals are distributed by their age, according to Pellicer et al. (1988): TABLE 2.3 Distribution of Principals and Assistant Principals by Age 24-29 n 30-34 n 35-39 n 40-44 n 45-49 n 50-54 n 55-59 n 60+ n Principals 0 3 16 24 21 19 11 5 Assistant Principals 1 7 21 26 19 16 8 3 Note. Pellicer et al., 1988, p. 5. During their 1988 study, Pellicer et al. determined that the West Coast had the largest percentage (almost 40%) of assistant principals over 50 years of age, while 60% of the assistant principals in New England were in their 40s. The study also showed that

PAGE 45

33 33 the average ages of principals and assistant principals differed according to the size of the community they worked in. The younger principals and assistant principals generally worked in smaller communities, while those who were older worked in larger communities. In the large cities, almost twice as many assistant principals are 50 or older than are younger than 40 years old. Herzberg, Mausner and Snyderman (1959) suggest that job satisfaction rises with age because individuals become adjusted to their work and life situation. Job satisfaction usually begins high but declines as expectations are not met; only to rise again as the individual adjusts to his or her work environment. Schair and Schooler (1998) have stated that “age appears to be related to work attitudes, such as job satisfaction and work values, the underlying beliefs driving attitudes and behavior” (p. 153). Ensign and Adler (1985) recorded that “a positive association is emerging between job satisfaction and education, age, income, and occupation” (p. 129). Spector (1997) states “research has shown that age and job satisfaction are related. The exact nature of the relation is not clear, as some studies have found a curvilinear, whereas others have found a linear relation" (p. 25). Gender "According to United Nations statistics, women make up one-half of the world's population and do 75 percent of the world's work" (Bruce & Blackburn, 1992, p. 58). However, that isn’t the case for high school principals and assistant principals. Pellicer et al. (1988) conducted a study that revealed only one out of every eight principals is female, while almost one out of every five were assistant principals. While the

PAGE 46

34 34 percentages are low, this suggests that there is a greater potential for more women to enter into the role of principal as their senior male principals retire. Research suggests that the gender differences in reference to job satisfaction have been affected by social change. Kalleberg and Loscocco (1983) found that males demonstrated the same generally positive age effects in job satisfaction during three periods of study: 1969, 1973, and 1977. Women surveyed in 1973 and 1977 were more similar to men's age effects than were the women surveyed in 1969. The gender difference is attributed to the effects of social change during the years of the study. Women who worked outside the home before 1970 were doing so due to financial necessity and not by choice. This would have caused those early women to have been generally less satisfied with their jobs. However, women have become more satisfied with their jobs as time has passed. Spector (1997) believes that one reason why women's job satisfaction is on the same level as their male counterparts is that they may have different job expectations. "Women expect less from work and so they are satisfied with less" (p. 28). According to Pellicer et al. (1988), high school female assistant principals are more common in certain areas of the country, community populations, and types of schools. Their findings are represented in the following tables as percentages: TABLE 2.4 Sex of Assistant Principals by Region AP’s Nation n New England n Mid Atlantic n South n Midwest n Southwest n Mountain n West Coast n Male 82 78 84 73 85 88 93 74 Female 18 22 16 27 15 12 7 26 Note. Pellicer et al., 1988, p. 148.

PAGE 47

35 35 As the Table 2.4 shows, female high school assistant principals are more common in certain regions of the country than in others. In New England, the South, and on the West Coast, 20 percent or more of the assistant principals are female. Elsewhere around the nation, the percentages are much lower. The smallest percentages of female assistant principals are in the Mountain region and the Southwest. TABLE 2.5 Sex of Assistant Principals by Community Population AP’s Nation n City 1,000,000+ n City 150,000999,999 n Suburb 15,000+ n City 25,000149,999 n City 5,00024,999 n Town/ Rural <4,999 n Male 82 67 72 78 85 91 89 Female 18 33 28 22 15 9 11 Note. Pellicer et al., 1988, p. 148. Female high school assistant principals are also more common in certain size communities than in others. In general, the larger the community population, the more likely there will be a high school female assistant principal. In smaller cities (population less than 25,000), towns, and rural areas (population less than 5,000), less than 11% of the high schools will have female assistant principals. TABLE 2.6 Sex of Assistant Principals by School Type AP’s National n Public Compr. n Public Altern. n Public Special n Parochial n Private Religious n Private Non-Relig. n Male 82 84 100 64 76 64 62 Female 18 16 0 36 24 36 38 Note. Pellicer et al., 1988, p. 148. Also, female high school assistant principals are more common in certain types of schools than in others. In public specialized, private religious, and private non-religious

PAGE 48

36 36 schools, more than 35% of the assistant principals were female. However, in public alternative schools, all the assistant principals who responded to the study were male. In public comprehensive schools, only 1 in 6 assistant principals were female. These figures are particularly significant to the survey since more than 80% of the assistant principals responding to the survey were employed in public comprehensive schools. Bruce and Blackburn (1992) have stated, “our research indicates that the same conditions that foster job satisfaction and performance in men are also crucial to women's job satisfaction” (p. 59). According to Austin and Brown (1970), "the assistant principalship is much less often a stepping stone to better things for women than it is for men" (p. 56). Marshall (1992) would agree that holding the position of assistant principal is a very important step in the administrative career ladder, but if women have unequal access to the position or have fewer opportunities to do the tasks that prepare them to move up, then the position of assistant principal serves only to perpetuate inequality. Spector (1997) has noted “relations between gender and job satisfaction have been extremely inconsistent across studies” (p. 28). According to Cranny et al. (1992), “although physical characteristics such as sex, age, and race and their relationships to job satisfaction have been investigated extensively, results have not been consistent or conclusive" (p. 60). Gruneberg (1979) agrees that the findings on the relationship between job satisfaction and gender are inconsistent. Some studies find males more satisfied, other studies indicate females are more satisfied, while others have found no difference in job satisfaction between the genders. According to Gruneberg, the research does not allow any firm conclusions to be drawn.

PAGE 49

37 37 The Role and Responsibilities of the Assistant Principal According to Weller and Weller (2002), the role and responsibilities of the assistant principal are “one of the least researched and least discussed topics in professional journals and books focusing on educational leadership. No universal definition of the role or clearly defined job description of the position of assistant principal exists” (p. xiii). Greenfield (1985) also supports the view that the role of assistant principal has not received much attention from researchers or school administrators. Many times the assistant principal is caught between the teachers and the principal and is powerless to give a decision that will satisfy them both. The assistant principal has the position of power without the benefit of actual authority. This is an issue of control and autonomy. Often, the position is viewed as a lonely and thankless job that offers little satisfaction (Sharp & Walter, 2003). Many times assistant principals are seen as individuals on the bottom step of the administrative career ladder (Marshall, 1992). According to Kelly (1987), very little has changed in the role and responsibilities of assistant principal: The available literature tells us that the assistant principal has performed basically the same kinds of duties ever since the position was created. The division of labor generally has the assistant principal looking after the daily operation of the school while the principal acts as the instructional leader. More specifically, the assistant principal is usually depicted as looking after professional inservice work, the

PAGE 50

38 38 cocurricular program, building operation and maintenance, and student personnel services, particularly discipline and attendance. (p. 13-14) Matthews and Crow (2003) have uncovered some less appealing reminders of how assistant principals were once perceived. “In the 1970s, the literature began reflecting the assistant principal role as being a significant position in educational administration” and since that time, the assistant principal has been described as “‘subordinate to the principal,’ ‘parallel with the principal,’ ‘henchman,’ and ‘specialist’” (p. 20). Weller and Weller (2002) surveyed 100 assistant principals and reported that the primary responsibilities for the assistant principal continue to be discipline and attendance duties, which are consistent with existing literature. From Weller and Weller’s study, 25% of the assistant principals felt they lacked the necessary leadership skills needed for some of their assigned duties. Ron Oliver (2005) reported that while “the majority of assistant principals were in districts that provided growth and development activities…these professional development activities emphasized management processes rather than areas associated with educational leadership” (p. 89). According to Marshall (1992), “the assistant principal does not have a consistent, welldefined job description, delineation of duties, or way of measuring outcomes from accomplishment of tasks" (p. 6). Matthews and Crow (2003) wrote about the evolving noninstructional role of the assistant principal focusing primarily on managing students (student discipline). Many times an assistant principal is hired specifically as the disciplinarian without receiving any opportunity to create a more innovative role.

PAGE 51

39 39 While some assistant principals’ duties are kept to a minimum (discipline and attendance), others must wear more hats than they can manage. During a survey conducted by Weller and Weller (2002), one participant's comment exemplified the frustration and demands placed on the position of assistant principal: My primary job is student discipline, but I'm asked to help teachers improve, place student teachers, develop the master schedule, strengthen the curriculum, attend meetings for the principal, work on the budget, evaluate personnel, and complete reports. Sometimes I'm flying by the seat of my pants and my day starts at 6:30 a.m. and ends at 7:00 p.m. (p. 13). According to Glanz (2004), his previous research conducted in 1994 with 200 New York assistant principals revealed that “more than 90% of the respondents indicated that their chief duties included handling disruptive students, dealing with parental complaints, supervising lunch duty, scheduling coverages, and completing surveys, forms, book orders, and other kinds of administrative paperwork” (p. xi). Many assistant principals have difficulty dealing with the stress and frustration associated with the position. According to Black (1980), one of the key components to eliminating stress as an assistant principal is to focus on time management. Frustration as an assistant principal is often associated with the lack of time provided to complete certain tasks. Assistant principals are constantly confronted with disruptions that prevent them from finishing the tasks they are assigned. They need to manage their time well to be as productive and stress free as possible. Also, being better organized would help alleviate some the stress experienced with the role of assistant principal.

PAGE 52

40 40 Marshall (1992) has identified four reasons why the assistant principal is seen as a critical position in educational organizations: (1) it is a frequent entry-level position for administrative careers, (2) assistant principals maintain the norms and rules of the school culture, (3) assistant principals must frequently play the role of mediator, and (4) assistant principals encounter daily the fundamental dilemmas of school systems. (pp. 1-2) The roles and responsibilities of the assistant principal have many gray areas, which are not clearly defined. Sometimes the duties are inconsistent, and at times lack the resources to accomplish the assigned task. Some assistant principals adapt easily to their responsibilities and assertively take charge of getting the job done, regardless of their role expectations. Marshall (1992) notes, “some assistant principals may experience lack of job satisfaction, emotional problems, a sense of futility, ineffectiveness, and lack of confidence caused by role ambiguity" (p. 6). Matthews and Crow (2003) agree by stating, "the role of assistant principal is undergoing a change in contemporary schools that creates role confusion and ambiguity" (p. 273). Most assistant principals “do not have clearly defined, consistent job descriptions, delineations of duties, or ways of measuring outcomes from their work. They work in 'gray areas' without clear rules, designated resources, and sometimes without consistent responsibilities" (Phi Delta Kappa, 1990, p. 69). Kelly (1987) noted that most of the duties and responsibilities ascribed to the principal are really carried out by assistant principals. “In the literature on secondary school administration few books or articles make even passing reference to the assistant principalship. The assistant principal is the Rodney Dangerfield of the teaching

PAGE 53

41 41 profession -he or she doesn't get much respect” (p. 13). Kelly believes that the assistant principal's role is to assist principals with the increasing demands of their job. The role of the assistant principal is not meant to change the structure of the principal's job but is intended to give the principal more time for instructional leadership by sharing the load. While school district policies and job descriptions provide direction, it is the principal who determines the actual role of the assistant principal. “Principals should actively seek advice and counsel from their assistant principals. These novice administrators may have a fresh perspective or idea for experienced principals” (Sharp & Walter, 2003, p. 226). Assistant principals must be able and willing to work closely with their principals. Many times, the assistant principal oversees the daily operations of the school in the absence of the principal. Assistant principals must also be willing to collaborate with other assistant principals in order to coordinate the completion of some tasks. Assistant principals must be flexible, team players, able to make quick decisions, and anticipate needs and problems. The assistant principal faces role conflicts and situations of job overload. An assistant principal may experience conflict simply by assisting a teacher one minute and then having to chastise him or her for something the next minute. One moment they are the teacher's friend and collaborator, the next they are perceived as the mean boss. Many times the demands of the school gets in the way of doing the work the assistant principal desires to do. Assistant principals experience job overload when student discipline issues tie them up for large blocks of the day preventing them from doing something else of importance. Sometimes assistant principals are assigned so many tasks and roles they

PAGE 54

42 42 cannot perform adequately. Marshall (1992) suggests, "role conflict and overload occur when job responsibilities demand so much time, energy, and emotion that little time is left for either the assistant principal's personal life or professional development" (p. 7). In the process of giving up on graduate school and sacrificing time with family and friends, many assistant principals become angry and depressed. Since the responsibility of overseeing a large school is too much for one person, the principal must delegate many of his or her responsibilities to others, often to assistant principals. The principal is responsible for the entire operation of the school. An example of the areas the principal must oversee include: “(1) instruction and curriculum, (2) pupil personnel, (3) community and school relations, (4) staff personnel, (5) organization and structure of the school, and (6) school plant facilities” (Kimbrough & Burkett, 1990, p. 4). Austin and Brown's (1970) study revealed the following results as activities for which assistant principals share (with their principal) or have full responsibility in half or more of the schools in their study.

PAGE 55

43 43 TABLE 2.7 Activities Which Assistant Principals Share or Have Full Responsibility Item Responsibility Shared % Full % School Management School calendars 44 14 School daily bulletins 47 14 Special arrangements at start and close of school year 80 9 Clerical services 52 4 School-related building use 43 11 Emergency arrangements 57 22 Staff Personnel School policies 75 1 Orientation program for new teachers 67 6 Substitute Teachers 36 17 Teacher “duty” rosters 46 25 Faculty meetings 67 2 Community Relations School public relations program 69 2 Administrative representative of school at community functions 60 2 Informing public of school achievements 51 3 Liaison with youth-serving agencies of the community 48 8 Student Activities Assemblies 42 21 Student Council 29 19 School club program 43 15 School dances 53 18 Curricular and Instruction Evaluation of teachers 52 3 Providing instructional materials 41 9 Curriculum development 51 5 Innovations, experiments, and research 49 4 School master schedule 44 17 School-wide examinations 39 8 Articulation with feeder schools 51 8 Pupil Personnel Pupil discipline 52 38 Orientation program for new students 51 12 School guidance program 47 10 Pupil attendance 33 49 Note. Austin and Brown, 1970, p. 35. Marshall (1992) reports “the assistant principal may perform the same tasks as principals -budget, facilities, student affairs, curriculum and instruction, public relations

PAGE 56

44 44 -tasks that prepare them for moving up the hierarchy" (p. 9). She continues by stating: “Some assistant principal tasks, jobs, assignments, or activities do allow/encourage assistant principals to create and get credit and feedback that enhances job satisfaction and opportunity for advancement” (p. 10). According to Garawski (1978), assistant principals received the most satisfaction from their position with duties that required expertise and administrative ability instead of clerical-related ability. He discovered that supervision, teacher evaluation, and managing the master schedule provided the highest level of satisfaction for assistant principals. Some assistant principals also take on additional duties or assigned specific tasks different than those already mentioned. Sometimes, assistant principals acquire public relation responsibilities because of their work with parents and student activities. Others are given roles involving curriculum and instruction, while some are more interested in an administrative role. Schools with two assistant principals may have the responsibilities distributed as curriculum and instruction for one person, and student discipline and attendance for the other assistant principal. A study was published comparing the years 1987 and 1965 by Pellicer et al. (1988) disclosing the results of how assistant principals rated their administrative duties. Following are the results of that national study.

PAGE 57

45 45 TABLE 2.8 Assistant Principals’ Ratings of Their Administrative Duties for Degree of Responsibility 1987 1965 Duties Rank % Rank % Student Discipline 1 88 1 90 School Policies 2 83 5 76 Evaluation of Teachers 3 82 23 55 Special Arrangements 4 82 2 89 Student Attendance 5 81 3 82 Graduation Activities 6 75 ** Emergency Arrangements 7 74 4 79 Building Use – School Related 8 70 24 54 Orientation Program for New Students 9 70 11 63 Assemblies 10 66 12 63 Teacher “Duty” Rosters 11 65 8 71 Administrative Representative 12 64 13 62 School Master Schedule 13 63 14 61 School Dances 14 63 9 71 Instructional Methods 15 62 ** ** Orientation Program for New Teachers 16 61 6 73 Faculty Meetings 17 58 10 69 Substitute Teachers 18 58 26 53 School Calendars 19 57 17 58 Curriculum Development 20 56 21 56 School Daily Bulletins 21 56 15 61 Clerical Services 22 56 20 56 Staff In-service 23 55 ** ** Teacher Selection 24 54 37 36 Teacher Incentives, Motivation 25 54 ** ** School Public Relations Program 26 53 7 71 School Club Program 27 53 18 58 Liaison with Youth-Serving Agencies 28 53 22 56 Informing Public of School Achievements 29 52 25 54 Innovations, Experiments, Research 30 51 27 53 School Guidance Program 33 47 19 57 Articulation with Feeder Schools 39 42 16 59 Instructional Media and Materials 43 38 28 50 Note Pellicer et al., 1988, p. 41. ** Task not on 1965 survey.

PAGE 58

46 46 TABLE 2.9 Assistant Principals’ Ratings of Their Admi nistrative Duties for Degree of Importance 1987 1965 Duties Rank % Rank % Student Discipline 1 82 1 83 Evaluation of Teachers 2 80 7 64 School Policies 3 71 4 69 Student Attendance 4 71 2 76 School Master Schedule 5 67 3 72 Curriculum Development 6 63 5 67 Teacher Selection 7 61 6 67 Instructional Methods 8 55 ** ** Special Arrangements at Start and Close of School Year 9 52 10 55 Graduation Activities 10 49 ** ** Informing the Public of School Achievements 11 47 19 37 Emergency Arrangements 12 46 11 54 Orientation Program for New Teachers 13 44 8 62 Orientation Program for New Students 14 42 15 44 Teacher Incentives Motivation 15 42 ** ** Building Use – School Related 16 41 26 20 School Public Relations Program 17 41 13 48 Administrative Rep. at Comm. Functions 18 40 23 29 Staff In-service 19 38 ** ** School Calendars 20 37 21 37 Faculty Meetings 21 36 16 43 Substitute Teachers 22 36 22 37 Teacher “Duty” Rosters 23 36 18 38 Clerical Services 24 33 20 37 Liaison with Community Youth-Serving Agencies 25 26 22 30 School-Daily Bulletins 26 25 24 27 Innovations, Experiments and Research 27 25 17 42 Assemblies 28 24 27 19 School Club Program 29 23 25 23 School Dances 30 15 28 17 Articulation with Feeder Schools 14 48 School Guidance Program 9 62 Instructional Media and Materials 12 52 Note Pellicer et al., 1988, p. 46. These duties did not meet the cr iterion for respon sibility in 1987. ** These duties were not included on the 1965 survey.

PAGE 59

47 47 TABLE 2.10 Assistant Principals’ Ratings of Their Administrative Duties for Degree of Responsibility and Degree of Importance Duties Rank by Responsibility Rank by Degree of Importance Student Discipline 1 1 School Policies 2 3 Evaluation of Teachers 3 2 Special Arrangements 4 9 Student Attendance 5 4 Graduation Activities 6 10 Emergency Arrangements 7 12 Building Use – School Related 8 16 Orientation Program for New Students 9 14 Assemblies 10 28 Teacher “Duty” Rosters 11 23 Administrative Representative at Community Functions 12 18 School Master Schedule 13 5 School Dances 14 30 Instructional Methods 15 8 Note Pellicer et al., 1988, p. 48. Individuals preparing to be principals should be astutely aware of the selection process. "They should not assume that, because they have a new diploma and new certificate indicating that they are legally eligible to be principals, they should accept any job available...The job with the proper fit and timing is worth waiting for" (Kimbrough & Burkett, 1990, p. 21). Aspiring assistant principals need to recognize the variety of roles the principal performs and begin preparing for them. What the principal would like to do and what he or she actually ends up doing are often two different things. While the principal has a job description of what he or she should do, the daily routine can also be interrupted with such unplanned events as dealing with a medical emergency, locking down the campus

PAGE 60

48 48 because of someone with a weapon, being a counselor to distraught parents having marital problems, serving as arbitrator between feuding faculty members, or playing the role of referee at an intramural sports activity. The unexpected roles are endless and the assistant principal should be aware of them (Kimbrough & Burkett, 1990). Principals need to train their Assistant principals to do more than just manage students and supervise the school campus. "The principal's leadership is incomplete without the assistant principal's participation. As a team member, contributor, counselor, advisor, mentor, and soul mate, assistant principals significantly influence the leadership in the school" (Matthews & Crow, 2003, p. 134). Principals “should nurture the assistant principals and provide an environment that encourages the assistants to do not only the job for which they were hired but to prepare themselves for the position of principal” (Sharp & Walter, 2003, p. 226). Panyako and Rorie (1987) have recognized that the assistant principal has traditionally been less prepared in management and administration, and therefore has been given duties such as supervision of the cafeteria, buses, lockers, sporting events, fund raising, buildings and grounds, and discipline. Other duties have included custodial, clerical, and social as major functions of the assistant principal. This is a poor management of resources when one realizes the assistant principal brings just as much academic, educational, and professional experience in school administration to the job as most principals (and in some cases a higher level of academic training). The new assistant principals of today are arriving on the field with knowledge in educational and psychological measurement, school law, staff supervision and evaluation, and skills to effectively communicate with staff, parents, students, and the general public.

PAGE 61

49 49 Matthews and Crow (2003) believe that the assistant principal also has a legitimate political role to play, and it involves one’s active involvement in the professional learning community. Marshall and Mitchell (1991) have identified several rules relating to the politics of school that assistant principals must learn: Rule 1: Limit risk taking. Rule 2: Remake policy quietly. Rule 3: Avoid moral dilemmas. Rule 4: Don't display divergent values. Rule 5: Commitment is required. Rule 6: Don't get labeled a troublemaker. Rule 7: Keep disputes private. Rule 8: Cover all your bases. Rule 9: Build administrator team trust. Rule 10: Align your turf. (p. 217) According to Potter (1980), assistant principals want to become more involved in their schools' total education programs. They want to participate in the supervision, evaluation, planning, and decision making of the school. Greenfield (1985) suggests the assistant principal be given a broader scope of responsibilities, which could include a focus on instructional and organizational matters. Extending the assistant principal’s role in this manner could result in a more effective use of administrative resources available to schools without sacrificing student discipline or other areas that need to be addressed.

PAGE 62

50 50 In most high schools, the assistant principal is “delegated a broad range of duties that carry with them considerable responsibility, importance, and discretionary behavior. The role of the assistant principal is vital to the functioning administrative team at the school building level” (Pellicer et al., 1988, p. 75). Some individuals choose to make a career of assistant principalship. Marshall (1993) conducted a study of career assistant principals. She discovered that the role of career assistant principals is as diverse as the students they serve. They no longer see themselves dealing strictly with discipline and attendance. They are much more involved with departments, supervision, counseling, and being a trusted colleague to those wanting some advice. The career assistant principals’ greatest reward is the knowledge that they helped young people grow and develop. The Principal Shortage A great deal of research has been conducted since the mid-1990s to determine what is preventing individuals from pursuing the principalship as a career and what is causing them to leave once they have attained the position. “In study after study, a lethal mixture of the following deterrents has transcended every level and demographic group of principals: time and overload, increasing responsibilities, work-related stress, salary, and institutional interference” (Lovely, 2004, p. 3). Rayfield and Diamantes (2005) report that finding educators who want to become principals is difficult and is contributing to the shortage of principals. In 2002, Rayfield presented to the National Council of Professors of Educational Administration a paper proposing that the principal’s job is complex and difficult, filled with many duties that may contribute to job dissatisfaction. Eckman (2004) also identified the growing issue of the high school

PAGE 63

51 51 principal shortage and attributed it in part to pressures and unreasonable time demands on the administrator. From the perspective of job opportunities, the future looks good for individuals seeking a career in high school administration. Job opportunities in this field should soon abound, according to Yerkes and Guaglianone (1998), “over the next few years, more and more districts are reporting shrinking numbers of quality applicants and universities are noticing fewer graduate students interested in working at the secondary school level" (p. 10). Fenwick and Pierce (2001) assert, "states are reporting shortages of qualified principal candidates and many school districts are struggling to fill vacancies" (p. 25). Capelluti and Nye (2005) agree, there is a principal shortage across the nation, and “although myriad commissions have been formed to find out why this is so, most principals will tell you that they know the reason: Too many teachers perceive the principalship to be “no fun" (p. 8). They continue to explain that the hours can be grueling and the stress level can get uncomfortably high; “however, for the right person, the job of principal can not only be fun, but also it can provide an opportunity to make significant contributions in the lives of myriad children as well as the entire school community” (p. 8). Herrington and Wills (2005) have stated, “During the past few years, superintendents and district human resource officers have reported increasing difficulty in filling vacant school leadership positions” (p. 182). Herrington and Wills went on to say, “More to the point, there is an increasing deficit in the number of qualified candidates to lead our schools” (p. 182). Whitaker (2001) states “these shortages occurred among all

PAGE 64

52 52 types of schools (rural, urban, suburban) and among all levels (elementary, middle, high school)" (p. 82). Les Potter (2001) reported that the 1998 survey conducted by the National Association of Elementary School Principals and the National Association of Secondary School Principals found that long work days, pressure from school boards, increased responsibilities, difficult parents, and low pay made the principalship less desirable than ever before. Gilman and Lanman-Givens ( 2001) noted that nearly 50% of the 403 school districts participating in the 1998 Educational Research Service survey noted problems in replacing secondary school principals. Ferrandino (2001) reports there are a shortage of applicants for principal jobs. Five years ago, it was not uncommon for districts to receive 50 to 100 applicants for an opening, but now they are lucky to get 15 to 20. Forty percent of the nation's 93,200 principals are nearing retirement and during the next five years the need will increase by 10% to 20%. There is much discussion about where the needed replacements for principals are going to come from. Fenwick and Pierce (2001) suggest directing qualified teachers into these roles. "Nearly half (47 percent) of the nation's teachers have master's degrees -many in school administration. Our challenge is to encourage those who are qualified to assume leadership roles" (p. 30). Fenwick and Pierce (2001) also reported that 15 states have passed legislation "supporting alternate routes to the principalship -effectively lowering the bar for qualification -a countering trend is the effort of the Interstate School Leaders Licensure

PAGE 65

53 53 Consortium (ISLLC) to persuade states to adopt its uniform principal certification test" (pp. 31-32). Les Potter (2001) cites seven short-term solutions for filling principal vacancies: Hire recently retired principals Hire assistant principals who aspire to be principals Keep good principals on the job Reconsider early retirement options Provide monetary incentives for principals Recruit candidates from local universities Consider candidates outside of education (pp. 34-35) However, Potter (2001) suggests, "over the long term, the best solution for the principalship crisis is for districts to concentrate on growing and nurturing their own candidates" (p. 36). Districts can then hire from within, eliminating the need to hire principals from outside their area or state. Is the principal shortage related to job dissatisfaction and turnover at the principal and assistant principal levels? Lawler (1994) reported that when job satisfaction and turnover was studied, researchers typically measured the job satisfaction among a certain number of employees and then waited to see which of the employees in the study left during a set time period (usually, a year). Next, the satisfaction scores of the employees who left were compared with the employees who stayed. The scores from these studies have consistently shown that dissatisfied workers are more likely than satisfied workers to quit their job. These studies showed that satisfaction scores predicted turnover.

PAGE 66

54 54 Kovach (1977) states, based on his study, that "various forms of satisfaction were felt to provide an explanation of … turnover rates. Total satisfaction was felt to be reflected in turnover rates while satisfaction from social and task sources were felt to impact on absenteeism rates" (p. 69). Changes that occur within people can often cause job turnover. People change their goals and their perception of how capable they are in their work environment. These changes can cause a person to feel that a job that was once satisfying has become dissatisfying (Lawler, 1994). Lawler (1994) believes the reason turnover and satisfaction are not more strongly related is that turnover is greatly influenced by the availability of other jobs (a good, strong economy). Unless a job appears that is more appealing, a person is not likely to leave their current job, even if they are very dissatisfied with it. This would suggest that when the economy is strong and prosperous, turnover will be high, and a strong relationship will exist between turnover and satisfaction. However, when economic times are difficult, turnover should be low, and little relationship exists between turnover and satisfaction. Lawler (1994) supports the idea that the dissatisfied employee is more inclined to search for new job opportunities. When dissatisfied employees’ desires are not being met by their current job, they actively search for a position where they can get what they want. “Dissatisfaction seems to cause turnover for two reasons: (1) it causes people to search their environment for more attractive alternatives, and (2) it influences the degree to which people feel their jobs will provide in the future the rewards they desire” (p 130).

PAGE 67

55 55 "Since satisfaction is related to turnover, those people who are most highly dissatisfied are also most likely to leave. This doesn't present a problem if the poorer performers are dissatisfied, but it does present a problem if the good performers are dissatisfied" (Lawler, 1994, p 182). As educators look forward, there is a need to understand why the principal shortage exists. Why are principals leaving their positions and why are there fewer qualified candidates to fill their roles? The literature helps readers to recognize the importance of job satisfaction studies, but it lacks clarification of the specific items that contribute to job satisfaction/dissatisfaction among high school assistant principals. According to McCormick (1987), “changes in demographics, state legislation, and the attitudes of young colleagues are fueling what could become an exodus from school leadership positions” (p. 18). It is believed that this exodus will threaten the quality of school leadership in the United States. Fulton (1987) stresses that everyone who is an assistant principal should pursue the principalship. The assistant's position should be considered “the primary training ground for the principalship, and the principal should assume the responsibility to thoroughly prepare the assistant principal for the position" (p. 52). Summary This chapter reviewed the literature of job satisfaction theories, job satisfaction studies, studies related to demographic variables (school size, tenure, age, and gender), the role and responsibilities of the assistant principal, and the principal shortage. Some theorists believe that there have not been any well-developed theories of job satisfaction and others support the view that a variety of theories have been developed. The studies

PAGE 68

56 56 and theories have focused on different aspects of job satisfaction, depending on who is conducting the study. This study focuses on the Work Adjustment Theory and the Minnesota Satisfaction Questionnaire, which was developed as a result of this theory. The MSQ was designed to measure the primary indicators of work adjustment and to sample both extrinsic and intrinsic variables. Other demographic variables (school size, tenure, age, and gender) were reviewed and the results from a variety of authors were conflicting or inconclusive. Assistant principals have many responsibilities, but their roles have not been clearly defined. This ambiguity leads to frustration which affects job satisfaction. It is clear; the nation will continue to experience a shortage of principals during the next decade.

PAGE 69

57 57 CHAPTER 3 METHOD This chapter includes discussion about the design of the study, participants, and the three measures used in this study: (1) Minnesota Satisfaction Questionnaire, (2) Individual Demographic Questionnaire, and (3) Telephone Interview Questionnaire. This chapter also discusses the procedures and analysis of the data that was used during this research. The chapter concludes with a summary. Many studies have been done on high school principal job satisfaction, but very few studies have been conducted on the job satisfaction of high school assistant principals. This researcher has only found two such studies, one done in Florida by Neal (2002) and another conducted in Mississippi by Chen (2000). It is the purpose of this study to conduct research and to share its findings in an effort to assist those in high school administration and those considering such a career to evaluate the variables contributing to job satisfaction or dissatisfaction. First, this study measured, using the Minnesota Satisfaction Questionnaire, the general job satisfaction level of high school assistant principals in seven Florida counties. Second, this study measured, using the Minnesota Satisfaction Questionnaire, job satisfaction levels of high school assistant principals in seven Florida counties based on intrinsic and extrinsic job satisfaction factors. Third, this study identified the relationship between general, intrinsic, and extrinsic job satisfaction as measured by the Minnesota

PAGE 70

58 58 Satisfaction Questionnaire and the demographic variables: school size, tenure (length of time as a high school assistant principal), age, and gender, among high school assistant principals in seven Florida counties. This study determined job satisfaction among public high school assistant principals in seven Florida counties by investigating the following three research questions: 1. What is the general satisfaction level of high school assistant principals in seven Florida counties as measured by the Minnesota Satisfaction Questionnaire? 2. What is the level of job satisfaction among high school assistant principals in seven Florida counties based on the intrinsic and extrinsic job satisfaction factors as measured by the Minnesota Satisfaction Questionnaire? 3. What is the relationship between general, intrinsic, and extrinsic job satisfaction, as measured by the Minnesota Satisfaction Questionnaire, and the demographic variables: school size, tenure, age, and gender, among high school assistant principals in seven Florida counties? Design of the Study This study utilized both quantitative and qualitative methods. A nonexperimental quantitative research design was utilized. Descriptive and correlational analyses were used to describe the level of job satisfaction of high school assistant principals and the demographic variables related to job satisfaction. These demographic variables represent attributes of the participants that were not under the control of the researcher. The qualitative method used in this study was the interview.

PAGE 71

59 59 A pilot study was conducted using the Minnesota Satisfaction Questionnaire (short form), Individual Demographic Questionnaire (Appendix B), and Telephone Interview Questionnaire (Appendix C) among five Florida high school administrators (two principals and three assistant principals). The pilot study participants were colleagues selected within the same county the researcher was employed. The pilot study provided valuable feedback collected from the participants via email, telephone conversations, and face-to-face conversations. Their feedback was used in determining if any changes were needed in the design or contents of the questionnaires. The most significant feedback contributions were to shorten the opening page for the online survey and to reduce the number of questions on the Telephone Interview Questionnaire from 20 to 10. Many of the questions, which were removed from the Telephone Interview Questionnaire, were already covered in the MSQ. The question items for the Individual Demographic Questionnaire (Appendix B) were created after reviewing other graduate student questionnaires. Items used in this questionnaire were designed to collect information about the participant (age, gender, tenure, etc.) and the setting in which the participant worked (size of school, number of teachers on staff, etc.). In addition to quantitative methods, the qualitative method of interviewing was utilized in this study. Smith and Glass (1987) state that qualitative research is often thought of in terms of “words, pictures, and graphs rather than numbers and statistics” (p. 254). It “can describe events and persons scientifically without the use of numerical data” (Best & Kahn, 2003, p. 75). Just as a quantitative researcher will transform many scores or data points into a measure of central tendency and variability, the qualitative

PAGE 72

60 60 data analysis involves reducing the amount of information into smaller sets of categories, propositions, or themes. Since all the interviewees lived outside the county of the researcher, telephone interviews were conducted. The goal of the researcher was to provide the interview participants an opportunity to express their own view and in their own terms, responses to a select number of questions related to their job satisfaction. Due to the open ended nature of the Telephone Interview Questionnaire, this portion of the study was designed without any predetermined variables in mind. Twenty interview questions were developed by the researcher by selecting topics that high school assistant principals could elaborate on regarding their job and the satisfaction or dissatisfaction it provided. The interview questions were to obtain qualitative data that would provide additional insights into job satisfaction/dissatisfaction that may not be apparent through the other questionnaires (Minnesota Satisfaction Questionnaire and Individual Demographic Questionnaire). The majority of questions were open ended to provide broad themes or patterns for analysis. Once again, through the use of the pilot study, feedback was used to determine what changes were needed in the design or content of the questionnaire. The feedback identified several questions already being addressed on other questionnaires and therefore, were eliminated. Ten questions on the revised Telephone Interview Questionnaire (Appendix C) were used in this study. The purpose of the Telephone Interview Questionnaire was to gain a greater understanding of individual job satisfaction/dissatisfaction among high school assistant principals in seven Florida counties.

PAGE 73

61 61 This study was conducted to determine the general, intrinsic, and extrinsic job satisfaction of high school assistant principals in the state of Florida utilizing both quantitative and qualitative methods. Participants Of the 67 counties (school districts) in Florida, high school assistant principals for this study were invited from the same seven counties that were included in Neal’s 2002 study. These counties were selected to provide a broad geographic area of Florida and represented a mixture of rural, suburban, and urban areas. The Florida Department of Education’s website was utilized to access a county listing of Florida to visit every high school’s website located in the seven counties. The researcher also logged onto every school district’s website and double checked the high school listings to be certain no high school was omitted.

PAGE 74

62 62 TABLE 3.1 Number of Schools and Assistant Principals (AP’s) Participating in Study County Schools Invited n Schools Participating n AP’s Invited n AP’s Participating n 001 3 3 7 4 002 4 3 10 5 003 5 4 10 5 004 5 5 19 12 005 10 9 35 19 006 13 11 51 36 007 19 13 82 47 Total 59 48 214 128 To provide participant anonymity, Table 3.1 displays the seven counties labeled as a three digit number. Table 3.1 reports the number of schools and high school assistant principals invited to participate in the study and how many responded. Table 3.1 was developed to show how some counties contributed more data to the study than others. Of the 11 schools that did not participate in the study, six of them came from the largest represented county, while the remaining five schools were a mixture from four other counties. The schools which did not participate in the study are reflective of those that did. Once on each high school’s website, the available email contact information for each assistant principal of the high school was used to email them a personal invitation

PAGE 75

63 63 (Appendix D) to participate in this study. The Florida Department of Education (on the Internet) provided the names of 59 public high schools in the seven counties selected for this study. The 128 respondents in this study represent 48 of the 59 schools that were invited to participate. The participants in this study were Florida high school assistant principals, men and women, from different size schools, with varied tenure and age, located in seven different counties throughout Florida. Assistant principals were asked to respond with their perceptions of themselves in the workplace to 20 questions on the MSQ, located on a secure website. The participants were also asked to complete an Individual Demographic Questionnaire, on the same secure website, and to provide demographic data about themselves and their schools. The MSQ had 128 respondents and 127 responded to the Individual Demographic Questionnaire (one individual chose not to complete the Individual Demographic Questionnaire). Data collected from the Individual Demographic Questionnaire provided the following information about the participants and their workplaces. TABLE 3.2 Respondents Demographic Information (Age, and Gender) Variable n Percent Age Younger than 31 4 3.15 31-40 45 35.43 41-50 32 25.20 51-60 41 32.28 Older than 60 5 3.94 Gender Male 60 47.24 Female 67 52.76

PAGE 76

64 64 The ages of the 127 participants ranged from younger than 31 years old to older than 60 years old, as seen in Table 3.2. The responses indicated that the largest age group, consisting of 45 (35.43%) participants, was between 31 and 40 years old. The 51 to 60 year olds were the second largest age group, which were represented by 41 (32.28%) administrators. Sixty (47.24%) of the respondents were male and 67 (52.76%) were female. TABLE 3.3 Respondents’ Demographic Information (Highest Level of Education, Number Years in Public Education, and Number of Years as High School Assistant Principal) Variable n Percent Highest Level of Education Bachelor’s Degree 0 0 Master’s Degree 100 78.74 Ed. Specialist Degree 12 9.45 Doctoral Degree 13 10.24 Other-Some Doctoral Work 2 1.57 # Years in Public Education Less than 1 0 0 1-3 0 0 4-6 7 5.51 7-9 12 9.45 10-15 35 27.56 16-20 22 17.32 21-30 34 26.77 More than 30 17 13.39 # Years as HS Assistant Principal Less than 1 11 8.66 1-3 42 33.07 4-6 31 24.41 7-9 19 14.96 10-15 15 11.81 16-20 5 3.94 21-30 2 1.57 More than 30 2 1.57

PAGE 77

65 65 The survey participants’ response to the question, “What is your highest earned level of education?” can be viewed in Table 3.3. Every high school assistant principal participating in the study had attained a Master’s degree or higher. Master’s degrees were held by 100 (78.74%) of the respondents. Thirteen (10.24%) participants had earned their doctorates, while two (1.57%) were currently working on them. No high school assistant principal had less than three years in public education, as can be seen in Table 3.3. The majority of respondents, 35 (27.56%), had 10-15 years in public education while the second largest group, 34 (26.77%), comprised those in public education with 21-30 years of service. Regarding the number of years respondents were assistant principals (tenure as a high school assistant principal), Table 3.3 shows that the majority 42 (33.07%) were in the position from 1 to 3 years. Thirty-one (24.41%) respondents formed the next largest group with 4-6 years of experience as an assistant principal.

PAGE 78

66 66 TABLE 3.4 Respondents’ Demographic Information (Salary, Avg # Hours Worked, Interest in Principalship) Variable n Percent Salary Range Less than $40,000 4 3.15 $40,000-$50,000 28 22.05 $50,001-$60,000 37 29.13 $60,001-$70,000 28 22.05 $70,001-$80,000 19 14.96 $80,001-$90,000 9 7.09 More than $90,000 2 1.57 Avg # Hours Worked Weekly 30-40 0 0 41-50 24 18.90 51-60 76 59.84 61-70 20 15.75 71-80 5 3.94 More than 80 2 1.57 Interest in Becoming a HS Principal Yes 77 60.63 No 23 18.11 Undecided 27 21.26 Table 3.4 shows the results of the assistant principals’ salary range, the average number of hours they worked each week, and if they were interested in becoming a high school principal. While four (3.15%) of high school assistant principals made less than $40,000 per year, the majority, 37 (29.13%), earned between $50,001 and $60,000 annually. Many (28 or 22.05%) were in the nearby salary range of $40,000-$50,000 and 28 (22.05%) earned $60,001-$70,000 each year. As recorded in Table 3.4, most high school assistant principals responding to this study, 76 (59.84%), worked an average of 51-60 hours each week. No assistant principal claimed working less than a 40 hour work week.

PAGE 79

67 67 High school assistant principals were asked if they were interested in becoming high school principals. Seventy-seven of the 127 respondents (60.63%) indicated that they were interested in pursuing the principal position and 23 (18.11%) assistant principals were not interested. TABLE 3.5 Respondents’ Demographic Information (Enrollment, Location, and # of APs) Variable n Percent Enrollment/Size of School Less than 401 0 0 401-800 3 2.36 801-1200 3 2.36 1201-1600 14 11.02 1601-2000 34 26.77 2001-2400 41 32.28 2401-2800 17 13.39 2801-3200 10 7.87 More than 3200 5 3.94 Location Description Rural 8 6.30 Suburban 73 57.48 Urban 46 36.22 # of AP’s on Campus 1 1 .79 2 7 5.51 3 16 12.60 4 35 27.56 5 42 33.07 6 18 14.17 More than 6 8 6.30 The demographic data in Table 3.5 indicate the size of the high schools, the location of the schools, and the number of assistant principals on staff at each school. None of the schools reported in this study had fewer than 401 students enrolled. The

PAGE 80

68 68 majority of high school assistant principals, 41 (32.28%), said their student enrollment was between 2001-2400 and the second largest group, 34 (26.77%), reported 1601-2000 students on campus. When high school assistant principals were asked to designate which of the three local descriptions (rural, suburban, or urban) best described their school, the majority, 73 (57.48%), chose suburban. The second largest group, 46 (36.22%), of schools was described as urban. As the data revealed in Table 3.5, the majority of high school assistant principals participating in this study, 42 (33.07%), indicated they were at schools with a total of five assistant principals. The second highest response rate, 35 (27.56%), were from survey participants who had a total of four assistant principals on campus. Seven (5.51%) respondents said they worked with only one other assistant principal.

PAGE 81

69 69 TABLE 3.6 Respondents’ Demographic Information (Free/Reduced Lunch, School Grade, and # teachers on staff) Variable n Percent Free or Reduced Lunch Less than 11% 12 9.45 11%-25% 37 29.13 26%-50% 61 48.03 51%-75% 13 10.24 76%-90% 3 2.36 More than 90% 1 .79 School Grade A 18 14.17 B 36 28.35 C 53 41.73 D 20 15.75 F 0 0 No Grade 0 0 # of Teachers on Staff Less than 31 0 0 31-45 2 1.57 46-60 3 2.36 61-75 2 1.57 76-90 18 14.17 91-120 37 29.13 121-150 45 35.43 More than 150 20 15.75 The data in Table 3.6 indicate the percentage of the student body on free or reduced lunch at the high schools that participated in this study. Table 3.6 also provides information pertaining to the high schools’ (FCAT, Florida Comprehensive Assessment Test) school grade for 2004-05 and the number of teachers they had on staff. The majority, 61 (48.03%), of the survey participants indicated that 26%-50% of their students received free or reduced lunch. Thirty-seven (29.13%) respondents indicated

PAGE 82

70 70 that 11%-25% of their high school students were on free or reduced lunch. One (.79%) high school reported that more than 90% of its students received free or reduced lunch. Of the 127 responses reporting the grade their school received, the majority of assistant principals, 53 (41.73%) indicated their school grade was a “C”. Thirty-six (28.35%) of the assistant principals indicated their schools received a grade of “B”. None of the assistant principals participating in this study indicated that their school received an “F”. Table 3.6 discloses the number of teachers that are on staff at the high schools where the survey participants worked. All the high schools represented in this study have more than 31 teachers on staff. The majority of responses, 45 (35.43%), came from assistant principals at schools with 121-150 teachers, followed by 37 (29.13%) of the respondents at schools with a teaching staff of 91-120. Thirty-five percent of the participants were 31-40 years old, 79% had a Mater’s degree, 33% had been a high school assistant principal 1-3 years, 60% worked 51-60 hours per week, 57% were at suburban schools, 48% were at schools with 26%-50% of students on free and/or reduced lunch, and 32% were at schools with student enrollments between 1601-2400. The majority of participants (42%) in this study were at schools which received a school grade of “C” on the Florida Comprehensive Assessment Test. To analyze the factors related to the participants in this study ( n = 127), the four Individual Demographic Variables (gender, age, tenure, and school size), that are pertinent to Research Question #3, were grouped into all possible pairs. Chi-square tables represent cross tabulations of two categorical variables. Chi-square statistic is used to examine the relationship between the categorical variables. Chi-square tables were

PAGE 83

71 71 developed by entering the variables data into SAS statistical software and the results of that analysis follows. The Chi-Square Tables can be viewed in Appendix A. Figure 3.1 Gender and Age 000% 10.00% 20.00% 30.00% 40.00% 50.00% 60.00% <3131-4041-5051-60>60 Age MALE FEMALE Figure 3.1 reveals the greatest percentage of high school assistant principal males (50%) were in the 31-40 age bracket, while the greatest percentage of female assistant principals (43.28%) were between the ages of 51-60. Therefore, most of the high school assistant principal men responding to this study were younger and most of the high school assistant principal women were older. Based on the results of a chi-square test, gender was significantly related to age, 2 (4, n = 127) = 13.03, p<.05.

PAGE 84

72 72 Figure 3.2 Gender and Tenure 000% 500% 10.00% 15.00% 20.00% 25.00% 30.00% 35.00% 40.00% <11-34-67-910-1516-2021-30>30 Tenure Male Female Figure 3.2 shows that the majority of high school assistant principal males (35%) and the majority of high school assistant principal females (31.34%) had 1-3 years of tenure as high school assistant principals. Based on the results of a chi-square test, gender was not significantly related to tenure, 2 (7, n = 127) = 2.31, p = .94.

PAGE 85

73 73 Figure 3.3Gender and School Size 000% 500% 10.00% 15.00% 20.00% 25.00% 30.00% 35.00% 40.00% <401401-800801-12001201-16001601-20002001-24002401-28002801-3200>3200 School Size Male Female Figure 3.3 indicates that most male high school assistant principals (35%) served in schools with a student population of 2001-1400. The majority of female assistant principals were equally divided (29.85) between schools with student population of 16012000 and 2001-2400. Based on the results of a chi-square test, gender was not significantly related to school size, 2 (7, n = 127) = 1.92, p = .96.

PAGE 86

74 74 Figure 3.4 Age and Tenure 000% 10.00% 20.00% 30.00% 40.00% 50.00% 60.00% 70.00% 80.00% <11-34-67-910-1516-2021-30>30 <31 31-40 41-50 51-60 >60 As indicated by Figure 3.4, most high school assistant principals younger than 30 years old (75%) had less than one year of tenure in their position. In contrast, the majority of high school assistant principals over 60 years old were equally divided (40%) with 7-9 years of tenure and 10-15 years of tenure. Two individuals that responded to this survey indicated that they had more than 30 years of tenure as an assistant principal. However, other data indicated a discrepancy with the 41-50 year old because the respondent indicated being in public education for only 16-20 years. The participant could not have been an assistant principal for more than 30 years and in public education for less than 15 years. Based on the results of a chi-square test, age was significantly related to tenure, 2 (28, n = 127) = 83.06, p<.0001.

PAGE 87

75 75 Figure 3.5 Age and School Size 000% 10.00% 20.00% 30.00% 40.00% 50.00% 60.00% <401401-800801-12001201-16001601-20002001-24002401-28002801-3200>3200 School Size <31 31-40 41-50 51-60 Series5 Figure 3.5 shows more high school assistant principals younger than 31 years old (50%), 31-40 years old (40%), and 41-50 years old (31.25%) were in schools with a student population between 2001-2400 than any other size school. The majority of 51-60 year olds (39.02%) and the high school assistant principals over 60 years old (40%) served at schools with student populations of 1601-2000. Based on the results of a chisquare test, age was not significantly related to school size, 2 (28, n = 127) = 37.27, p = .11.

PAGE 88

76 76 Figure 3.6 – Tenure and School Size 0.00% 10.00% 20.00% 30.00% 40.00% 50.00% 60.00% 70.00% <401401-800801-12001201-16001601-20002001-24002401-28002801-3200>3200 School Size <1 1-3 4-6 7-9 10-15 16-20 21-30 >30 Figure 3.6 reveals the majority of high school assistant principals with 7-9 years of tenure (31.58%), 10-15 years of tenure (40%), and 16-20 years of tenure (60%) served in schools with student populations of 1601-2000. The majority of high school assistant principals with 1-3 years of tenure (35.71%) and 4-6 years of tenure (45.16%) served in schools with student populations of 2001-2400. Based on the results of a chi-square test, tenure was significantly related to school size, 2 (49, n = 127) = 70.73, p <.05. Measures Minnesota Satisfaction Questionnaire Job satisfaction studies often use interviews or questionnaires to measure job satisfaction. Spector (1997) reminds us that most research is done with questionnaires instead of interviews because a large number of people can be surveyed with

PAGE 89

77 77 questionnaires with very little effort or expense. Also, it is much easier to quantify and standardize questionnaire responses. The Minnesota Satisfaction Questionnaire was selected because, as Spector (1997) has observed, it is easier to assess job satisfaction with the use of an existing scale. The Minnesota Satisfaction Questionnaire is a job satisfaction instrument that has been carefully developed and its reliability and validity have already been established. Also, many graduate studies done on administrators’ job satisfaction have incorporated the Minnesota Satisfaction Questionnaire as their assessment instrument. The Minnesota Satisfaction Questionnaire began as the Work Adjustment Project in 1957 by researchers at the University of Minnesota (Weiss, Dawis, England, & Lofquist, 1967). The studies that began in 1957 had 2 objectives: “the development of diagnostic tools for assessing the work adjustment ‘potential’ of applicants for vocational rehabilitation, and the evaluation of work adjustment outcomes” (Weiss et al., 1967, p. v). Weiss et al. stated that the theory of work adjustment “uses the correspondence (or lack of it) between the work personality and the work environment” (p. v) as the primary reason for observed work outcomes (satisfactoriness, satisfaction, and tenure). They continue with the thought that work adjustment depends on how well a person’s abilities correspond to the ability requirements in their work, and how well the person’s needs correspond to the reinforcers available in the environment. As indicated by Weiss et al. (1967), the first satisfaction measures used in the Work Adjustment Project, which later spawned the MSQ, included the Hoppock Job Satisfaction Blank (short form), the Employee Attitude Scale, and 22 experimental items. The Hoppock Blank, a four-item instrument, measured general job satisfaction. The 54-

PAGE 90

78 78 item Employee Attitude Scale and 22 experimental items were in a Likert format and used to measure an individual’s attitudes about work. The 80 items were used to develop satisfaction measures for individuals with/without disabilities in different occupational groups. The measures had adequate reliability, but due to the different weights used for different occupational groups, the scoring was burdensome. Also, the scales primarily measured extrinsic reinforcement factors (e.g., working conditions, supervision, coworkers, company) while almost totally excluding intrinsic reinforcement factors (e.g., type of work, achievement, ability utilization). Due to these findings, the MSQ Likert format questionnaire was created to include both intrinsic and extrinsic reinforcement dimensions. In an effort to maximize the readability of the items, the questionnaire is at a 5th grade reading level. Also, item stems have been shortened and the instructions have been simplified. “The MSQ was designed to measure actual satisfaction with a reinforcer” (Weiss, Dawis, England, & Lofquist, 1967, p. 13). The MSQ was developed as an instrument to measure one of the primary indicators of work adjustment, job satisfaction. The MSQ was designed to sample both extrinsic and intrinsic variables and to be less cumbersome in scoring. In 1957, researchers involved in the Work Adjustment Project used the Hoppock Job Satisfaction Blank (Short Form), the Employee Attitude Scale, and 22 experimental items to collect data on job satisfaction for assessing work adjustment potential. Normative data for the MSQ long form was established from 25 different vocational groups. Demographic characteristics of the norm group for the long form include sex, age, education, and tenure. Also, means, standard deviations, Hoyt

PAGE 91

79 79 reliability coefficients, standard errors of measurement, and percentile equivalents of raw scores are reported for each of the 20 dimensions and General Satisfaction. Norms for the MSQ short form were established from seven vocational groups (engineers, general office clerks, salesmen, janitors and maintenance men, machinists, general assemblers, and electrical assemblers) with 2858 participants. Demographic characteristics of the norm group for the short form included age, disabling condition, number of previous jobs, tenure, training, and years of full-time experience. Also, means, standard deviations, Hoyt reliability coefficients, standard errors of measurement, and percentile equivalents of raw scores were reported for General Satisfaction, Intrinsic Satisfaction, and Extrinsic Satisfaction. Each of the vocational groups scored close to each other on all three scales (general, intrinsic, and extrinsic), which indicates that the instrument can be used to measure job satisfaction in a variety of vocations. According to Weiss et al. (1967), the researchers developed “a questionnaire (in two forms, long and short) that measures satisfaction with several specific aspects of work and work environment” (p. vi). The MSQ is a valuable instrument because two people can express the same amount of general satisfaction about their work for completely different reasons. The Work Adjustment Project developed the MSQ long form from earlier attitude measures. The MSQ long form is a gender-neutral instrument and can be administered to either individuals or groups. The MSQ long form utilizes a 20-dimension structure in a 100 items Likert response format. According to Spector (1977), the 20 facets of the MSQ are often more specific than in other instruments, such as the Job Descriptive Index (JDI) and the Job Satisfaction Survey (JSS). One hundred questions are asked of the

PAGE 92

80 80 individual responding to the questionnaire. As previously stated, it takes about 15-20 minutes to complete the long form, although, there are no time constraints on completing either questionnaire. The questions on the long form are in blocks of 20 and each dimension is represented in each block. Scale scores are calculated by summing the weights for the responses chosen for the items in each scale. The MSQ uses five question items for each of the 20 scales that follow to determine levels of satisfaction/dissatisfaction: Ability Utilization, Achievement, Activity, Advancement, Authority, Company Policies and Practices, Compensation, Co-workers, Creativity, Independence, Moral Values, Recognition, Responsibility, Security, Social Service, Social Status, Supervision – Human Relations, Supervision – Technical, Variety, and Working Conditions. General Satisfaction scores are achieved by using items from all 20 scales. Intrinsic and extrinsic scores of the MSQ are determined by evaluating the results of each corresponding scale: Intrinsicability utilization, achievement, activity, authority, creativity, independence, moral values, responsibility, security, social service, social status, and variety; and Extrinsicadvancement, company policies and practices, compensation, recognition, supervision-human relations, and supervision-technical. Coworkers and working conditions are categorized as neither intrinsic nor extrinsic, but their values are calculated when assessing General Satisfaction levels. The three scales of the Minnesota Satisfaction Questionnaire consist of the following number of question items on the short form: Scale # Questions/Items General Satisfaction 20

PAGE 93

81 81 Intrinsic 12 Extrinsic 6 Following are brief explanations of the scales used by the MSQ to measure the 20 dimensions of job satisfaction, by Weiss et al. (1967): Twenty Dimensions of the Minnesota Satisfaction Questionnaire MSQ Scales Explanation of Scale Ability Utilization The chance to do something that makes use of my abilities Achievement The feeling of accomplishment I get from the job Activity Being able to keep busy all the time Advancement The chances for advancement on this job Authority The chance to tell other people what to do Company Policies and The way company policies are put into practice Practices Compensation My pay and the amount of work I do Co-workers The way my co-workers get along with each other Creativity The chance to try my own methods of doing the job Independence The chance to work alone on the job Moral Values Being able to do things that don’t go against my conscience Recognition The praise I get for doing a good job Responsibility The freedom to use my own judgment Security The way my job provides for steady employment Social Service The chance to do things for other people Social Status The chance to be “somebody” in the community

PAGE 94

82 82 SupervisionThe way my boss handles his/her workers Human Relations Supervision-Technical The competence of my supervisor in making decisions Variety The chance to do different things from time to time Working Conditions The working conditions (pp. 1-2) The MSQ has 5 options on a Likert Scale represented as: (1) Very Dissatisfied, (2) Dissatisfied, (3) Neither, (4) Satisfied, and (5) Very Satisfied. Participants respond to each item indicating on the 5-option scale how they feel about that aspect of their job. Participants are asked to be frank so the results will give a true picture of their feelings about their present job. The MSQ is self-administering with directions for the respondent on the first page of the questionnaire. The paper version of the MSQ has instructions about the Likert rating scale located at the top of each page and can be administered practically anywhere. The MSQ short form contains 20 questions and can be administered in as little as five minutes. The questions for the short form were developed by choosing the 20 questions from the MSQ long form that correlated the highest with the total score of their respective scales. The MSQ short form utilizes all of its 20 questions to determine the respondents’ general satisfaction. Weiss, Dawis, England, and Lofquist (1967) insist that the MSQ “meets the accepted standards for reliability; and shows evidence of validity” (p. vi). According to Weiss et al. (1967), data on the internal consistency reliability of the Minnesota Satisfaction Questionnaire short form as estimated by Hoyt’s analysis of

PAGE 95

83 83 variance method revealed that in general the reliability coefficients were high. The range of coefficients on the General Satisfaction scale ranged from .87 to .92. The range of coefficients on the Intrinsic Satisfaction scale ranged from .84 to .91 and the range of coefficients on the Extrinsic Satisfaction scale ranged from .77 to .82. The median reliability coefficients were .90 for General Satisfaction, .86 for Intrinsic Satisfaction, and .80 for Extrinsic Satisfaction. Weiss et al. report that no data are available concerning the stability of scores for the MSQ short form. However, since both the long form and short form of the MSQ use the same 20 items for the General Satisfaction scale, stability for the General Satisfaction scale may be inferred from the long form. Test-retest correlation coefficients of General Satisfaction scale scores on the MSQ long form produced coefficients of .89 over a oneweek interval and .70 over a one-year period of time. “Since the short-form MSQ is based on a subset of the long-form items, validity for the short-form may in part be inferred from validity for the long-form” (Weiss, Dawis, England, & Lofquist, 1967, p. 24). Weiss et al. explain that the MSQ’s (long form) construct validity (“The extent to which inferences from a test’s scores accurately reflect the construct that the test is claimed to measure,” Gall, Borg, and Gall, 1996, p. 756) was determined primarily from its accomplishments based on theoretical expectations. Concurrent validity (“The extent to which individuals’ scores on a new test correspond to their scores on an established test of the same construct that is administered shortly before or after the new test,” Gall, Borg, and Gall, 1996, p. 755) was determined by studying group differences in satisfaction, particularly occupational differences. Decades of research have revealed that there are occupational differences in job

PAGE 96

84 84 satisfaction. Data from 25 occupational groups were analyzed by one-way analysis of variance and Bartlett’s test of homogeneity of variance (a test to determine if there are equal variances across groups) to determine whether the MSQ reflected those differences. Among the 25 occupational groups surveyed, group differences were statistically significant at the .001 level for both means and variances on the 20 MSQ scales and the General Satisfaction scale. Therefore, the MSQ can differentiate among occupational groups. Content validity (“The extent to which inferences from a test’s scores adequately represent the content or conceptual domain that the test is claimed to measure,” Gall, Borg, and Gall, 1996, p. 756) of the MSQ can be supported by factor analysis (“A statistical procedure for reducing a set of measured variables to a smaller number of variables … by combining variables that are moderately or highly correlated with each other,” Gall, Borg, and Gall, 1996, p. 759), according to the manual written by Weiss et al. (1967). They calculated 14 norm groups from the intercorrelations of the 20 MSQ scales, with each group containing at least 100 people. The results of the factor analysis show that about half of the common MSQ scale score variance is represented by an extrinsic factor and the remaining scales by an intrinsic satisfaction factor. Weiss et al. (1967) explain that the results of the factor analysis also reveal “the factor structure of satisfaction varies among occupational groups” (p. 23). A principal axis factor analysis with a promax rotation was conducted on the 20 items of the MSQ for the present sample of data ( n = 128). With a default of eigenvalues >1.0, five factors were extracted. Table 3.7 shows the factor pattern coefficients from the five factor promax rotated solution.

PAGE 97

85 85 TABLE 3.7 Five Factor Results of Factor Analysis Item Dimension Scale Factor 1Factor 2Factor 3 Factor 4Factor 5 5 Supervision Human Relations Extrinsic .91 -.14 .13 -.02 .02 6 Supervision – Technical Extrinsic 90 .04 -.11 -.04 .01 18 Co-Workers Neither .66 .01 .01 .04 -.07 7 Moral Values Intrinsic .64 .33 -.12 -.10 -.04 19 Recognition Extrinsic .34 .05 .32 .28 .00 3 Variety Intrinsic -.02 .78 .15 .05 -.13 16 Creativity Intrinsic .14 .71 .04 .17 -.15 1 Activity Intrinsic -.13 .70 -.06 .04 .34 15 Responsibility Intrinsic .26 .67 .02 .09 .02 2 Independence Intrinsic -.01 .60 .05 -.45 .45 9 Social Service Intrinsic .07 -.06 .88 -.17 .02 4 Social Status Intrinsic -.19 .05 .78 .08 .02 11 Ability Utilization Intrinsic .07 .37 .53 .05 -.06 20 Achievement Intrinsic .07 .32 .48 .11 .08 13 Compensation Extrinsic -.11 -.05 .01 .85 .07 14 Advancement Extrinsic -.06 .46 -.01 .60 -.09 12 Company Policies and Practices Extrinsic .28 .17 -.19 .52 .18 17 Working Conditions Neither .30 -.06 .26 .43 .15 8 Security Intrinsic .08 .22 -.04 .33 .23 10 Authority Intrinsic .00 -.07 .04 .26 .83 Note: n = 128

PAGE 98

86 86 Factor one grouped items 5, 6, 18, and 7 together, two of which (5 and 6) were extrinsic and dealt specifically with the dimension of supervision. Factor two grouped five items (3, 16, 1, 15, and 2) that were all in the intrinsic scale, as did factor three (items 9, 4, 11, and 20). Factor four grouped three extrinsic items (13, 14, and 12) and one item (17) considered neither intrinsic nor extrinsic together. Item 10 (authority) and item 2 (independence) were the only two items >.40 in factor five. A forced two factor solution was conducted to divide the 20 items/dimensions into two groups. Table 3.8 shows the results of the two factor analysis.

PAGE 99

87 87 TABLE 3.8 Two Factor Results of Principal Axis Factor Analysis with Promax Rotation Item Dimension Scale Factor 1 Factor 2 6 Supervision – Technical Extrinsic .91 -.21 5 Supervision – Human Relations Extrinsic .91 -.15 18 Co-Workers Neither .70 -.09 12 Company Policies and Practices Extrinsic .68 -.02 7 Moral Values Intrinsic .64 .05 17 Working Conditions Neither .60 .19 19 Recognition Extrinsic .54 .28 13 Compensation Extrinsic .44 .09 8 Security Intrinsic .36 .20 10 Authority Intrinsic .29 .13 3 Variety Intrinsic .08 .74 4 Social Status Intrinsic -.15 .72 11 Ability Utilization Intrinsic .13 .72 20 Achievement Intrinsic .19 .66 9 Social Service Intrinsic -.06 .64 1 Activity Intrinsic .03 .58 16 Creativity Intrinsic .32 .57 2 Independence Intrinsic -.15 .54 15 Responsibility Intrinsic .41 .52 14 Advancement Extrinsic .36 .42 Note: n = 128

PAGE 100

88 88 Factor one grouped five of the six extrinsic items and the two neither items, while factor two grouped nine of the ten intrinsic items. Two items, 8 (security) and 10 (authority) were <.40 for both factors. The factor analysis results of the original MSQ (as reported by Weiss et al., 1967) showed that half the common scale score variance was represented by an extrinsic factor and the other half by an intrinsic factor. When a factor analysis from this study was conducted, five factors emerged. The dimensions of the MSQ do not seem to be as easily grouped by today’s employees as they were in the 1950’s. This current result may be an indication of the multitude of factors that influence a high school assistant principal that were not around decades ago. Both the employee and the environment/workplace have become more complex than in the past. For the current sample of 128 participants who completed the short form of the MSQ, the 20 items used to determine general satisfaction produced a Cronbach coefficient alpha of .91. For the 12 items used to determine participants’ intrinsic job satisfaction, the Cronbach coefficient alpha was .85. Finally, the six items used to determine extrinsic satisfaction produced a Cronbach coefficient alpha of .91. General, intrinsic, and extrinsic job satisfaction all rendered a Cronbach coefficient alpha above the acceptable .70.

PAGE 101

89 89 Individual Demographic Questionnaire The Individual Demographic Questionnaire posed 15 questions to collect data about the study’s participants. The data included information about the participants and their schools. The complete questionnaire (with answer choices) can be viewed in Appendix B. The following questions were asked in a multiple choice format: 1. What county do you work in? 2. What is your age? 3. What is your gender? 4. What is your highest earned level of education? 5. How many years have you been in public education? 6. How many years have you been a high school assistant principal? 7. What is your salary range? 8. What is the average number of hours you work per week? 9. Are you interested in becoming a high school principal? 10. How many students are enrolled in your school? 11. What area best describes where your school is located? 12. How many assistant principals work at your high school (including yourself)? 13. What percentage of your student body is on Free or Reduced Lunch? 14. What grade did your school receive during the 2004 – 2005 school year? 15. How many teachers are on your school staff? Telephone Interview Questionnaire This study also incorporated seven qualitative interviews in its research to provide additional information that quantitative questionnaires alone could not provide. When

PAGE 102

90 90 measuring how someone feels (e.g., satisfaction/dissatisfaction), a Likert scale can be very restrictive. Interviews allow a participant to explore issues not able to be captured by a Likert format on the MSQ or a multiple choice format on the Individual Demographic Questionnaire. The interview process in this study provided invaluable qualitative data that could not have been gathered on the MSQ or Individual Demographic Questionnaire. The participants for the telephone interviews were selected from volunteers on a first come basis. The data were collected by means of a tape recorder and note taking. The tape recording was transcribed to provide a simpler means of identifying common themes among the respondents. Through feedback provided by the Pilot Study group (five high school administrators); the Telephone Interview Questionnaire was reduced from 20 questions to 10. The following ten questions were removed from the initial Telephone Interview Questionnaire: 1. What other factors contribute to your job satisfaction? 2. What other factors contribute to your job dissatisfaction? 3. How much autonomy/freedom do you have? 4. Does the Teacher’s Union affect your job satisfaction? If yes, how? 5. What is the community’s perception of you? 6. Are you satisfied with your salary? 7. Do you receive the recognition you deserve? 8. How does your District treat its assistant principals? 9. Do you receive more praise and encouragement or criticism?

PAGE 103

91 91 10. Do you have ample opportunities for advancement? If no, why not? The qualitative portion of this study was intended to explore issues not captured in the quantitative part. For this study, the following ten questions were asked while discussing the Telephone Interview Questionnaire: 1. Tell me about your journey to become an assistant principal. 2. Why did you become an assistant principal? 3. What are your major job responsibilities? 4. What do you enjoy most about your job? 5. What do you like least about your job? 6. What has surprised you most about your job? 7. What do you like the most and least about your work environment? 8. Do you plan on becoming a principal? a. If no, why not? b. If yes, what is the process? Timeline? 9. If you couldn’t work in education, what job would you pursue? Why? 10. On a scale of 1–10, how satisfied are you with your job? Procedures Pilot Study During March and April 2006, two high school principals and three high school assistant principals were contacted to test and to provide feedback of the online Minnesota Satisfaction Questionnaire, Individual Demographic Questionnaire, and Telephone Interview Questionnaire. The Minnesota Satisfaction Questionnaire is copyright protected and permission was granted to use the instrument on a secure online

PAGE 104

92 92 site. The results of the pilot study indicated that both questionnaires operated flawlessly on the website provided by Survey Monkey. The pilot study provided valuable feedback collected from the participants via email, telephone conversations, and face-to-face conversations. Their feedback was used to determinine if any changes were needed in the design or contents of the questionnaires. The most significant feedback contributions were to shorten the opening page for the online survey and to reduce the number of questions on the Telephone Interview Questionnaire from 20 to 10. In an effort not to be redundant or too lengthy, many of the questions were removed from the Telephone Interview Questionnaire because the intent was to explore issues not captured in the quantitative questionnaires. Feedback from the pilot study indicated that the online opening screen for the MSQ could be clearer and neater. Based on the feedback, the opening screen was reduced from an entire page of text to a two sentence introduction and more white space was incorporated to make both online questionnaires’ appearance neater. Some discussion was given to adding more questions to the Individual Demographic Questionnaire such as (1) How far do you live from your school and, (2) Do you live in the district you work in? However, the pilot study participants felt that neither of the questions was important enough to replace existing questions nor lengthen the questionnaire. The feedback was also used to determine the participants’ understanding of the questions on the MSQ, Individual Demographic Questionnaire, and the Telephone Interview Questionnaire. None of the participants reported any difficulty in

PAGE 105

93 93 understanding any of the questions. After final adjustments were completed, the questionnaires were ready for use in this study. Data Collection Process During April 2006, the researcher used the Internet to locate and invite all high school assistant principals in the seven Florida counties participating in this study, who had their email addresses posted on their schools’ websites. The research participants received an emailed cover letter (Appendix D), explaining the study and inquiring if they would also like to volunteer to participate in a telephone interview. The first telephone interview volunteer from each county was contacted to participate in the Telephone Interview Questionnaire. However, only five counties initially responded and the researcher had to email assistant principals in the two remaining counties with a followup invitation to participate in a telephone interview. Assistant principals in the two remaining counties volunteered and they were contacted. If the initial volunteer could not be reached, the next volunteer who responded was contacted. The emailed cover letter provided a hotlink and password to the secure website where the participants completed the Minnesota Satisfaction Questionnaire and Individual Demographic Questionnaire. Participants were asked to respond to the questionnaires during the months of April through July 2006. Follow up emails (Appendix E) were sent regularly to non-responders with reminders to complete the questionnaires as soon as possible. An extensive effort was made to contact all the high school assistant principals in the seven Florida counties selected for this study. However, as a result of undeliverable

PAGE 106

94 94 email and email responses indicating the individual was no longer a high school assistant principal, individuals were removed from the mailing list. A cover letter email was sent on April 16, 2006. Twenty-three assistant principals responded to the initial contact. Three follow-up emails on April 26, May 11, and 23 resulted in 56 more responses. Three final follow-up email (Appendix F) contacts on June 10, 22 and 27 netted 49 additional responses. A total of 128 replies were collected from 214 contacts, which resulted in a 60% response rate. Seventy-five contacts provided no response (35%) and 11 contacts chose to decline (5%). All seven counties/districts were represented in the responses received and each county/district provided a 50% or greater response by high school assistant principals. The MSQ and Individual Demographic Questionnaire were self-administered utilizing a secure website. Dillman (2000) states “there is no other method of collecting survey data that offers so much potential for so little cost as Web surveys” (p. 400). He also gives some practical suggestions about constructing Web surveys: (1) start with a welcome screen that is motivational, emphasize how easy it is to respond, and give instructions how to proceed to the next page, (2) use PIN numbers to limit access to only those in the sample, (3) present questions in a conventional format, (4) refrain from the use of color that hinders readability, (5) avoid differences in the visual appearance of questions, (6) provide specific instructions, and (7) use words or graphical symbols that convey a sense of where the respondent is in the completion process. The participants were required to enter the password they received in their cover letter to participate in the study. The online survey began with a two sentence introduction of the Minnesota Satisfaction Questionnaire and a “Next>>” button to move

PAGE 107

95 95 the participant to the next page. Page two explained the Likert scale and elaborated on what each selection meant (Very Dissatisfied through Very Satisfied). The next three pages included the 20 questions of the MSQ with the same five radio selection buttons beneath each question. The program allowed the participants to select only one answer per question. Research participants selected radio buttons on a Likert scale when selfadministering the MSQ. The questionnaire had a light blue solid background with contrasting darker (black) letters which provided easy readability. Once the Minnesota Satisfaction Questionnaire was completed, the participants moved to the Individual Demographic Questionnaire by clicking on the “Next>>” button. One participant chose to complete the MSQ without completing the Individual Demographic Questionnaire. All other surveys were completed without incident. Since there are a variety of computers, operating systems, software, and Internet browsers in existence, it is important to keep Web surveys as basic as possible. By using only a portion of what the most advanced computers on the market have to offer, it is more likely that recipients of questionnaires are more likely to respond (Dillman, 2000). Survey Monkey provided the proper software and secure system to accomplish this study’s data collection task. Survey Monkey was used to provide a secure website on the Internet to post both the Minnesota Satisfaction Questionnaire (short form) and the Individual Demographic Questionnaire. Through this company the researcher was able to create the questionnaires online, collect responses, and view the results. The researcher developed the secure questionnaire website during February 2006 to be used during the month of March 2006 for the pilot study.

PAGE 108

96 96 At the conclusion of the online questionnaires, participants were asked to email the researcher if they would be willing to participate in a telephone interview related to job satisfaction. Assistant principals in five of the seven counties that participated in this study responded they would participate. Assistant principals were called in the order in which they volunteered. If an assistant principal could not be contacted, the next volunteer from that county was contacted. In the two remaining counties, the researcher sent an email request to assistant principals who had completed the online questionnaires requesting a volunteer for a telephone interview. Representatives from each of the two remaining counties also responded they would be willing to participate. Assistant principals from all seven counties were contacted and the Telephone Interview Questionnaire was discussed. Note taking and a tape recorder were used while conducting the Telephone Interview Questionnaire to insure accurate record keeping of the interviews. Each conversation was transcribed from the tape recording. The data were used to make qualitative observations of common themes from the responses during the telephone interviews. To organize the process of identifying themes from the telephone interviews, each question was printed separately followed by all seven responses of the telephone interview participants. This provided a simpler method for seeing connections between participants’ remarks. Repetitive words and phrases were underlined to provide visual assistance for possible common links. The common words and phrases were then grouped and identified with a common descriptive phrase/theme.

PAGE 109

97 97 Analysis of Data The data from the online survey responses to the 20 questions on the Minnesota Satisfaction Questionnaire and the 15 questions on the Individual Demographic Questionnaire were collected in Survey Monkey and entered into the SAS statistical software program to analyze and produce descriptive results. Descriptive statistics were computed for scores on the MSQ and the Individual Demographic Questionnaire. The ten question telephone interview responses were tape recorded, and themes were determined by analyzing its content. Individuals and their schools remained anonymous during the reporting of the data. The primary objectives of this study were to measure, using the Minnesota Satisfaction Questionnaire, the general job satisfaction level of high school assistant principals in seven Florida counties. Second, this study measured, using the Minnesota Satisfaction Questionnaire, the job satisfaction levels of high school assistant principals in seven Florida counties based on the intrinsic and extrinsic job satisfaction factors. Third, this study identified if there was a relationship between general, intrinsic, and extrinsic job satisfaction as measured by the Minnesota Satisfaction Questionnaire and the demographic variables: school size, tenure (length of time as a high school assistant principal), age, and gender, among high school assistant principals in seven Florida counties. The Minnesota Satisfaction Questionnaire (short form) contains 20 items that measure general job satisfaction, intrinsic job satisfaction, and extrinsic job satisfaction. The 20 items on the MSQ were responded to on a 5-point Likert scale with 1 = Very Dissatisfied, 2 = Dissatisfied, 3 = Neither, 4 = Satisfied, and 5 = Very Satisfied.

PAGE 110

98 98 Computer generated data from the Survey Monkey website were used to assess the frequencies of response for each of the 5 Likert scale response options on the MSQ items. A univariate procedure was conducted on MSQ data entered into SAS Statistical software to determine each dimension’s means, standard deviation, skewness, and kurtosis. In addition to MSQ scale analysis, an analysis of job satisfaction among high school assistant principals was presented according to the four demographic variables selected for this study: school size, tenure, age, and gender. General satisfaction, intrinsic satisfaction, and extrinsic satisfaction scores were calculated and tabulated for each of the four demographic variables. This study conducted a multiple regression (“A statistical procedure for determining the magnitude of the relationship between a criterion variable and a combination of two or more predictor variables,” Gall, Borg, and Gall, 1996, p. 763) analysis to evaluate the relationships among the variables cited in research question three (general, intrinsic, or extrinsic job satisfaction and the demographic variables: school size, tenure, age, and gender). General satisfaction, intrinsic satisfaction, and extrinsic satisfaction were treated as three separate dependent variables. The following four independent variables: school size, tenure, age, and gender were used to account for the variation in each of these dependent variables. There are seven issues a researcher should keep in mind when conducting multiple regression analysis: 1. multicolinearity of the independent variables 2. distribution of the variables (normality) 3. linearity of the relationships

PAGE 111

99 99 4. model assumes additive effects (i.e., no interaction) – may be necessary to create and put interaction terms into the model. 5. Multiple R2 – how much total variation in the dependent variable is explained by the set of 5 predictors? 6. relationship between each independent variable and the dependent variable when the effects of the other independent variables are statistically controlled (b, beta, partial correlation, part) 7. residuals – difference between the observed and predicted –way of checking the assumptions underlying multiple regression. Summary The Minnesota Satisfaction Questionnaire was used to measure the general, intrinsic, and extrinsic job satisfaction level of high school assistant principals in seven Florida counties. Also, this study identified the relationship between general, intrinsic, and extrinsic job satisfaction as measured by the Minnesota Satisfaction Questionnaire and the demographic variables: school size, tenure (length of time as a high school assistant principal), age, and gender, among high school assistant principals in seven Florida counties. Both quantitative (nonexperimental) and qualitative (interview) methods were used in this study. Descriptive and correlational analyses were used to describe the level of job satisfaction of high school assistant principals and the demographic variables related to job satisfaction. Once the pilot study was conducted using the Minnesota Satisfaction Questionnaire (short form), Individual Demographic Questionnaire, and Telephone

PAGE 112

100 100 Interview Questionnaire, an email was sent to all high school assistant principals in the seven Florida counties selected for this study requesting their participation. Questionnaires were completed on a secure website and telephone interviews were conducted. Descriptive statistics were computed for scores on the MSQ and the Individual Demographic Questionnaire. Computer generated data from the secure website were used to assess the frequencies of response on the MSQ. This study analyzed participant data generated by chi-square tables and conducted a multiple regression analysis to determine the magnitude and direction of the independent variables.

PAGE 113

101 101 CHAPTER 4 RESULTS The quantitative purpose of this study was to measure the general, intrinsic, and extrinsic job satisfaction, as measured by the Minnesota Satisfaction Questionnaire, of high school assistant principals in seven Florida counties. The Individual Demographic Questionnaire was also used to gain additional information (such as school size, tenure, age and gender) about the high school assistant principals participating in this study in an attempt to identify other factors that may contribute to job satisfaction or dissatisfaction. A Telephone Interview Questionnaire was utilized to provide qualitative data for the study. Analysis of Research Questions The following three research questions were examined during the course of this study. 1. What is the general satisfaction level of high school assistant principals in seven Florida counties as measured by the Minnesota Satisfaction Questionnaire? 2. What is the level of job satisfaction among high school assistant principals in seven Florida counties based on the intrinsic and extrinsic job satisfaction factors as measured by the Minnesota Satisfaction Questionnaire?

PAGE 114

102 102 3. What is the relationship between general, intrinsic, and extrinsic job satisfaction, as measured by the Minnesota Satisfaction Questionnaire, and the demographic variables: school size, tenure, age, and gender, among high school assistant principals in seven Florida counties? Research Question One What is the general satisfaction level of high school assistant principals in seven Florida counties as measured by the Minnesota Satisfaction Questionnaire? General Job Satisfaction The responses to all 20 questions on the MSQ were evaluated to determine the general satisfaction level of the respondents. Calculations with SAS Statistical software revealed that on an individual basis, general satisfaction ranged from 1.50 to 5.00. As a group, the mean general satisfaction rating was 3.85 (1.00 to 5.00 scale). This was determined by calculating the mean score of each individual for the 20 items on the MSQ as represented in Table 4.1. The skewness for general job satisfaction was -0.90 and the kurtosis was 1.29. Table 4.1 matches each dimension to its category of satisfaction (Intrinsic, Extrinsic, or Neither) and includes the means (1.00-5.00), standard deviation, skewness, and kurtosis.

PAGE 115

103 103 TABLE 4.1 Minnesota Satisfaction Questionnaire Category, Dimension, Mean, Standard Deviation, Skewness, and Kurtosis Category/Dimension Mean Std Dev Skewness Kurtosis Intrinsic Ability Utilization 4.25 0.96 -1.64 2.56 Achievement 4.10 0.91 -1.40 2.34 Activity 4.53 0.81 -2.51 7.65 Authority 3.60 0.76 0.15 -0.46 Creativity 3.89 0.94 -1.09 0.89 Independence 3.89 0.88 -0.73 0.33 Moral Values 4.06 0.93 -1.05 0.70 Responsibility 3.92 0.91 -1.11 1.18 Security 4.28 0.97 -1.86 3.60 Social Service 4.50 0.70 -1.87 5.24 Social Status 3.85 0.94 -0.62 0.08 Variety 4.03 1.06 -1.21 0.85 Extrinsic Advancement 3.42 1.15 -0.53 -0.82 Company Policies and Practices 3.16 1.11 -0.36 -0.90 Compensation 2.71 1.17 0.18 -1.16 Recognition 3.55 1.12 -0.58 -0.53 Supervision Human Relations 3.75 1.26 -0.83 -0.40 Supervision – Technical 3.94 1.14 -1.07 0.32 Neither Co-Workers 3.65 1.15 -0.98 0.11 Working Conditions 4.00 0.91 -1.19 1.45 Note: n = 128 Table 4.2 displays the percentage of the responses to each of the 20 questions asked on the MSQ. Table 4.2 provides the data results for each of the 20 items that were used to determine the levels of general job satisfaction among high school assistant principals in seven Florida counties.

PAGE 116

104 104 TABLE 4.2 Responses to General Job Satisfaction Questions/Items Question Item Dimension/Scale VDis % Dis % Neither % Sat % VSat % 1 Activity 2.34 1.56 1.56 29.69 64.84 2 Independence 0.78 7.81 17.19 50.00 24.22 3 Variety 3.13 10.16 5.47 42.97 38.28 4 Social Status 1.56 6.25 24.22 40.63 27.34 5 Supervision Human Relations 7.81 12.50 10.94 34.38 34.38 6 Supervision – Technical4.69 10.16 9.38 37.50 38.28 7 Moral Values 0.78 9.38 7.81 46.88 35.16 8 Security 3.91 3.13 3.91 38.28 50.78 9 Social Service 0.78 1.56 3.13 35.94 58.59 10 Authority 0.00 4.69 42.19 40.63 12.50 11 Ability Utilization 2.34 7.03 1.56 41.41 47.66 12 Company Policies and Practices 7.81 24.22 18.75 42.19 7.03 13 Compensation 14.84 37.50 13.28 29.69 4.69 14 Advancement 5.47 23.44 8.59 48.44 14.06 15 Responsibility 1.56 9.38 7.81 57.03 24.22 16 Creativity 1.56 11.72 5.47 57.81 23.44 17 Working Conditions 1.56 8.59 6.25 55.47 28.13 18 Co-Workers 7.81 11.72 7.81 52.34 20.31 19 Recognition 4.69 17.19 15.63 42.97 19.53 20 Achievement 2.34 5.47 6.25 51.56 34.38 Avg % 3.79 11.17 10.86 43.79 30.39 Note: n = 128, VDis = Very Dissatisfied, Dis = Dissatisfied, Sat = Satisfied, VSat = Very Satisfied Eighteen of the 20 questions (90%) received the highest percentage of responses by participants as either “Satisfied” or “Very Satisfied.” The majority of questions, 13 out of 20 (65%), which received the highest percentage of responses, were answered “Satisfied” by the survey participants. Table 4.2 indicates that “Satisfied” also received the highest categorical average percentage at 43.79% while the rating of “Very Satisfied” received 30.39% of the responses. The majority of high school assistant principals (74.18%) in seven Florida counties were satisfied with their jobs.

PAGE 117

105 105 The dimension “Activity” received the highest response rate for “Very Satisfied” than any of the other 19 dimensions. As Table 4.2 indicates, the majority (64.84% or 83) assistant principals chose “Very Satisfied” as the rating scale to describe this aspect of their job. “Social Service” was the dimension which received the second largest (58.59%) number of responses for “Very Satisfied.” The two dimensions which received the most responses for “Satisfied” were “Creativity” and “Responsibility” (57.81% and 57.03%, respectively). The dimension which received the highest responses (42.19%) for “Neither” was “Authority.” Only one dimension did not receive the majority of responses as “Very Satisfied,” “Satisfied,” or “Neither.” The dimension “Compensation” received the majority of responses (37.5%) as “Dissatisfied” and received the most responses for “Very Dissatisfied” (14.84%) as well. Research Question Two What is the level of job satisfaction among high school assistant principals in seven Florida counties based on the intrinsic and extrinsic job satisfaction factors as measured by the Minnesota Satisfaction Questionnaire? Intrinsic Job Satisfaction The responses to 12 specific items on the MSQ were evaluated to determine the intrinsic satisfaction level of the respondents. Calculations with SAS Statistical software revealed that on an individual basis, intrinsic satisfaction ranged from 1.58 to 5.00. As a group, the mean intrinsic satisfaction rating was 3.90. The measure of intrinsic satisfaction was determined by calculating a mean score for each of the 12 designated items on the MSQ. The skewness for intrinsic job satisfaction was -1.02 and the kurtosis

PAGE 118

106 106 was -1.77. Table 4.3 provides the data results for each of the 12 items that are used to determine the levels of intrinsic job satisfaction among high school assistant principals in seven Florida counties. TABLE 4.3 Responses to Intrinsic Job Satisfaction Questions/Items Question Item Dimension/Scale VDis % Dis % Neither % Sat % VSat % 1 Activity 2.34 1.56 1.56 29.69 64.84 2 Independence 0.78 7.81 17.19 50.00 24.22 3 Variety 3.13 10.16 5.47 42.97 38.28 4 Social Status 1.56 6.25 24.22 40.63 27.34 7 Moral Values 0.78 9.38 7.81 46.88 35.16 8 Security 3.91 3.13 3.91 38.28 50.78 9 Social Service 0.78 1.56 3.13 35.94 58.59 10 Authority 0.00 4.69 42.19 40.63 12.50 11 Ability Utilization 2.34 7.03 1.56 41.41 47.66 15 Responsibility 1.56 9.38 7.81 57.03 24.22 16 Creativity 1.56 11.72 5.47 57.81 23.44 20 Achievement 2.34 5.47 6.25 51.56 34.38 Avg % 1.76 6.51 10.55 44.40 36.78 Note: n = 128, VDis = Very Dissatisfied, Dis = Dissatisfied, Sat = Satisfied, VSat = Very Satisfied Eleven of the 12 questions (92%) received the highest percentage of responses by participants as either “Satisfied” or “Very Satisfied.” The majority of questions, 7 out of 12 (58%), receiving the highest percentage of responses, were answered “Satisfied” by the survey participants. Table 4.3 indicates that “Satisfied” also received the highest categorical average percentage at 44.40% while the rating of “Very Satisfied” received 36.78% of the responses. The data indicated that the majority (81.18%) of high school assistant principals in seven Florida counties were intrinsically satisfied with their jobs. Four intrinsic dimensions received “Very Satisfied” as their largest response rate; these dimensions were Activity (64.84%), Security (50.78%), Social Service (58.59%), and Ability Utilization (47.66%). These items indicated that high school assistant

PAGE 119

107 107 principals, though busy, had confidence in knowing their positions were secure and were provided opportunities to use their abilities to help others. The dimension of “Creativity” garnered the majority of responses (57.81%) for “Satisfied” while “Responsibility” received the second highest number (57.03%). The areas of creativity and responsibility provided opportunities for positive intrinsic job satisfaction among high school assistant principals. Only one item did not receive the majority of responses as “Satisfied” or “Very Satisfied.” Question item #10: The chance to tell people what to do (Authority) received 42.19% responses as “Neither”, but it should be noted that 40.63% of the responses on this item were “Satisfied.” Extrinsic Job Satisfaction Six of the 20 items on the MSQ were evaluated to determine the extrinsic satisfaction level of the survey participants. Calculations with SAS Statistical software revealed that on an individual basis, extrinsic satisfaction ranged from 1.50 to 5.00. As a group, the mean extrinsic satisfaction rating was 3.75. The measure of extrinsic satisfaction was determined by calculating a mean score for each of the six designated items on the MSQ. The skewness for extrinsic job satisfaction was -0.73 and the kurtosis was 0.46. Table 4.4 provides the data results for each of the six items that are used to determine the levels of extrinsic job satisfaction among high school assistant principals in seven Florida counties.

PAGE 120

108 108 TABLE 4.4 Responses to Extrinsic Job Satisfaction Questions/Items Question Item Dimension/Scale VDis % Dis % Neither % Sat % VSat % 5 Supervision-Human Relations 7.81 12.50 10.94 34.38 34.38 6 Supervision-Technical 4.69 10.16 9.38 37.50 38.28 12 Company Policies and Practices 7.81 24.22 18.75 42.19 7.03 13 Compensation 14.84 37.50 13.28 29.69 4.69 14 Advancement 5.47 23.44 8.59 48.44 14.06 19 Recognition 4.69 17.19 15.63 42.97 19.53 Avg % 7.55 20.84 12.76 39.20 19.66 Note: n = 128, VDis = Very Dissatisfied, Dis = Dissatisfied, Sat = Satisfied, VSat = Very Satisfied Five of the six questions (83%) received the highest percentage of responses by participants as either “Satisfied” or “Very Satisfied.” Table 4.4 indicates that “Satisfied” received the highest categorical average percentage at 39.20% while the rating of “Very Satisfied” received 19.66% of the responses. The data indicated that the majority (58.86%) of high school assistant principals in seven Florida counties were extrinsically satisfied with their jobs. “Supervision-Technical” and “Supervision-Human Relations” received the highest “Very Satisfied” ratings (38.28% and 34.38% respectively) of all the extrinsic job satisfaction dimensions. It appears that high school assistant principals in seven Florida counties were very satisfied with their supervisors. “Compensation” did not receive a satisfactory response from the majority of participants. Question item 13 : My pay and the amount of work I do received the majority of responses (37.50%) as “Dissatisfied.” This dimension received the highest percentage of “Very Dissatisfied” responses (14.84%) than any other. An assistant

PAGE 121

109 109 principal’s rate of pay and the amount of work he or she is required to do continued to be an intrinsic negative influence on job satisfaction. Research Question Three What is the relationship between general, intrinsic, and extrinsic job satisfaction, as measured by the Minnesota Satisfaction Questionnaire, and the demographic variables: school size, tenure (number of years as a high school assistant principal), age, and gender, among high school assistant principals in seven Florida counties? General satisfaction, intrinsic satisfaction and extrinsic satisfaction ratings were established for each of the 127 high school assistant principals who responded to both the Minnesota Satisfaction Questionnaire and the Individual Demographic Questionnaire. As stated previously, the Minnesota Satisfaction Questionnaire (short form) contains 20 items that measure general job satisfaction, intrinsic job satisfaction, and extrinsic job satisfaction. The 20 items on the MSQ are responded to on a 5-point Likert scale ranging from Very Dissatisfied to Very Satisfied. Data related to all three types of satisfaction (General, Intrinsic, and Extrinsic) were inputted into the SAS statistical software program to determine the mean, standard deviation, skewness, and kurtosis. One hundred and twenty seven respondents provided the data used to produce the results in Table 4.5.

PAGE 122

110 110 TABLE 4.5 Job Satisfaction: Mean, Standard Deviation, Skewness, and Kurtosis Mean 3.85 Standard Deviation 0.61 Skewness -0.90 General Satisfaction Kurtosis 1.29 Mean 3.90 Standard Deviation 0.59 Skewness -1.02 Intrinsic Satisfaction Kurtosis 1.77 Mean 3.75 Standard Deviation 0.68 Skewness -0.73 Extrinsic Satisfaction Kurtosis 0.46 Note : n = 127 Table 4.5 provides descriptive statistics for 3 measures (general satisfaction, intrinsic satisfaction, and extrinsic satisfaction). The scales are not perfectly normally distributed. Skewness and kurtosis values were each larger for intrinsic satisfaction than extrinsic satisfaction or general satisfaction. The three dependent variables: general satisfaction, intrinsic satisfaction, and extrinsic satisfaction had strong positive correlations to one another. Intrinsic satisfaction had a correlation coefficient of .96 to general satisfaction and extrinsic satisfaction had a value of .92 to general satisfaction. Intrinsic and extrinsic satisfaction had a positive correlation coefficient of .83 to each other. General Job Satisfaction When analyzing the general job satisfaction of 127 respondents in relation to school size, tenure (number of years as a high school assistant principal), age, and gender, the following information resulted. Table 4.6 displays the mean and standard deviation

PAGE 123

111 111 results of general satisfaction among high school assistant principals in relation to the demographic variables school size, tenure, age, and gender. TABLE 4.6 General Satisfaction Means and Standard D eviation in Relation to Independent Variables School Size, Tenure, Age, and Gender Variable n General Satisfaction Mean Standard Deviation Enrollment/Size of School Less than 401 0 0.00 0.00 401-800 3 4.07 0.45 801-1200 3 3.87 0.38 1201-1600 14 3.87 0.88 1601-2000 34 3.86 0.50 2001-2400 41 3.82 0.63 2401-2800 17 4.10 0.49 2801-3200 10 3.84 0.68 More than 3200 5 3.19 0.76 Tenure (# Years as HS Assistant Principal) Less than 1 11 4.00 0.78 1-3 42 3.82 0.51 4-6 31 3.85 0.63 7-9 19 3.99 0.64 10-15 15 3.72 0.77 16-20 5 3.43 0.41 21-30 2 4.43 0.60 More than 30 2 4.40 0.14 Age Younger than 31 4 4.23 0.48 31-40 45 3.91 0.59 41-50 32 3.82 0.53 51-60 41 3.85 0.63 Older than 60 5 3.34 1.20 Gender Male 60 3.95 0.64 Female 67 3.78 0.60 When examining the demographic variable school size, Table 4.6 reveals that the majority (41 or 32.28%) of high school assistant principals participating in this study

PAGE 124

112 112 worked in schools with an enrollment of 2001-2400. Their general satisfaction mean was 3.82 (SD = .63). Those working with student populations of 2401-2800 had a general satisfaction 4.10 (SD = 0.49). Eleven (8.66%) high school assistant principals with less than one year of tenure scored a general satisfaction mean of 4.00 (SD = 0.78). Those with 21-30 years of service as an assistant principal had a general satisfaction means of 4.43 (SD = 0.60) and those with more than 30 years of tenure had a means of 4.40 (SD = 0.14). The largest group (45 or 35.43%) of assistant principals was between the ages of 31-40 and garnered an average general satisfaction score of 3.91 (SD = 0.59). Assistant principals younger than 31 years old had a general satisfaction mean of 4.23 (SD = .48). In this study, females (67 or 52.75%) outnumbered male (60 or 47.24%) high school assistant principals. Males had a mean general satisfaction score of 3.95 (SD = 0.64) and females had a general satisfaction mean of 3.78 (SD = 0.60). Data from the dependent variable general job satisfaction and the four independent variables school size, tenure, age, and gender were entered into SAS statistical software to conduct multiple regression analysis. Table 4.7 shows the correlation coefficient ( r ), beta coefficient (standardized estimate), and p -level of the four predictors.

PAGE 125

113 113 TABLE 4.7 Multiple Regression Results for General Satisfaction with Predictor Variables Age, Gender, Tenure, and School Size Predictor r Beta p -level Age -.12 -.13 .21 Gender (0=male,1=female) -.14 -.11 .23 Tenure .02 .08 .43 School Size -.07 -.05 .56 Note: n = 127 Overall, these four predictors accounted for 4% of the variance in general satisfaction ( R2 = .04, p = .32). Examination of the beta coefficients for the individual predictors indicated that none was significantly related ( p>.05 ) to general satisfaction. Intrinsic Job Satisfaction When analyzing the intrinsic job satisfaction of 127 respondents in relation to school size, tenure, age, and gender, the following information was produced. Table 4.8 displays the mean and standard deviation results of intrinsic satisfaction among high school assistant principals in relation to the demographic variables school size, tenure (number of years as a high school assistant principal), age, and gender.

PAGE 126

114 114 TABLE 4.8 Intrinsic Satisfaction Means and Standard Deviation in Relation to Independent Variables School Size, Tenure, Age, and Gender When examining the demographic variable school size, Table 4.8 reveals an intrinsic satisfaction mean range from 3.36 to 4.27. High school assistant principals working in schools with more than 3200 students recorded a mean intrinsic satisfaction Variable n Intrinsic Satisfaction Mean Standard Deviation Enrollment/Size of School Less than 401 0 0.00 0.00 401-800 3 4.27 0.20 801-1200 3 3.86 0.18 1201-1600 14 3.94 0.85 1601-2000 34 3.94 0.48 2001-2400 41 3.85 0.62 2401-2800 17 4.09 0.51 2801-3200 10 3.81 0.68 More than 3200 5 3.36 0.70 Tenure (# Years as HS Assistant Principal) Less than 1 11 4.08 0.76 1-3 42 3.88 0.49 4-6 31 3.86 0.60 7-9 19 4.00 0.59 10-15 15 3.76 0.80 16-20 5 3.63 0.52 21-30 2 4.33 0.71 More than 30 2 4.25 0.35 Age Younger than 31 4 4.31 0.35 31-40 45 3.95 0.57 41-50 32 3.87 0.54 51-60 41 3.90 0.59 Older than 60 5 3.35 1.14 Gender Male 60 3.99 0.61 Female 67 3.82 0.58

PAGE 127

115 115 score of 3.36 (SD = 0.70). Assistant principals in schools with 401-800 students scored an intrinsic satisfaction average of 4.27 (SD = 0.20). Data from the dependent variable intrinsic job satisfaction and the four independent variables school size, tenure, age, and gender were entered into SAS statistical software to conduct multiple regression analysis. Table 4.9 shows the correlation coefficient ( r ), beta coefficient (standardized estimate), and p -level of the four predictors. TABLE 4.9 Multiple Regression Results for Intrinsic Satisfaction with Predictor Variables Age, Gender, Tenure, and School Size Predictor r Beta p -level Age -.13 -.11 .28 Gender (0=male,1=female) -.14 -.12 .21 Tenure -.00 .04 .69 School Size -.11 -.10 .26 Note: n = 127 Overall, these four predictors accounted for 4% of the variance in general satisfaction ( R2 = .04, p = .25). Examination of the beta coefficients for the individual predictors indicated that none was significantly related ( p>.05 ) to intrinsic satisfaction. Extrinsic Job Satisfaction When analyzing the extrinsic job satisfaction of 127 respondents in relation to school size, tenure, age, and gender, the following information was revealed. Table 4.10 displays the mean and standard deviation results of extrinsic satisfaction among high school assistant principals in relation to the demographic variables school size, tenure (number of years as a high school assistant principal), age, and gender.

PAGE 128

116 116 TABLE 4.10 Extrinsic Satisfaction Means and Standard Deviation in Relation to Independent Variables School Size, Tenure, Age, and Gender Variable n Extrinsic Satisfaction Mean Standard Deviation Enrollment/Size of School Less than 401 0 0.00 0.00 401-800 3 3.77 0.51 801-1200 3 3.72 0.92 1201-1600 14 3.76 0.95 1601-2000 34 3.74 0.63 2001-2400 41 3.79 0.63 2401-2800 17 3.97 0.57 2801-3200 10 3.78 0.73 More than 3200 5 3.00 0.91 Tenure (# Years as HS Assistant Principal) Less than 1 11 3.88 0.91 1-3 42 3.67 0.59 4-6 31 3.81 0.74 7-9 19 3.91 0.66 10-15 15 3.65 0.74 16-20 5 3.16 0.46 21-30 2 4.42 0.59 More than 30 2 4.50 0.23 Age Younger than 31 4 4.00 0.80 31-40 45 3.80 0.66 41-50 32 3.75 0.61 51-60 41 3.77 0.71 Older than 60 5 3.30 1.20 Gender Male 60 3.84 0.72 Female 67 3.70 0.66 When examining the demographic variable school size, Table 4.10 reveals that extrinsic job satisfaction has a range from 3.00 to 3.97. High school assistant principals working in schools with 2401-2800 students enrolled recorded a mean extrinsic job

PAGE 129

117 117 satisfaction score of 3.97 (SD = 0.57). Those with a student enrollment more than 3200 recorded an extrinsic satisfaction mean of 3.00 (SD = 0.91). Data from the dependent variable extrinsic job satisfaction and the four independent variables school size, tenure, age, and gender were entered into SAS statistical software to conduct multiple regression analysis. Table 4.11 shows the correlation coefficient ( r ), beta coefficient (standardized estimate), and p -level of the four predictors. TABLE 4.11 Multiple Regression Results for Extrinsic Satisfaction with Predictor Variables Age, Gender, Tenure, and School Size Predictor r Beta p -level Age -.08 -.10 .35 Gender (0=male,1=female) -.10 -.08 .39 Tenure .05 .10 .36 School Size -.04 -.02 .83 Note: n = 127 Overall, these four predictors accounted for 2% of the variance in general satisfaction ( R2 = .02, p <.62). Examination of the beta coefficients for the individual predictors indicated that none was significantly related ( p>.05 ) to extrinsic satisfaction. Based on data analysis, multicolinearity of the independent variables was not a problem. As indicated in the previous tables (Table 4.7, Table 4.9, and Table 4.11), none of the independent variables (school size, tenure, age, and gender) were highly correlated to the dependent variables (general satisfaction, intrinsic satisfaction, and extrinsic satisfaction). There was a normal distribution of variables and a linear relationship. Correlation coefficients were determined for all four independent variables (school size,

PAGE 130

118 118 tenure, age, and gender) with each of the dependent variables (General, Intrinsic, and Extrinsic satisfaction) and no statistical significance was indicated. Analysis of Additional Independent Variables General Satisfaction In an effort to identify other predictors of satisfaction, a multiple regression was conducted that included four additional independent variables from the Individual Demographic Questionnaire (salary, free/reduced lunch, school grade, and principalship interest). Table 4.12 displays the mean and standard deviation results of general satisfaction among 127 high school assistant principals in relation to these four demographic variables.

PAGE 131

119 119 TABLE 4.12 General Satisfaction Means and Standard D eviation in Relation to Independent Variables Salary, Free/Reduced Lunch, Sc hool Grade, and Principalship Interest Variable n General Satisfaction Mean Standard Deviation Salary Less than 40,000 4 3.60 0.33 40,000-50,000 28 3.78 0.60 50,001-60,000 37 3.92 0.60 60,001-70,000 28 3.90 0.62 70,001-80,000 19 3.87 0.62 80,001-90,000 9 3.87 0.95 More than 90,000 2 3.50 0.21 Free/Reduced Lunch Less than 11% 12 4.13 0.34 11-25 37 3.96 0.69 26-50 61 3.82 0.57 51-75 13 3.62 0.68 76-90 3 3.07 0.73 More than 90 1 4.35 0.00 School Grade A 18 4.14 0.54 B 36 4.03 0.55 C 53 3.70 0.65 D 20 3.72 0.60 F 0 0.00 0.00 Principalship Interest Yes 77 3.93 0.61 No 23 3.75 0.69 Undecided 27 3.75 0.60 When examining the demographic variable salary, Table 4.12 reveals that the majority (37 or 29%) of high school assistant principals participating in this study earned an annual salary of $50,001-$60,000 and had a general satisfaction mean of 3.92 (SD = 0.60). The majority (61 or 48%) of high school assistant principals worked at schools where 26%-50% of their students were on free/reduced lunch programs. These assistant

PAGE 132

120 120 principals scored a general satisfaction rating of 3.82 (SD = 0.57). With the exception of the one respondent in the more than 90% category, extrinsic satisfaction decreased as the number of students receiving free/reduced lunch increased. The school grade of “C” was reported by 53 (42%) of the participants with a general satisfaction score of 3.70 (SD = 0.65). The high school assistant principals at “A” schools had a general satisfaction score of 4.14 (SD = 0.54). In the category of principalship interest, the majority (77 or 61%) of respondents had a general satisfaction rating of 3.93 (SD = 0.61) and indicated they were interested in pursuing a principalship. Twenty-three (18%) of the study participants expressed no desire to become a high school principal. Data from the dependent variable general satisfaction and four additional independent variables from the Individual Demographic Questionnaire (salary, free/reduced lunch, school grade, and principalship interest) were entered into SAS statistical software to conduct multiple regression analysis. Table 4.13 shows the correlation coefficient ( r ), beta, and p -level of these four predictor variables. TABLE 4.13 Multiple Regression Results for General Sa tisfaction and Four Additional Predictor Variables: Salary, Free/Reduced Lunch, School Grade, and Principalship Interest Predictor r Beta p -level Salary .03 .02 .82 Free/Reduced Lunch -.23 -.15 .11 School Grade a -.27 -.21 .03 Principal No Interest b -.08 -.00 .99 Principal – Undecided b -.08 .12 .31 Note: n = 127, p <.05 a A=1, B=2, C=3, D=4, F=5 b Reference category was “Principal Yes Interest” Overall, these four predictors accounted for 11% of the variance in general satisfaction ( R2 = .11, p <.05). Examination of the p -levels for the individual predictors

PAGE 133

121 121 indicated that school grade (Beta = -.21, p = .03) was significantly related to general satisfaction. The beta coefficient of -.21 indicated that assistant principals at schools with the lowest school grade were predicted to have a lower level of general satisfaction. As the number assigned to a school grade increased (1 = A, 2 = B, 3 = C, 4 = D, and 5 = F), resulting in a lower school grade, a decrease in general job satisfaction also occurred. Intrinsic Satisfaction In an effort to identify other predictors of intrinsic satisfaction, a multiple regression was conducted that included four additional independent variables from the Individual Demographic Questionnaire (salary, free/reduced lunch, school grade, and principalship interest). Table 4.14 displays the mean and standard deviation results of intrinsic satisfaction among 127 high school assistant principals in relation to these four demographic variables.

PAGE 134

122 122 TABLE 4.14 Intrinsic Satisfaction Means and Standard Deviation in Relation to Independent Variables Salary, Free/Reduced Lunch, Sc hool Grade, and Principalship Interest Variable n Intrinsic Satisfaction Mean Standard Deviation Salary Less than 40,000 4 3.79 0.32 40,000-50,000 28 3.84 0.54 50,001-60,000 37 3.90 0.61 60,001-70,000 28 3.94 0.60 70,001-80,000 19 3.95 0.60 80,001-90,000 9 3.97 0.95 More than 90,000 2 3.71 0.18 Free/Reduced Lunch Less than 11% 12 4.14 0.32 11-25 37 4.02 0.63 26-50 61 3.86 0.56 51-75 13 3.71 0.67 76-90 3 3.05 0.78 More than 90 1 4.41 0.00 School Grade A 18 4.17 0.47 B 36 4.06 0.55 C 53 3.75 0.63 D 20 3.78 0.60 F 0 0.00 0.00 Principalship Interest Yes 77 3.98 0.58 No 23 3.82 0.66 Undecided 27 3.76 0.57 When examining the demographic variable salary, Table 4.14 reveals that the majority (37 or 29%) of high school assistant principals participating in this study earned an annual salary between $50,001-$60,000 and had an intrinsic satisfaction rating of 3.90 (SD = 0.61). Those earning $80,001-$90,000 had an intrinsic satisfaction average of 3.97 (SD = 0.95). Table 4.14 indicates that as salary increased, so did intrinsic job satisfaction (with the exception of the two individuals earning more than $90,000).

PAGE 135

123 123 The majority (61 or 48%) of high school assistant principals worked at schools where 26%-50% of their students were on free/reduced lunch programs. These assistant principals scored an intrinsic satisfaction rating of 3.86 (SD = 0.56). With the exception of the one respondent in the more than 90% category, intrinsic satisfaction decreased as the number of students receiving free/reduced lunch increased. The school grade of “C” was reported by 53 (42%) of the participants with an intrinsic satisfaction score of 3.75 (SD = 0.63). The high school assistant principals at “A” schools had an intrinsic satisfaction score 4.17 (SD = 0.47). In the category of principalship interest, the majority (77 or 61%) of respondents had an intrinsic satisfaction rating of 3.98 (SD = 0.58) and indicated they were interested in pursuing a principalship. Twenty-three (18%) of the study participants expressed no desire to become a high school principal. Data from the dependent variable intrinsic satisfaction and four additional independent variables from the Individual Demographic Questionnaire (salary, free/reduced lunch, school grade, and principalship interest) were entered into SAS statistical software to conduct multiple regression analysis. Table 4.15 shows the correlation coefficient ( r ), beta, and p -level of these four predictor variables.

PAGE 136

124 124 TABLE 4.15 Multiple Regression Results for Intrinsic Satisfaction and Four Additional Predictor Variables: Salary, Free/Reduced Lunch, School Grade, and Principalship Interest Predictor r Beta p -level Salary .06 .04 .65 Free/Reduced Lunch -.23 -.15 .11 School Grade a -.26 -.19 .04 Principal No Interest b -.06 -.04 .71 Principal – Undecided b -.13 .11 .33 Note: n = 127, p <.05 a A=1, B=2, C=3, D=4, F=5 b Reference category was “Principal Yes Interest” Overall, these four predictors accounted for 11% of the variance with general satisfaction ( R2 = .11, p <.05). Examination of the p -levels for the individual predictors indicated that school grade ( p = .04) was significantly related to intrinsic satisfaction. The beta coefficient of -.19 indicated that assistant principals at schools with the lowest school grade were predicted to have a lower level of intrinsic satisfaction. As the number assigned to a school grade increased (1 = A, 2 = B, 3 = C, 4 = D, 5 = F), resulting in a lower school grade, a decrease in intrinsic job satisfaction also occurred. Extrinsic Satisfaction In an effort to identify other predictors of intrinsic satisfaction, a multiple regression was conducted that included four additional independent variables from the Individual Demographic Questionnaire (salary, free/reduced lunch, school grade, and principalship interest). Table 4.16 displays the mean and standard deviation results of intrinsic satisfaction among 127 high school assistant principals in relation to these four demographic variables.

PAGE 137

125 125 TABLE 4.16 Extrinsic Satisfaction Means and Standard Deviation in Relation to Independent Variables Salary, Free/Reduced Lunch, Sc hool Grade, and Principalship Interest Variable n Extrinsic Satisfaction Mean Standard Deviation Salary Less than 40,000 4 3.25 0.44 40,000-50,000 28 3.59 0.71 50,001-60,000 37 3.90 0.68 60,001-70,000 28 3.84 0.67 70,001-80,000 19 3.80 0.64 80,001-90,000 9 3.68 0.92 More than 90,000 2 3.41 0.35 Free/Reduced Lunch Less than 11% 12 4.02 0.43 11-25 37 3.89 0.76 26-50 61 3.73 0.66 51-75 13 3.38 0.72 76-90 3 3.22 0.51 More than 90 1 4.33 0.00 School Grade A 18 3.99 0.66 B 36 3.93 0.61 C 53 3.60 0.74 D 20 3.69 0.65 F 0 0.00 0.00 Principalship Interest Yes 77 3.84 0.67 No 23 3.58 071 Undecided 27 3.68 0.73 When examining the demographic variable salary, Table 4.16 reveals that the majority (37 or 29%) of high school assistant principals participating in this study earned an annual salary between $50,001-$60,000 and had an extrinsic satisfaction rating of 3.90 (SD = 0.68). An extrinsic satisfaction rating of 3.25 (SD = 0.44) was expressed by those earning less than $40,000 annually.

PAGE 138

126 126 The majority (61 or 48%) of high school assistant principals worked at schools where 26%-50% of their students were on free/reduced lunch programs. These assistant principals scored an extrinsic satisfaction rating of 3.73 (SD = 0.66). With the exception of the one respondent in the more than 90% category, extrinsic satisfaction decreased as the number of students receiving free/reduced lunch increased. The school grade of “C” was reported by 53 (42%) of the participants with an extrinsic satisfaction score of 3.60 (SD = 0.74). The high school assistant principals at “A” schools had an extrinsic satisfaction score 3.99 (SD = 0.74). In the category of principalship interest, the majority (77 or 61%) of respondents had an extrinsic satisfaction rating of 3.84 (SD = 0.67) and indicated they were interested in pursuing a principalship. Twenty-three (18%) of the study participants expressed no desire to become a high school principal and had the lowest extrinsic satisfaction average of 3.58. Data from the dependent variable intrinsic satisfaction and four additional independent variables from the Individual Demographic Questionnaire (salary, free/reduced lunch, school grade, and principalship interest) were entered into SAS statistical software to conduct multiple regression analysis. Table 4.17 shows the correlation coefficient ( r ), beta, and p -level of these four predictor variables.

PAGE 139

127 127 TABLE 4.17 Multiple Regression Results for Extrinsic Satisfaction and Four Additional Predictor Variables: Salary, Free/Reduced Lunch, School Grade, and Principalship Interest Predictor r Beta p -level Salary .07 .08 .40 Free/Reduced Lunch -.22 -.17 .07 School Grade a -.19 -.11 .25 Principal No Interest b -.12 .07 .53 Principal – Undecided b -.06 .19 .11 Note: n = 127 a A=1, B=2, C=3, D=4, F=5 b Reference category was “Principal Yes Interest” Overall, these four predictors accounted for 9% of the variance with general satisfaction ( R2 = .09, p <.05). Examination of the p -levels for the individual predictors indicated that none was significantly related (p >.05) to extrinsic satisfaction. However, free/reduced lunch is worth noting with a p -level of .07. Multicolinearity among the predictors was examined prior to conducting the multiple regressions. No violation was observed. Among the eight independent variables in Table 4.18, four pairs of variables indicated a p -value less than .0001. These variables were: age and tenure ( r = .46), age and principal – no interest ( r = .35), tenure and salary ( r = .37), and free/reduced lunch and school grade ( r = .38). Salary and age ( r = .29) had a p -value less than .001. Five pairs of predictor variables had a p -value of less than .05. These variables were: gender and age ( r = .26), school grade and school size ( r = -.25), principalship no-interest and tenure ( r = .27), principalship no-interest and salary ( r = .23), and principalship undecided and principalship no-interest ( r = -.24).

PAGE 140

128 128 TABLE 4.18 Correlation Matrix of Eight Predictor Variables r p -value Age Gender Tenure School Size Salary F/R Lunch School Grade PrinNo Int PrinUndec Age 1.00 Gender (M = 0, F = 1) .2642 .0027** 1.00 Tenure .4551 <.0001*** .0525 .5577 1.00 School Size .0300 .7374 -.0094 .9165 -.1589 .0744 1.00 Salary .2912 .0009*** .0908 .3100 .3708 <.0001***-.0079 .9301 1.00 F/R Lunch .0026 .9765 -.1153 .1969 -.0656 .4639 -.0281 .7541 -.0318 .7227 1.00 School Grade .0561 .5307 -.0270 .7635 -.0001 .9913 -.2459 .0053** -.0987 .2696 .3753 <.0001***1.00 PrinNo Interest .3455 <.0001*** .0764 .3931 .2706 .0021** -.0506 .5721 .2325 .0085** .0154 .8637 .0762 .3943 1.00 PrinUndec .1585 .0751 .1448 .1044 -.0178 .8422 .0225 .8017 -.0980 .2730 .0516 .5642 .0012 .9897 -.2420 .0059** 1.00 Note: p <.05, ** p <.01, *** p <.001 Analysis of Telephone Interview Questionnaire Participants Five of the seven counties responded with individuals from the initial online questionnaire volunteering to participate in telephone interviews. After emailing a request to assistant principals in the two remaining counties, a representative from each of those counties also responded they would be willing to participate. All seven individuals were contacted and the Telephone Interview Questionnaire was discussed.

PAGE 141

129 129 Questionnaire After receiving feedback from the Pilot Study, the number of interview questions on the Telephone Interview Questionnaire (Appendix C) was reduced from 20 to 10. Before every interview began, each participant was told his or her conversation would be tape recorded so it could provide an accurate record of the interview. Participants were also told that the data collected would be reported without reference to them or their school. Every assistant principal was asked if they consented to participating in the telephone interview and all seven replied “yes.” Themes Though the telephone interviews were brief (15-20 minutes), this researcher felt the findings should still be reported. This researcher used note taking and a tape recorder to insure accurate record keeping of the interviews. Following are qualitative observations of common themes from the responses of the Telephone Interview Questionnaire. 1. Teachers became Assistant Principals to help a larger number of students. This theme was determined from the following remarks of interview participants: “I could have a wider influence on more kids,” “I could touch and help a larger area than in the classroom,” and “I could have more of an affect on more kids at the administrative level than a small classroom.” The respondents moved from being a teacher to an assistant principal so they could help a larger number of kids. As an assistant principal they felt they could have a wider influence than in the classroom. How they would help students varied with a difference of ideas such as drop out prevention, FCAT preparation,

PAGE 142

130 130 policy development, school/teacher accountability, and being more involved in the decision making of education practices. 2. Each Assistant Principal had a different set of job responsibilities. This theme was derived from the participants’ job responsibilities responses: “Master schedule, oversee Guidance, testing, new teacher training, summer school, textbooks,” “Grad Nite, grade levels, faculty liaison, band liaison, school wide mentor program, Honor Roll, discipline, and monthly weapon checks,” “School Improvement Plan, staff development, grants, and funding,” “Curriculum and FTE,” “oversee department meetings, and interview new teachers,” “aid in student achievement and development of school culture,” and “lunch duty and reading programs.” There was not one common duty in which all seven assistant principals were responsible. Their duties and responsibilities varied from keeping track of attendance to conducting monthly weapon checks. 3. They love kids (high school students). The third theme was in response to what high school assistant principals enjoy most about their job. Five of the seven interviewees’ statements were “interaction with kids,” getting to know the kids,” “meeting the needs of all the kids,” “the kids,” “the students,” and “I love high school kids.” This was a predominate theme that came through in the interview process. These assistant principals do what they do for the betterment of children. They enjoy interacting with high school students, getting to know them better, and having the opportunity to meet the diversity of needs.

PAGE 143

131 131 4. The job is very demanding. This theme was developed with a variety of answers related to what assistant principals liked least about their job and the surprises it brought. Some responses were “too much interference from the District,” “tired of all the discipline,” “teachers are sometimes tougher to deal with in getting them to do what they need to do,” “the master schedule is a challenge,” “I sometimes wish I didn’t have quite so many extra curricular activities,” “the hours,” “bureaucratic paperwork,” “how you can’t get it done,” “how demanding it is,” “how busy I am,” and “all the legal trappings.” The demand of the job is a reoccurring theme among the interviewees. It takes the form of long hours at work with many extra curricular activities, staying busy all the time, and never being able to get all the work done. 5. Assistant principals lack desire to become high school principals. This final theme comes from the lack of decisiveness on the part of the interviewees when asked about their plans on becoming a principal. Only two of the seven participants replied with an emphatic “yes,” the other five (71.42%) gave the following responses: “yes, some day,” “I have, but I’ve got about four years left before retirement, so I’m not sure with the current politics of the District if that’s what I want to do,” “I would like to, but I don’t know if that is going to happen,” “at some point,” and “I’m supposed to have a plan about doing that. I think everybody has a plan for me that that is going to happen. But, it is not a burning desire … it’s not something I am aggressively pursuing.” A Florida high school principal was chosen by this researcher to analyze the Telephone Interview Questionnaire transcript to provide a second set of observations of

PAGE 144

132 132 common themes. The high school principal has been in education for 32 years and has served as a teacher for 19 years. She has been an administrator for the 13 years (7 years as a high school assistant principal, 3 years as a middle school principal, and 3 years as a high school principal) and has had numerous experiences working with high school assistant principals. After reading through the transcript, she came to many of the same conclusions as this researcher. While she agreed with the theme of assistant principals wanting to affect more student lives, she found it interesting because most of an assistant principal’s work is directly with adults. Additionally, she observed that most of the high school assistant principals participating in the telephone interview did not start out with the intention of going into administration. Lastly, she noted that some interview participants felt their time may have passed to become a high school principal, which coincided with the lack of desire to become a principal. On a job satisfaction scale of 1-10, the seven participants ranged from 2 to 10. The mean among the seven interviewees was 7.85. This rating seemed indicative of the MSQ analysis. While most telephone interview participants seemed satisfied with their jobs, there were certainly those who were not. One of the interviewees reported having a job satisfaction of a two. Summary The Minnesota Satisfaction Questionnaire was used to measure the general, intrinsic, and extrinsic job satisfaction level of high school assistant principals in Florida and to identify the relationship between general, intrinsic, and extrinsic job satisfaction and the demographic variables: school size, tenure, age, and gender. Data were collected

PAGE 145

133 133 from the MSQ, Individual Demographic Questionnaire, and Telephone Interview Questionnaire. Calculations with SAS Statistical software revealed that the participants’ mean general satisfaction rating was 3.85 (1.00-5.00 scale) and the majority of high school assistant principals in this study (74.18%) were satisfied with their jobs. Compensation, the area which looks at the assistant principal’s pay and the amount of work that he or she does, received the lowest ratings (Dissatisfied and Very Dissatisfied) of all 20 items on the MSQ. Intrinsic job satisfaction received a mean rating of 3.90 and extrinsic job satisfaction received a mean rating of 3.75. When analyzing the results after conducting correlation and multiple regression procedures, none of the four independent variables (school size, tenure, age and gender) had a relationship with general, intrinsic, or extrinsic job satisfaction that denoted statistical significance. However, four additional independent variables (salary, free/reduced lunch, school grade, and principalship interest) were analyzed with the dependent variables (general satisfaction, intrinsic satisfaction, or extrinsic satisfaction) and the four original independent variables (school size, tenure, age, or gender). A multiple regression revealed statistical significance between general satisfaction and school grade ( p <.05) and intrinsic satisfaction and school grade ( p <.05). The relationship between extrinsic satisfaction and free/reduced lunch ( p =.07) is also worth noting. Significant correlations ( p <.0001) were found between the predictor variables age and principalship interest (no-interest), tenure and salary, and free/reduced lunch and school grade.

PAGE 146

134 134 While the analysis of the results from the Telephone Interview Questionnaire may be hard to substantiate due to the small quantity of data (15-20 minutes with seven interviewees), this researcher felt the findings should be reported. Five themes were identified from the data, the last of which suggested a lack of desire among high school assistant principals (71.42%) in pursuing a principalship. This data conflicts with the self-reporting data on the Individual Demographic Questionnaire where 60.63% of the high school assistant principals selected “yes,” they were interested in becoming a high school principal. This theme may provide some insight into the ongoing principal shortage and certainly warrants further research.

PAGE 147

135 135 CHAPTER 5 SUMMARY OF FINDINGS, CONCLUSIONS, IMPLICATIONS, AND RECOMMENDATIONS Problem Although, job satisfaction is one the most frequently studied variables in organizational behavior research (Spector, 1997), few researchers have given attention to the role of the high school assistant principal and job satisfaction. According to Fenwick and Pierce (2001), "states are reporting shortages of qualified principal candidates and many school districts are struggling to fill vacancies" (p. 25). Whitaker (2001) reveals, “these shortages occurred among all types of schools (rural, urban, suburban)" (p. 82). Herrington and Wills (2005) have stated, “During the past few years, superintendents and district human resource officers have reported increasing difficulty in filling vacant school leadership positions” (p. 182). Current assistant principals will be asked to fill the roles of principals due to the immediate and ongoing statewide (Florida) and national shortage of principals. Many studies have been done on high school principal job satisfaction, but very few studies have been conducted on the job satisfaction of high school assistant principals. This researcher has only found two such studies, one done in Florida by Neal (2002) and another conducted in Mississippi by Chen (2000).

PAGE 148

136 136 Purpose The purpose of this study was to conduct research and to share its findings with those in high school administration and those considering such a career to evaluate the variables contributing to job satisfaction or dissatisfaction. This study examined the job satisfaction of high school assistant principals in seven Florida counties to determine if they were satisfied with their jobs. First, this study measured, using the Minnesota Satisfaction Questionnaire, the general job satisfaction level of high school assistant principals in seven Florida counties. Second, this study measured, using the Minnesota Satisfaction Questionnaire, job satisfaction levels of high school assistant principals in seven Florida counties based on intrinsic and extrinsic job satisfaction factors. Third, this study identified the relationship between general, intrinsic, and extrinsic job satisfaction as measured by the Minnesota Satisfaction Questionnaire and the demographic variables: school size, tenure (length of time as a high school assistant principal), age, and gender, among high school assistant principals in seven Florida counties. An additional purpose of this study was to conduct an exploratory analysis of additional factors. Research Questions The following three research questions were examined. 1. What is the general satisfaction level of high school assistant principals in seven Florida counties as measured by the Minnesota Satisfaction Questionnaire?

PAGE 149

137 137 2. What is the level of job satisfaction among high school assistant principals in seven Florida counties based on the intrinsic and extrinsic job satisfaction factors as measured by the Minnesota Satisfaction Questionnaire? 3. What is the relationship between general, intrinsic, and extrinsic job satisfaction, as measured by the Minnesota Satisfaction Questionnaire, and the demographic variables: school size, tenure, age, and gender, among high school assistant principals in seven Florida counties? Method of Summary A pilot study was conducted with five Florida high school administrators (two principals and three assistant principals) using the Minnesota Satisfaction Questionnaire (Short Form), Individual Demographic Questionnaire, and Telephone Interview Questionnaire. The Minnesota Satisfaction Questionnaire is a job satisfaction instrument that has been carefully developed and its reliability and validity have already been established as reported in chapter three (Weiss, Dawis, England, & Lofquist, 1967, p. vi). The Individual Demographic Questionnaire and Telephone Interview Questionnaire were developed by this researcher. During April 2006, the researcher located and invited (via Internet) all high school assistant principals in seven Florida counties, who had their email addresses posted on their schools’ websites, to participate in this study. The research participants received an emailed cover letter (Appendix D) explaining the study. The cover letter provided a hotlink to the secure website (Survey Monkey) where 128 participants completed the Minnesota Satisfaction Questionnaire (short form) and 127 responded to

PAGE 150

138 138 the Individual Demographic Questionnaire. The 128 respondents from the seven Florida counties represented 60% of the total 214 contacts made. Data from the Minnesota Satisfaction Questionnaire and the Individual Demographic Questionnaire were collected and input into the SAS statistical software for analysis. Descriptive statistics, correlation procedures, and multiple regression procedures were computed. As a result, summary statistics, frequency, percentages, Chi-Square Tables and Cronbach’s coefficient alpha were utilized in this study. Summary of Findings The following three research questions directed this study. These questions served as the framework for summarizing this researcher’s findings. Research Question One What is the general satisfaction level of high school assistant principals in seven Florida counties as measured by the Minnesota Satisfaction Questionnaire? The responses to all 20 questions on the MSQ were evaluated to determine the general satisfaction level of the study participants. Cronbach’s coefficient alpha was .91 for the general satisfaction items. The range of the general satisfaction ratings among the individuals responding was 1.50 to 5.00. As a group, the mean general satisfaction rating was 3.85 (1.00 to 5.00 scale). The skewness for general job satisfaction was -0.90 and the kurtosis was 1.29. Eighteen of the 20 questions on the MSQ received the highest percentage of responses by participants as either “Satisfied” or “Very Satisfied” totaling 74.18% of the respondents. “Satisfied” received the highest categorical average percentage of 43.79% while the rating of “Very Satisfied” received 30.39% of the responses. The two

PAGE 151

139 139 dimensions that received the most responses for “Satisfied” were “Creativity” and “Responsibility” (57.81% and 57.03%, respectively). Item 13: My pay and the amount of work I do (Compensation), received the majority of responses (37.5%) as “Dissatisfied” and received the most responses for “Very Dissatisfied” (14.84%) as well. Research Question Two What is the level of job satisfaction among high school assistant principals in seven Florida counties based on the intrinsic and extrinsic job satisfaction factors as measured by the Minnesota Satisfaction Questionnaire? Intrinsic Job Satisfaction The responses to 12 specific questions on the MSQ were evaluated to determine the intrinsic satisfaction level of the study participants. Cronbach’s coefficient alpha was .85 for the intrinsic satisfaction items. The range of the intrinsic satisfaction ratings among the individuals responding was 1.58 to 5.00. As a group, the mean intrinsic satisfaction rating was 3.90. The skewness for intrinsic job satisfaction was -1.02 and the kurtosis was -1.77. Eleven of the 12 questions received the highest percentage of responses by participants as either “Satisfied” or “Very Satisfied” totaling 81.18% of the participants. “Satisfied” received the highest categorical average percentage of 44.40% while the rating of “Very Satisfied” received 36.78% of the responses. Only one item did not receive the majority of responses as “Satisfied” or “Very Satisfied.” Question item #10: The chance to tell people what to do (Authority), received 42.19% responses as “Neither”, but it should be noted that 40.63% of the responses on this item were “Satisfied.”

PAGE 152

140 140 Extrinsic Job Satisfaction The responses to six specific questions on the MSQ were evaluated to determine the extrinsic satisfaction level of the study participants. Cronbach’s coefficient alpha was .78 for the extrinsic satisfaction items. The range of the extrinsic satisfaction ratings among the individuals responding was 1.50 to 5.00. As a group, the mean extrinsic satisfaction rating was 3.75. Five of the six questions received the highest percentage of responses by participants as either “Satisfied” or “Very Satisfied” totaling 58.86% of the respondents. “Satisfied” received the highest categorical average percentage of 39.20% while the rating of “Very Satisfied” received 19.66% of the responses. Again, item 13: My pay and the amount of work I do (Compensation), received the majority of responses (37.50%) as “Dissatisfied.” Research Question Three What is the relationship between general, intrinsic, and extrinsic job satisfaction, as measured by the Minnesota Satisfaction Questionnaire, and the demographic variables: school size, tenure, age, and gender, among high school assistant principals in seven Florida counties? General Job Satisfaction General satisfaction had a mean range from 3.59 to 4.43. When examining the demographic variable school size, the majority (32.28%) of high school assistant principals participating in this study worked in schools with an enrollment of 2001-2400. Those working with student populations of 2401-2800 had a general satisfaction average of 4.10 (SD = 0.49).

PAGE 153

141 141 Assistant principals with 21-30 years of service had a general satisfaction mean of 4.43 (SD = 0.60). The youngest (under 31 years old) high school assistant principals rated a general satisfaction average of 4.23 (SD = 0.48). Overall, the four predictors (school size, tenure, age, and gender) accounted for 4% of the variance in general satisfaction ( R2 = .04, p = .32). Examination of the beta coefficients for the individual predictors indicated that none was significantly related ( p>.05 ) to general satisfaction. Intrinsic Job Satisfaction Intrinsic satisfaction had a mean range from 3.36 to 4.27. High school assistant principals working in schools with more than 3200 students recorded a mean intrinsic satisfaction score of 3.36 (SD = 0.70). Assistant principals in schools with 401-800 students scored an intrinsic satisfaction average of 4.27 (SD = 0.20). Overall, the four predictors (school size, tenure, age, and gender) accounted for 4% of the variance in general satisfaction ( R2 = .04, p = .25). Examination of the beta coefficients for the individual predictors indicated that none was significantly related ( p>.05 ) to intrinsic satisfaction. Extrinsic Job Satisfaction Extrinsic job satisfaction had a mean range from 3.00 to 3.97. High school assistant principals working in schools with 2401-2800 students enrolled recorded a mean extrinsic job satisfaction score of 3.97 (SD = 0.57). Assistant principals working at high schools with a student enrollment more than 3200 recorded an extrinsic satisfaction mean of 3.00 (SD = 0.91).

PAGE 154

142 142 Overall, the four predictors (school size, tenure, age, and gender) accounted for 2% of the variance in general satisfaction ( R2 = .02, p <.62). Examination of the beta coefficients for the individual predictors indicated that none was significantly related ( p>.05 ) to extrinsic satisfaction. Conclusions Based on the data collected and analyzed in this study, the majority of high school assistant principals (74.18%) in seven Florida counties were satisfied with their jobs. The mean general satisfaction rating of those participating was 3.85. Several items on the Minnesota Satisfaction Questionnaire highlight Florida high school assistant principals’ job satisfaction and dissatisfaction. Four intrinsic job satisfaction items 1, 8, 9, and 11 received “Very Satisfied” as their largest response rate; these items were #1 (64.84%): Being able to keep busy all the time (Activity), #8 (50.78%) : The way my job provides for steady employment (Security) #9 (58.59%): The chance to do things for other people (Social Service), and #11 (47.66%): The chance to do something that makes use of my abilities (Ability Utilization). These items indicated that high school assistant principals, though busy, had confidence in knowing their positions were secure and were provided opportunities to use their abilities to help others. These four areas of intrinsic job satisfaction (Activity, Security, Social Service, and Ability Utilization) provided a sense of positive job satisfaction among high school assistant principals in this study. Two extrinsic job satisfaction items were worth noting. Item 6: The competence of my supervisor in making decisions (Supervision-Technical) and item 5: The way my principal handles his/her workers (Supervision-Human Relations) received the highest

PAGE 155

143 143 “Very Satisfied” ratings (38.28% and 34.38%, respectively) of all the extrinsic job satisfaction dimensions. It appears the Florida high school assistant principals in this study were very satisfied with their supervisors. The single item that rated highest in both “Dissatisfied” (37.50%) and “Very Dissatisfied” (14.84%) was item 13: My pay and the amount of work I do (Compensation). This item clearly indicates that this is the one major area of job dissatisfaction. Inputting the data of the 67 respondents who rated item 13 as either “Dissatisfied” or “Very Dissatisfied” into an Excel spreadsheet revealed the following results. The majority of respondents were female (58.20%), between the ages of 31-40 (40.29%), have been in public education 10-15 years (32.83%), and have been a high school assistant principal 1-3 years (37.31%). The majority were also from schools with an enrollment between 2001-2400 (35.82%), earned $50,001-$60,000 (34.32%), and worked an average of 51-60 (53.73%) hours per week. An assistant principal’s rate of pay and the amount of work he or she is required to do continues to be the extrinsic item with the greatest amount of negative influence on job satisfaction. This researcher contacted an assistant principal in each of the seven Florida counties involved in this study to respond to a Telephone Interview Questionnaire. The results of the Telephone Interview Questionnaire disclosed five common themes: 1. Teachers became assistant principals to help a larger number of students. 2. Each assistant principal had a different set of job responsibilities. 3. They love kids (high school students).

PAGE 156

144 144 4. The job is very demanding. 5. There is a lack of desire to become high school principals. On a job satisfaction scale of 1-10, the seven participants’ range was from 2 to 10. The mean among the seven interviewees was 7.85. This rating seemed indicative of the MSQ analysis. While most participants seemed satisfied with their jobs, there were certainly those who were not. One of the interviewees reported having a job satisfaction rating of a two. The intention of this researcher was to replicate and to extend the study of job satisfaction among Florida high school assistant principals that was conducted by Mary E. Neal in 2002. This researcher used the same seven counties Neal used in her research. Neal’s study utilized the Job Descriptive Index (JDI) to determine job satisfaction or dissatisfaction and 14 demographic questions. This researcher used the Minnesota Satisfaction Questionnaire (short form), 15 demographic questions, and 10 telephone interview questions. Dr. Neal surveyed 247 assistant principals and received 123 usable responses for an overall response rate of 49.8%. Similarly, this researcher contacted 214 individuals and received 128 responses for an overall response rate of 60%. In Neal’s study, 49.6% of the participants were male and 47.7% were males in this study. Dr. Neal had 28 (22.8%) 30-39 year olds, 41 (33.3%) 40-49 year olds, and 52 (42.3%) 50-59 year olds compared to this study with 45(35.2%) 31-40 year olds, 32 (25.8%) 41-50 year olds, and 41 (32%) 51-60 year olds. Tenure of assistant principals in each study can be viewed in Tables 5.1 and 5.2.

PAGE 157

145 145 TABLE 5.1 Tenure of Assistant Principals in Neal’s 2002 Study Tenure n % 1-4 years 36 30.5 5-8 years 43 36.5 9-12 years 17 14.4 13-16 years 12 10.1 17-20 years 6 5.0 21-24 years 2 1.6 25-28 years 0 0.0 More than 29 2 1.7 Note : n = 123 TABLE 5.2 Tenure of Assistant Principals in This Study Tenure n % Less than 1 year 11 8.6 1-3 years 42 33.6 4-6 years 31 24.2 7-9 years 19 14.8 10-15 years 15 11.7 16-20 years 5 3.9 21-30 years 2 1.6 More than 30 2 1.6 Note : n = 128 The Job Descriptive Index (JDI) was the survey instrument used by Dr. Neal in her research study. The instrument includes the facet scales: Work on Present Job, Present Pay, Opportunities for Promotion, Supervision, People at Work, and Job in General. On the Job in General scale of the JDI, Neal’s results indicated that 78.9% of her respondents were satisfied with their jobs. That is a similar figure to the 74.18% of general satisfied respondents of this researcher’s MSQ results. Neal’s results of the Supervision scale indicated 90.6% of the participants were satisfied with the supervision

PAGE 158

146 146 they received on the job compared to Supervision-Human Relations on the MSQ, which only received a 68.76% rating of job satisfaction. Neal’s research indicated a positive correlation ( r = .20, p <.05) between tenure and present pay. This researcher also found a positive correlation ( r = .37, p <.0001) between tenure and salary. School size, tenure, age, and gender were not statistically significant to job satisfaction in Neal’s study with the Job in General (JIG) scale of the Job Descriptive Index (JDI). Likewise, school size, tenure, age, and gender were not statistically significant to job satisfaction in this researcher’s study with the General, Intrinsic, or Extrinsic scales of the Minnesota Satisfaction Questionnaire. Both research studies found the same area of greatest job dissatisfaction, the level of pay (JDI) and compensation (MSQ). Neal’s research showed that 40.7% of her respondents were dissatisfied with their pay while 52.34% of the participants involved in this study were dissatisfied. Implications Most high school assistant principals from the seven Florida counties involved in this study expressed satisfaction with their jobs. It is important that school districts identify and maintain current job satisfaction data if they plan to persuade teachers into becoming assistant principals and assistant principals into becoming principals. School districts must assess what satisfies and dissatisfies assistant principals if they want to be successful in recruiting positive, capable leadership for the role of high school principal. Teachers hear and see what assistant principals do on a daily basis and know first hand if their supervisors are satisfied or not with their jobs.

PAGE 159

147 147 Tenure was identified as being significantly related to both age and school size. As high school assistant principals got older they acquired more tenure, but they also served in smaller schools requiring the less experienced assistant principals to oversee the larger high schools. It is recommended that each county (school district) identify those assistant principals with long tenures and encourage them to serve in the larger schools. Compensation was the area in the study that received the lowest rating of “dissatisfied” among the majority of high school assistant principals. School districts should evaluate the pay and hours of their assistant principals and determine if further actions (policy studies/changes) are warranted. Low job satisfaction related to low compensation can be a significant factor contributing to the principal shortage. While 77 (60.63%) of the survey participants responded on the Individual Demographic Questionnaire that they were interested in becoming a high school principal, only two (28.57%) of the seven assistant principals who participated in the telephone interview replied with a definite “yes.” The qualitative data of the telephone interviews may suggest that a “yes” may not always be a definitive response because with five (71.42%) of the telephone respondents it was qualified with other statements. The wavering five telephone interviewees mentioned the possibility of pursuing the principalship at a later time, if at all. This lack of commitment or desire to become a high school principal may be one of the attitudes that is contributing to the shortage of Florida principals. Thirty-five percent of the participants were 31-40 years old, 79% had a Master’s degree, 33% had been a high school assistant principal 1-3 years, 60% worked 51-60 hours per week, 57% were at suburban schools, 48% were at schools with 26%-50% of

PAGE 160

148 148 students on free and/or reduced lunch, and 32% were at schools with student enrollments between 1601-2400. The majority of participants (42%) in this study were at schools which received a school grade of “C” on the Florida Comprehensive Assessment Test (FCAT). The additional analysis of the four predictor variables salary, free/reduced lunch, school grade, and principalship interest provided information to draw the following implications. The correlation ( r = .35, p <.0001) between age and principalship (nointerest) indicated that as high school assistant principals got older they lost interest in becoming high school principals. As administrators spend time in their role as assistant principals they need to be mentored, trained, and encouraged to pursue their personal development of becoming a principal as soon as they are able. If assistant principals are not persuaded to move into principalships as soon as they are ready, their interest in that pursuit may quickly wane. The correlation ( r = .37, p <.0001) between tenure and salary means school districts must plan ahead to fund experienced assistant principals in the years ahead. Free/reduced lunch and school grade were also statistically significant ( r = .38, p <.0001). The data implied that as schools increased in the number of students they served in free/reduced lunch programs the higher the number assigned to a grade (A = 1, B = 2, C = 3, D = 4, F = 5) would be (resulting a lower school grade). In other words, low socioeconomic status equals under achievement. A multiple regression analysis revealed that school grade was statistically significant to general satisfaction ( r = -.27, p <.05) and extrinsic satisfaction ( r = -.26, p <.05). The negative coefficient indicated that as the number assigned to school grade (A

PAGE 161

149 149 = 1, B = 2, C = 3, D = 4, F = 5) increased (resulting in a lower school grade), the job satisfaction of high school assistant principals decreased. Assistant principals in lower performing schools were less satisfied than assistant principals in higher performing schools. Assistant principals working at schools with low grades need assistance to maintain a level of satisfaction regarding their jobs. Limitations Several limitations surfaced during this research study related to the collection of data. Since participants were contacted through their schools’ websites, it was imperative that each high school had a website online, but unfortunately that was not the case. Every high school did not have a website nor did they have it operational. Also, some high school assistant principals did not have their email addresses posted on the school’s website and extra time and effort had to be used to contact webmasters and school employees to secure a valid email address. Related to that, some assistant principals were in transition from one school to another or from one position to another. Again, extra effort was expended to track them down and to determine if they were still serving as high school assistant principals. A final limitation related to data collection involved the time of year the data were collected. The online survey was conducted during the months of April, May, and June. During April and May schools were concluding their school year and assistant principals were more busy than normal. Then the month of June was the beginning of summer break and assistant principals were very hard to contact. This was particularly true when trying to set up times for telephone interviews. Another limitation, due to the telephone interview versus an in person interview, was not having the ability to see and to interpret body language of participant responses.

PAGE 162

150 150 Also, due to this method, there were various degrees of clarity of the tape-recorded interviews over the telephone. Results from the items and categories on the Individual Demographic Questionnaire were difficult to compare across studies because researchers created their own range of answers. For example, when participants are asked about their tenure, the answer choices may vary among researchers from 4-6 years, 5-8 years, 5-10 years, to 515 years, making it impossible to do an exact comparison and analysis of the groups. While the seven telephone interviews represented one person from each of the Florida counties in this study, they were a much smaller sample than the number who participated in the online surveys. Therefore, the telephone interviews sample size was a limitation. A final limitation is recognizing that this study relied on self-reported information and the participants may have given “safe” responses rather than honest and objective answers to the questions on the surveys. Recommendations for Further Research It is recommended that studies are conducted on high school assistant principals in more than seven Florida counties. While this study provided a diverse geographical sample of schools, a larger and broader sample is suggested. The larger studies could be conducted through the use of online surveys. A broader sample could help identify factors of job satisfaction/dissatisfaction from specific regions of the state. Based on the findings of the studies, leadership development could be targeted to specific areas of need.

PAGE 163

151 151 Job satisfaction studies could also be conducted among middle school and elementary school assistant principals. Data could be collected with the use of online questionnaires and interviews. Data from these sample groups could be analyzed and compared to the results among high school assistant principals to determine if there are trends or patterns seen across all three age groups. Different dimensions of job satisfaction/dissatisfaction could be identified exclusive to each age group. This could provide a clearer understanding of the satisfactions and needs among assistant principals at all three levels (elementary, middle, and high school). Job satisfaction studies among high school assistant principals could be conducted in the neighboring states of Alabama, Georgia, and South Carolina to determine the similarities and differences among administrators in the southwest region. Due to the distance involved in these studies, they could be conducted with online questionnaires. Results could provide useful information to Florida counties or individual schools. Other states and schools could become a resource for programs and systems that have been effective to increase job satisfaction among high school administrators. Longitudinal studies of high school assistant principals’ job satisfaction could be conducted over several years. The same instrument(s) would be used to gather the data each year. These studies could help identify trends among assistant principals regarding their job satisfaction/dissatisfaction. If patterns of dissatisfaction were identified, school districts could become proactive in resolving the problems immediately. These studies could also help identify new factors that may not have been identified as significant in previous research.

PAGE 164

152 152 This study and Neal’s (2002) study identified pay as a dimension of job dissatisfaction among high school assistant principals. It is recommended that further studies are conducted to determine specifically the issues surrounding the dissatisfaction with pay. Studies could look at data related to high school assistant principals’ salaries in each Florida county (school district) and the cost of living in each area to determine if there are inequities in different areas of Florida. Studies could also look at salaries and length of contracts within each county to identify if any inequities exist. Results from these studies could help formulate action plans for school districts that want to resolve the issues of inequity among their high school administrators. It is recommended that studies are conducted to determine what factors would motivate teachers to pursue a high school assistant principal position. The current shortage of principals is due to a scarcity of qualified and experienced assistant principals. Studies could be conducted to include questionnaires and personal interviews about teachers’ understanding and feelings concerning the role of assistant principals. Training programs could be established in Florida school districts to prepare teachers who have been identified by their administrators as potential assistant principals. When these teachers have been trained and received the required education and certification requirements they could be viable candidates for assistant principalships. As indicated during the telephone interviews, many assistant principals feel over worked and overwhelmed with the variety of roles they have to perform. Of the seven interviewees, none of them mentioned a single common duty that they all performed. A questionnaire could be developed for further research that included a list of duties, roles

PAGE 165

153 153 they perform, individual characteristics, and characteristics about their schools. The data could be analyzed to determine specific factors of job satisfaction/dissatisfaction. Data analysis revealed that high school assistant principals in lower performing schools were less satisfied than assistant principals in higher performing schools. School districts need to assess, with the use of the MSQ, which of their administrators at low performing schools are dissatisfied with their jobs and provide assistance for them. Burnout could also be a factor why assistant principals do not want to pursue the high school principalship. Qualitative studies could be conducted to determine job satisfaction among high school assistant principals. Individual interviews from one to two hours could be conducted to gather data for analysis. It is recommended that the interviews are conducted in person and that participants are shadowed on their jobsites for additional observation data. Findings from qualitative studies could provide new and additional insights into high school assistant principal job satisfaction/dissatisfaction that may not be evident from a quantitative study. Summary This chapter reviewed the findings of each of the three research questions in this study. Seventy-four percent of the participants expressed a general satisfaction with their jobs. Intrinsic and extrinsic job satisfaction was expressed by 81% and 59%, respectively. None of the independent variables (school size, tenure, age, and gender) were statistically significant of the dependent variables general, intrinsic, and extrinsic satisfaction.

PAGE 166

154 154 The conclusions reached in this chapter included descriptive statistics of the participants and themes that were identified from the telephone interviews. Data relating to this study and Neal’s 2002 study were compared. Several implications were stated based on the results of the data. School districts are being challenged to take a proactive role in identifying and maintaining current data of job satisfaction among their employees. In areas of job dissatisfaction (i.e. compensation), school districts should evaluate the issues/problems and determine if any further studies or actions are warranted. The chapter concludes by identifying several limitations this study faced and recommendations for further research. Issues which arose that hindered the data collection process included assistant principals going to new schools or positions and the time of the year (end of the school year and beginning of summer break). Further research suggestions included incorporating larger samples using other grade levels and geographical areas, evaluating specific factors, and conducting a qualitative study.

PAGE 167

155 155 REFERENCES Adams, J. S. (1963). Toward an understanding of inequity. Journal of Abnormal Psychology 67, 422-436. Allen, R. (2002). Big schools: The way we are. Educational Leadership 59 (5), 36-41. Anuna, M. N. (1997). Determinants of job satisfaction and job dissatisfaction of academic administrators in Texas public universities Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Texas Southern University, Houston, TX. Armstrong, L. (2004). The secondary assistant principal in the state of Texas: Duties and job satisfaction Unpublished doctoral dissertation, University of Houston, Houston, TX. Arthur, M. B., Hall, D. T. & Lawrence, B. S. (Eds.). (1989). Handbook of career theory Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Austin, D. B. & Brown, H. L., Jr. (1970). Report of the assistant principalship Reston, VA: National Association of Secondary School Principals. Barker, B. O. (1986) The advantages of small schools (Report No. RC 015-607). Las Cruces, NM: Eric Clearing House of Rural Education and Small Schools. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED265988). Barry, D. A. (2002). Job satisfaction and leadership style: A study of Michigan high school principals Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Western Michigan University, Kalamazoo, MI. Best, J. W. (2003). Research in education Boston: Allyn and Bacon. Black, A. B. (1980). Clarifying the role of the assistant principal. NASSP Bulletin 64 (436), 33-39. Brady, D. B. (2001). Correlates of job satisfaction among California principals Unpublished doctoral dissertation, University of Southern California, Los Angeles, CA.

PAGE 168

156 156 Brogan, G. B. (2003). Job satisfaction of Idaho high school principals Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Idaho State University, Pocaello, ID. Brokke, D. (2002). Determinants of job-satisfaction and job-dissatisfaction of administrators in the American Association of Christian Schools Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Grace Christian School, Huntington, WV. Bruce, W. M. & Blackburn, J. W. (1992). Balancing job satisfaction & performance: A guide for human resource professionals Westport, CT: Quorum Books. Capelluti, J., & Nye, Ken. (2005, April). The principal as salesperson. Principal Leadership (High School Ed.), 5 (8), 8. Chen, K. (2000). Job satisfaction among high school assistant principals in the state of Mississippi Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Mississippi State University, Starkville, MS. Cornell, K. S. (2003). Job satisfaction of public elementary school assistant principals in the inland empire Unpublished doctoral dissertation, University of La Verne, La Verne, CA. Cranny, C. J., Smith, P. C. & Stone, E. F. (1992). Job satisfaction: How people feel about their jobs and how it affects their performance New York: Macmillan. Cutshall, S. (2003, March). Is smaller better? When it comes to schools, size does matter. Techniques (ACTE) 78 (3), 22-25. Dawis, R. V. & Lofquist, L. H. (1990). A psychological theory of work adjustment Minneapolis, MN: Vocational Psychology Research. Dillman, D. A. (2000). Mail and Internet surveys: The tailored design method New York: John Weley & Sons, Inc. Eckman, E. (2004, August). Similarities and differences in role conflict, role commitment, and job satisfaction for female and male high school principals. Educational Administration Quarterly, 40 (3), 366-387. Educational Research Service. (1998). Is there a shortage of qualified candidates for openings in the principalship? An exploratory study. NAESP Online, Retrieved from http://www.naesp.org/misc/shortage.htm. Ensign, M. S. & Adler, L. N. (Eds.). (1985). The employee: Contemporary viewpoints Santa Barbara, CA: Clio Press Ltd.

PAGE 169

157 157 Fenwick, L. T. & Pierce, M. C. (2001, March). The principal shortage: Crisis or opportunity. Principal 25-32. Ferrandino, V. L. (2001). Surviving a crisis. Principal 80 72. Fulton, O. K. (1987). Basic competencies of the assistant principal. NASSP 71 (501), 52-54. Garawski, R. A. (1978). The assistant principal: His job satisfaction, and organizational potency. The Clearing House 52 (1), 8-10. Garawski, R. A. (1977). A normative study of the secondary school assistant principalship in selected Pennsylvania school districts with an emphasis upon job satisfaction Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Temple University, Philadelphia, PA. Gardner, P. W., Ritblatt, S. N. & Beatty, J. R. (2000). Academic achievement and parental school involvement as a function of high school size. The High School Journal 83 (2), 21-27. Gilman, D. A. & Lanman-Givens, B. (2001, May). Where have all the principals gone? Educational Leadership 72-74. Glanz, J. (2004). The assistant principal's handbook: Strategies for success Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin Press. Glass, G. V. & Hopkins, K. D. (1996). Statistical methods in education and psychology Boston: Allyn and Bacon. Greenfield, W. D. (1985). Developing an instructional role for the assistant principal. Education and Urban Society 18 (1), 85-92. Greenfield, W. D. (1985). Studies of the assistant principalship: Toward new avenues of inquiry. Education and Urban Society 18 (1), 7-27. Greska, T. J. (2003). Job satisfaction of middle school assistant principals in North Carolina Unpublished doctoral dissertation, University of Mississippi, Oxford, MS. Gruneberg, M. M. (1979). Understanding job satisfaction New York: John Wiley & Sons. Herrington, C. & Wills, B. (2005, January/March). Decertifying the principalship: the politic of administrator preparation in Florida. Educational Policy 19 (1), 181200.

PAGE 170

158 158 Herzberg, F., Mausner, B. & Snyderman, B. (1959). The motivation to work (2nd ed.) New York: John Wiley & Sons. Herzberg, F., Mausner, B., Peterson, R. O. & Capwell, D. F. (1957). Job attitudes: Review of research and opinion Pittsburgh: Psychological Service of Pittsburgh. Hogue, G. B. (1999). A study to determine the job satisfaction levels of Missouri public school secondary assistant principals. Dissertation Abstracts International 60 (6), 1847A. Hopkins, A. H. (1983). Work and job satisfaction in the public sector Totowa, NJ: Rowman & Allanheld. Hoppock, R. (1935). Job satisfaction New York: Harper & Brothers. Hoy, W. K. & Miskel, C. G. (1996). Educational administration: Theory, research, and practice New York: McGraw-Hill. Hulin, C. L. & Waters, L. K. (1971). Regression analysis of three variations of the twofactor hypothesis of job satisfaction. Journal of Applied Psychology 55, 211-217. Hulin, C. L. & Smith, P. C. (1965). A linear model of job satisfaction. Journal of Applied Psychology 49, 209-216. Irmsher, K. (1997). School size. (Report No. 113). Eugene, OR: Eric Clearinghouse on Educational Management. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED414615). Johnson, J. (2002). Do communities want smaller schools? Educational Leadership 59 (5), 42-46. Johnson, J. (2002, January). Will parents and teachers get on the bandwagon to reduce school size? Phi Delta Kappan 83(5) 353-356. Kalleberg, A. L. & Loscocco, K. A. (1983). Aging, values, and rewards: Explaining age differences in job satisfaction. American Sociological Review 48, 78-90. Kaplan, H. R., Tausky, C. & Bolaria, R. (1969). Job enrichment. Personnel Journal 48, 791-798. Kavanagh, M. J. & Halpern, M. (1977). The impact of job level and sex differences on the relationship between life and job satisfaction. Academy of Management Journal 20, 66-73.

PAGE 171

159 159 Kelly, G. (1987). The assistant principalship as a training ground for the principalship. NASSP 71 (501), 13-20. Kimbrough, R. B. & Burkett, C. W. (1990). The principalship: Concepts and practices Boston: Allyn and Bacon. King, N. (1970). Clarification and evaluation of the two-factor theory of job satisfaction. Psychological Bulletin 74 (1), 18-31. Kovach, K. A. (1977). Organization size, job satisfaction, absenteeism and turnover Washington, DC: University Press of America. Lawler, E. E., III. (1994). Motivation in work organizations San Francisco: Jossey-Bass. Lovely, S. (2004). Staffing the principalship: Finding, coaching, and mentoring school leaders Alexandria, VA: Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development. Lunenburg, F. C. & Ornstein, A. C. (1996). Educational administration: Concepts and practices Belmont, CA: Wadsworth. Marshall, C. (1993). The unsung role of the career assistant principal Reston, VA: National Association of Secondary School Principals. Marshall, C. (1992). The assistant principal: Leadership choices and challenges Newbury Park, IL: Corwin Press. Marshall, C. & Mitchell, B. A. (1991). The assumptive worlds of fledgling administrators. Education and Urban Society 23 (4), 396-415. Maslow, A. H. (1954). Motivation and personality New York: Harper. Matthews, L. J. & Crow, G. M. (2003). Being and becoming a principal: Role conceptions for contemporary principals and assistant principals Boston: Allyn and Bacon. McCormick, K. (1987). The vaunted school executive shortage: How serious is it? The Executive Educator June 18-21. McElveen, K. P. (1989). A comparison of job perceptions, job roles, job satisfaction, and career plans of more and less experienced secondary school assistant principals Unpublished doctoral dissertation, University of South Carolina, Columbia, SC. Metcalfe, E. L. (1992). Job satisfaction of elementary and middle school principal Unpublished doctoral dissertation, University of California, CA.

PAGE 172

160 160 Michaels, C. E. (1983). The dimensionality of job satisfaction Unpublished doctoral dissertation, University of South Florida, Tampa, FL. Miller, N. J. (1985). A description of secondary school principals in Minnesota and their job satisfaction Unpublished doctoral dissertation, University of North Dakota, Grand Forks, ND. Neal, M. E. (2002). Job satisfaction of Florida's high school assistant principals as a factor in the maintenance of an administrative work force. Dissertation Abstracts International 63 (02), 451A. Newby, J. E. (1999). Job satisfaction of middle school principals in Virginia Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University, Blacksburg, VA. Noto, P. (1977). Relationship between job sa tisfaction and leader behavior Unpublished doctoral dissertation, University of South Florida, Tampa, FL. Oliver, Ron. (2005, Fall). Assistant principal professional growth and development: A matter that cannot be left to chance. Educational Leadership and Administration 17 (12), 89 Panyako, D. & Rorie, L. (1987). The changing role of the assistant principal. NASSP Bulletin 71 (501), 6-8. Pellicer, L. O., Anderson, L. W., Keefe, J. W., Kelley, E. A. & McCleary, L. E. (1988). High school leaders and their schools Reston, VA: National Association of Secondary School Principals. Phelps, R. J. (1995). Job satisfaction: A study of alternative high school principals Unpublished doctoral dissertation, University of Southern California, Los Angeles, CA. Phi Delta Kappa, (1990). The role of the assistant principal. Bloomington, IN; Center on Evaluation, Development, and Research. Potter, L. (2001, March). Solving the principal shortage. Principal 80 34-37. Potter, J. M., Jr. (1980). 10 suggestions: Enhancing the role of the assistant principal. NASSP Bulletin 64 (436), 9-13. Raelin, J. A. (1980). Building a career: The effect of initial job experiences and related work attitudes on later employment Kalamazoo, MI: W. E. Upjohn Institute for Employment Research.

PAGE 173

161 161 Rayfield, R. & Diamantes, T. (2004, Summer). Task analysis of the duties performed in secondary school administration. Education (Chula Vista, Calif.), 124 (4), 709712. Robbins, S. P. (1994). Essentials of organizational behavior Englewoods Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall. Ryan, K. I. (1998). Locus of control and job satisfaction of secondary school assistant principals in Iowa, Kansas, and Nebraska Unpublished doctoral dissertation, University of Nebraska, Lincoln, NE. Sablatura, D. J. (2002). A comparison of job satisfaction among urban, suburban, and rural school principals Unpublished doctoral dissertation, University of Houston, Houston, TX. Schair, K. W. & Schooler, C. (Eds.). (1998). Impact of work on older adults New York: Springer. Sharp, W. L. & Walter, J. K. (2003). The principal as school manager Lanham, MD: The Scarecrow Press, Inc. Skorczewski, L. (1985). Job satisfaction: The effects of age and employment Unpublished doctoral dissertation, University of South Florida, Tampa, FL. Smith, M. L. & Glass, G. V. (1987). Research and evaluation in education and the social sciences Englewood Cliffs, New Jersey: Prentice –Hall. Spector, P. E. (1997). Job satisfaction: Application, assessment, cause, and consequences Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE. Stemple, J. D., Jr. (2004). Job satisfaction of high school principals in Virginia Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University, Blacksburg, VA. Srivastva, S., Salipante, P. F., Jr., Cummings, T. G., Notz, W. W., Bigelow, J. D. & Waters, J. A. (1975). Job satisfaction and productivity : An evaluation of policy related research on productivity, industr ial organization and job satisfaction: policy development and implementation Kent, OH: Kent State University, Comparative Administration Research Institute. Thornton, C. L. (1996). Job satisfaction and the assistant principalship in central Florida school districts Unpublished doctoral dissertation, University of Central Florida, Orlando, FL.

PAGE 174

162 162 Turner, A. N. & Lawrence, P. R. (1965). Industrial jobs and the worker Cambridge, MA: Division of Research, Graduate School of Business, Harvard University. Vroom, V. H. (1964). Work and motivation New York: John Weley & Sons. Waskiewicz, S. P. (1999). Variables that contribute to job satisfaction of secondary school assistant principals Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University, Blacksburg, VA. Wasley, P. A. & Lear, R. J. (2001). Small schools, real gains. Education Leadership 58 (6), 22-27. Weiss, D. J., Dawis, R. V., England, G. W. & Lofquist, L. H. (1967). Manual for the Minnesota Satisfaction Questionnaire Minneapolis, MN: Work Adjustment Project, Industrial Relations Center, University of Minnesota. Weller, L. D. & Weller, S. J. (2002). The assistant principal: Essentials for effective school leadership Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin Press. Whitaker, K. (2001). Where are the principal candidates? Perceptions of superintendents. NASSP Bulletin 85 (625), 82-92. White, A. T. (1985). An investigation of age-related factors in the age-job satisfaction relationship Unpublished doctoral dissertation, University of South Florida, Tampa, FL. Yerkes, D. M. & Guaglianone, C. L. (1998). Where have all the high school administrators gone? Thrust for Educational Leadership 28 (2), 10-14.

PAGE 175

163 163 APPENDICES

PAGE 176

164 164 Appendix A Chi-Square Tables TABLE A1 Chi-Square Table Results of Variables Gender and Age Frequency Percent Row Percent Col Percent Male Female Younger than 31 2 1.57 50.00 3.33 2 1.57 50.00 2.99 31-40 30 23.62 66.67 50.00 15 11.81 33.33 22.39 41-50 13 10.24 40.63 21.67 19 14.96 59.38 28.36 51-60 12 9.45 29.27 20.00 29 22.83 70.73 43.28 Older than 60 3 2.36 60.00 5.00 2 1.57 40.00 2.99 Total 60 47.24 67 52.76 Note : 2 (4, n = 127) = 13.03, p <.05

PAGE 177

165 165 Appendix A (Continued): TABLE A2 Chi-Square Table Results of Variables Gender and Tenure Frequency Percent Row Percent Col Percent Male Female < 1 7 5.51 63.64 11.67 4 3.15 36.36 5.97 1-3 21 16.54 50.00 35.00 21 16.54 50.00 31.34 4-6 14 11.02 45.16 23.33 17 13.39 54.84 25.37 7-9 7 5.51 36.84 11.67 12 9.45 63.16 17.91 10-15 7 5.51 46.67 11.67 8 6.30 53.33 11.94 16-20 2 1.57 40.00 3.33 3 2.36 60.00 4.48 21-30 1 0.79 50.00 1.67 1 0.79 50.00 1.49 > 30 1 0.79 50.00 1.67 1 0.79 50.00 1.49 Total 60 47.24 67 52.76 Note: 2 (7, n = 127) = 2.31, p = .94

PAGE 178

166 166 Appendix A (Continued): TABLE A3 Chi-Square Table Results of Variables Gender and School Size Frequency Percent Row Percent Col Percent Male Female < 401 0 0.00 0.00 0.00 0 0.00 0.00 0.00 401-800 2 1.57 50.00 3.33 2 1.57 50.00 2.99 801-1200 1 0.79 33.33 1.67 2 1.57 66.67 2.99 1201-1600 8 6.30 57.14 13.33 6 4.72 42.86 8.96 1601-2000 14 11.02 41.18 23.33 20 15.75 58.82 29.85 2001-2400 21 16.54 51.22 35.00 20 15.75 48.78 29.85 2401-2800 8 6.30 50.00 13.33 8 6.30 50.00 11.94 2801-3200 4 3.15 40.00 6.67 6 4.72 60.00 8.96 > 3200 2 1.57 40.00 3.33 3 2.36 60.00 4.48 Total 60 47.24 67 52.76 Note: 2 (7, n = 127) = 1.92, p = .96

PAGE 179

167 167 Appendix A (Continued): TABLE A4 Chi-Square Table Results of Variables Age and Tenure Frequency Percent Row Percent Col Percent < 31 31-40 41-50 51-60 > 60 < 1 3 2.36 27.27 75.00 5 3.94 45.45 11.11 2 1.57 18.18 6.25 1 0.79 9.09 2.44 0 0.00 0.00 0.00 1-3 1 0.79 2.38 25.00 24 18.90 57.14 53.33 7 5.51 16.67 21.88 10 7.87 23.81 24.39 0 0.00 0.00 0.00 4-6 0 0.00 0.00 0.00 15 11.81 48.39 33.33 6 4.72 19.35 18.75 10 7.87 32.26 24.39 0 0.00 0.00 0.00 7-9 0 0.00 0.00 0.00 1 0.79 5.26 2.22 7 5.51 36.84 21.88 9 7.09 47.37 21.95 2 1.57 10.53 40.00 10-15 0 0.00 0.00 0.00 0 0.00 0.00 0.00 8 6.30 53.33 25.00 5 3.94 33.33 12.20 2 1.57 13.33 40.00 16-20 0 0.00 0.00 0.00 0 0.00 0.00 0.00 1 0.79 20.00 3.13 4 3.15 80.00 9.76 0 0.00 0.00 0.00 21-30 0 0.00 0.00 0.00 0 0.00 0.00 0.00 0 0.00 0.00 0.00 2 1.57 100.00 4.88 0 0.00 0.00 0.00 > 30 0 0.00 0.00 0.00 0 0.00 0.00 0.00 1 0.79 50.00 3.13 0 0.00 0.00 0.00 1 0.79 50.00 20.00 Total 4 3.15 45 35.43 32 25.20 41 32.28 5 3.94 Note: 2 (28, n = 127) = 83.06, p <.0001

PAGE 180

168 168 Appendix A (Continued): TABLE A5 Chi-Square Table Results of Variables Age and School Size Frequency Percent Row Percent Col Percent < 31 31-40 41-50 51-60 > 60 < 401 0 0.00 0.00 0.00 0 0.00 0.00 0.00 0 0.00 0.00 0.00 0 0.00 0.00 0.00 0 0.00 0.00 0.00 401-800 0 0.00 0.00 0.00 3 2.36 75.00 6.67 1 0.79 25.00 3.13 0 0.00 0.00 0.00 0 0.00 0.00 0.00 801-1200 1 0.79 33.33 25.00 1 0.79 33.33 2.22 0 0.00 0.00 0.00 0 0.00 0.00 0.00 1 0.79 33.33 20.00 1201-1600 0 0.00 0.00 0.00 6 4.72 42.86 13.33 4 3.15 28.57 12.50 3 2.36 21.43 7.32 1 0.79 7.14 20.00 1601-2000 1 0.79 2.94 25.00 7 5.51 20.59 15.56 8 6.30 23.53 25.00 16 12.60 47.06 39.02 2 1.57 5.88 40.00 2001-2400 2 1.57 4.88 50.00 18 14.17 43.90 40.00 10 7.87 24.39 31.25 11 8.66 26.83 26.83 0 0.00 0.00 0.00 2401-2800 0 0.00 0.00 0.00 6 4.72 37.50 13.33 2 1.57 12.50 6.25 7 5.51 43.75 17.07 1 0.79 6.25 20.00 2801-3200 0 0.00 0.00 0.00 3 2.36 30.00 6.67 5 3.94 50.00 15.63 2 1.57 20.00 4.88 0 0.00 0.00 0.00 > 3200 0 0.00 0.00 0.00 1 0.79 20.00 2.22 2 1.57 40.00 6.25 2 1.57 40.00 4.88 0 0.00 0.00 0.00 Total 4 3.15 45 35.43 32 25.20 41 32.28 5 3.94 Note: 2 (28, n = 127) = 37.27, p = .11

PAGE 181

169 169 Appendix A (Continued): TABLE A6 Chi-Square Table Results of Variables Tenure and School Size Frequency Percent Row Pct Col Pct < 1 1-3 4-6 7-9 10-15 16-20 21-30 > 30 < 401 0 0.00 0.00 0.00 0 0.00 0.00 0.00 0 0.00 0.00 0.00 0 0.00 0.00 0.00 0 0.00 0.00 0.00 0 0.00 0.00 0.00 0 0.00 0.00 0.00 0 0.00 0.00 0.00 401-800 0 0.00 0.00 0.00 3 2.36 75.00 7.14 0 0.00 0.00 0.00 0 0.00 0.00 0.00 0 0.00 0.00 0.00 0 0.00 0.00 0.00 0 0.00 0.00 0.00 1 0.79 25.00 50.00801-1200 1 0.79 33.33 9.09 1 0.79 33.33 2.38 0 0.00 0.00 0.00 0 0.00 0.00 0.00 0 0.00 0.00 0.00 0 0.00 0.00 0.00 0 0.00 0.00 0.00 1 0.79 33.33 50.001201-1600 1 0.79 7.14 9.09 5 3.94 35.71 11.90 4 3.15 28.57 12.90 1 0.79 7.14 5.26 2 1.57 14.29 13.33 0 0.00 0.00 0.00 1 0.79 7.14 50.00 0 0.00 0.00 0.001601-2000 3 2.36 8.82 27.27 11 8.66 32.35 26.19 4 3.15 11.76 12.90 6 4.72 17.65 31.58 6 4.72 17.65 40.00 3 2.36 8.82 60.00 1 0.79 2.94 50.00 0 0.00 0.00 0.002001-2400 3 2.36 7.32 27.27 15 11.81 36.59 35.71 14 11.02 34.15 45.16 5 3.94 12.20 26.32 4 3.15 9.76. 26.67 0 0.00 0.00 0.00 0 0.00 0.00 0.00 0 0.00 0.00 0.002401-2800 0 0.00 0.00 0.00 4 3.15 25.00 9.52 5 3.94 31.25 16.13 4 3.15 25.00 21.05 2 1.57 12.50 13.33 1 0.79 6.25 20.00 0 .0.00 0.00 0.00 0 0.00 0.00 0.002801-3200 2 1.57 20.00 18.18 1 0.79 10.00 2.38 3 2.36 30.00 9.68 3 2.36 30.00 15.79 0 0.00 0.00 0.00 1 0.79 10.00 20.00 0 0.00 0.00 0.00 0 0.00 0.00 0.00> 3200 1 0.79 20.00 9.09 2 1.57 40.00 4.76 1 0.79 20.00 3.23 0 0.00 0.00 0.00 1 0.79 20.00 6.67 0 0.00 0.00 0.00 0 0.00 0.00 0.00 0 0.00 0.00 0.00Total 11 8.66 42 33.07 31 24.41 19 14.96 15 11.81 5 3.94 2 1.57 2 1.57 Note: 2 (49, n = 127) = 70.73, p <.05

PAGE 182

170 170 Appendix B Individual Demographic Questionnaire 1. What county do you work in? a. Xxxxxxx b. Xxxxxxx c. Xxxxxxx d. Xxxxxxx e. Xxxxxxx f. Xxxxxxx g. Xxxxxxx 2. What is your age? a. Younger than 31 b. 31 40 c. 41 – 50 d. 51 60 e. Older than 60 3. What is your gender? a. Male b. Female 4. What is your highest earned level of education? a. Bachelor’s Degree b. Master’s Degree c. Ed. Specialist Degree d. Doctoral Degree e. Other (please specify) _______________ 5. How many years have you been in public education? b. Less than 1 c. 1 –3 d. 4 –6 e. 79 f. 10 – 15 g. 16 – 20 h. 21 -30 i. More than 30

PAGE 183

171 171 Appendix B (Continued): 6. How many years have you been a high school assistant principal? a. Less than 1 b. 1 –3 c. 4 –6 d. 79 e. 10 – 15 f. 16 – 20 g. 21 –30 h. More than 30 7. What is your salary range? a. Less than $40,000 b. $40,000 $50,000 c. $50,001 $60,000 d. $60,001 $70,000 e. $70,001 $80,000 f. $80,001 $90,000 g. More than $90,000 8. What is the average number of hours you work per week? a. 30 – 40 b. 41 – 50 c. 51 – 60 d. 61 – 70 e. 71 80 f. More than 80 9. Are you interested in becoming a high school principal? a. Yes b. No c. Undecided 10. How many students are enrolled in your school? a. Less than 401 b. 401 – 800 c. 801 – 1200 d. 1201 – 1600 e. 1601 – 2000 f. 2001 –2400 g. 2401 – 2800 h. 2801 3200 i. More than 3200

PAGE 184

172 172 Appendix B (Continued): 11. What area best describes where your school is located? a. Rural b. Suburban c. Urban 12. How many assistant principals work at your high school (including yourself)? a. 1 b. 2 c. 3 d. 4 e. 5 f. 6 g. More than 6 13. What percentage of your student body is on Free or Reduced Lunch? a. Less than 11% b. 11% 25% c. 26% 50% d. 51% 75% e. 76% 90% f. More than 90% 14. What grade did your school receive during the 2004 – 2005 school year? a. A b. B c. C d. D e. F f. No grade 15. How many teachers are on your school staff? a. Less than 31 b. 31 – 45 c. 46 – 60 d. 61 – 75 e. 76 – 90 f. 91 – 120 g. 121 150 h. More than 150

PAGE 185

173 173 Appendix C Telephone Interview Questionnaire I will be tape recording our conversation so I will have an accurate record of the interview. The interview will be confidential and the data collected will be reported without reference to you or your school. Do you consent to participating in the telephone interview? ( If yes, continue...) 1. Tell me about your journey to become an assistant principal. 2. Why did you become an assistant principal? 3. What are your major job responsibilities? 4. What do you enjoy most about your job? 5. What do you like least about your job? 6. What has surprised you most about your job? 7. What do you like the most and least about your work environment? 8. Do you plan on becoming a principal? a. If no, why not? b. If yes, what is the process? Timeline? 9. If you couldn’t work in education, what job would you pursue? Why? 10. On a scale of 1–10, how satisfied are you with your job?

PAGE 186

174 174 Appendix D Initial Cover Letter Dear Colleague, I am a high school assistant principal, so I know you are very busy. However, I am conducting my doctoral research study on job satisfaction among Florida high school assistant principals and I need your help. I am extending to you a personal invitation to be a participant in this important study. Your input is vital to the success of this research. There are no known risks in this study. By taking part in this study, your contribution may increase our overall knowledge and understanding of job satisfaction. Job satisfaction has been studied for many years, but very little research has been conducted on high school assistant principals. The purpose of this study is to measure the level of job satisfaction among Florida high school assistant principals and to identify factors that contribute to job satisfaction or dissatisfaction. All responses are confidential and will be used only in combination with those of other respondents. Schools and respondents will remain anonymous. As a volunteer participant, you may refuse to participate or withdraw from this study at any time. Please click on the following hotlink [SurveyLink] or use your Internet connection and enter the web address or cut and paste it into your URL to visit the secure website where two brief questionnaires await your response. The password to enter is “ xxxxx ” (without quotes). The first form is the Minnesota Satisfaction Questionnaire consisting of 20 questions using a Likert scale. The second form is the Individual Demographic Questionnaire consisting of fifteen questions with drop-down menu responses. It will take approximately 10 minutes to complete both questionnaires. In addition to the two questionnaires, my research will also include interviews with seven Florida high school assistant principals. You will be given an opportunity on the electronic questionnaire to volunteer as a participant in a recorded telephone interview. The interview will take approximately 30 minutes and will be scheduled at your convenience. The interview will be confidential and the data collected will be reported without reference to you or your school site. If you have any questions about this research study, please contact me at jtaylorfl@verizon.net or call me at (XXX) XXX-XXXX. If you have questions about your rights as a person who is taking part in a research study, you may contact the Division of Research Compliance of the University of South Florida at (813) 974-5638. Thank you in advance for your time and assistance. Sincerely, John Taylor Doctoral Candidate U.S.F.

PAGE 187

175 175 Appendix E Follow-up Letter Dear Colleague, As part of the requirement for the doctoral degree in Educational Leadership at the University of South Florida, I am conducting research for a dissertation entitled “Job Satisfaction Among Florida High School Assistant Principals.” Several weeks ago, I contacted you (via email) about completing two questionnaires as a participant in this study. I have had responses from several Florida high school assistant principals, but I have not heard from you. I know you are very busy, but I desperately need your help so I will have enough responses for a valid study. Job satisfaction has been studied for many years, but very little research has been conducted on high school assistant principals. The purpose of this study is to measure the level of job satisfaction among Florida high school assistant principals and to identify factors that contribute to job satisfaction or dissatisfaction. I am extending to you a personal invitation to be a participant in this important study. Your input is vital to the success of this research. There are no known risks in this study. By taking part in this study, your contribution may increase our overall knowledge and understanding of job satisfaction. All responses are confidential and will be used only in combination with those of other respondents. Schools and respondents will remain anonymous. As a volunteer participant, you may refuse to participate or withdraw from this study at any time. Please click on the following hotlink [SurveyLink] or use your Internet connection and enter the web address or cut and paste it into your URL to visit the secure website where two brief questionnaires await your response. The password to enter is “ xxxxx ” (without quotes). The first form is the Minnesota Satisfaction Questionnaire consisting of 20 questions using a Likert scale. The second form is the Individual Demographic Questionnaire consisting of fifteen questions with drop-down menu responses. It will take approximately 10 minutes to complete both questionnaires. In addition to the 2 questionnaires, my research will also include interviews with 7 Florida high school assistant principals. You will be given an opportunity on the electronic questionnaire to volunteer as a participant in a recorded telephone interview. The interview will take approximately 30 minutes and will be scheduled at your convenience. The interview will be confidential and the data collected will be reported without reference to you or your school site.

PAGE 188

176 176 If you have any questions about this research study, please contact me at jtaylorfl@verizon.net or call me at (XXX) XXX-XXXX If you have questions about your rights as a person who is taking part in a research study, you may contact the Division of Research Compliance of the University of South Florida at (813) 974-5638. Sincerely, John Taylor Doctoral Candidate U.S.F.

PAGE 189

177 177 Appendix F Final Follow-Up Letter Dear [FirstName], Please click on the following link for a quick survey: [SurveyLink] and enter the password: xxxxx. As part of the requirement for an Ed. D. degree at the University of South Florida, I am conducting research for a dissertation entitled “Job Satisfaction Among Florida High School Assistant Principals.” Seven counties in Florida are being surveyed, and YOUR County is one of the seven. An adequate number of responses have not been received from YOUR County; therefore, I am sending out a final request for response. If you are not the assistant principal, please reply to me with the appropriate person’s name and email address. If you have any questions, please contact me at jtaylorfl@verizon.net or call me at work XXX-XXX-XXXX or at home XXX-XXXXXXX. I appreciate your time. Sincerely, John Taylor Doctoral Candidate, University of South Florida

PAGE 190

About the Author John Robert Taylor served in the United States Air Force from 1976-1980 before receiving a Bachelor of Arts (BA) degree in Religion from Cumberland College in 1983. He received a Master of Religious Education (MRE) degree from Southwestern Baptist Theological Seminary in 1986, a Master of Arts (MA) degree in Special Education from the University of South Florida in 1996, and a Master of Education (M.Ed.) degree in Educational Leadership from the University of South Florida in 2000. In the summer of 2000, he enrolled in the doctoral program (Ed.D.) for Educational Leadership at the University of South Florida. While completing his doctoral coursework at the University of South Florida, John became a high school assistant principal. During his career, he has been an educator at the elementary, middle, and high school levels. He is currently pursuing opportunities for advancement in the field of educational leadership.


xml version 1.0 encoding UTF-8 standalone no
record xmlns http:www.loc.govMARC21slim xmlns:xsi http:www.w3.org2001XMLSchema-instance xsi:schemaLocation http:www.loc.govstandardsmarcxmlschemaMARC21slim.xsd
leader nam Ka
controlfield tag 001 001927861
003 fts
005 20080215104617.0
006 m||||e|||d||||||||
007 cr mnu|||uuuuu
008 080215s2007 flu sbm 000 0 eng d
datafield ind1 8 ind2 024
subfield code a E14-SFE0001932
035
(OCoLC)192043846
040
FHM
c FHM
1 100
Taylor, John R.
0 245
Job satisfaction among high school assistant principals in seven Florida counties
h [electronic resource] /
by John R. Taylor.
260
[Tampa, Fla] :
b University of South Florida,
2007.
520
ABSTRACT: This study replicated the study by Mary E. Neal, Job Satisfaction of Florida's High School Assistant Principals as a Factor in the Maintenance of an Administrative Workforce (2002) and extended the research by examining the job satisfaction of high school assistant principals in seven Florida county school districts. The present study utilized quantitative and qualitative data. Respondents (n = 128) were surveyed using the Minnesota Satisfaction Questionnaire (MSQ short form), Individual Demographic Questionnaire, and Telephone Interview Questionnaire. One assistant principal from each of seven counties volunteered to complete the Telephone Interview Questionnaire. The 128 respondents represented 60% of 214 assistant principals contacted. The majority (74.18%) of Florida high school assistant principals participating in this study expressed satisfaction with their jobs. The greatest dissatisfaction area (52%) was compensation. More assistant principals were dissatisfied with their salary than any other area. Thirty-five percent of the participants were 31-40 years old, 79% had a Master's degree, 33% had been a high school assistant principal 1-3 years, 60% worked 51-60 hours per week, 57% were at suburban schools, 48% were at schools with 26%-50% of students on free and/or reduced lunch, and 32% were at schools with student enrollments between 1601-2400. The majority of participants (42%) in this study were at schools which received a school grade of "C" on the Florida Comprehensive Assessment Test. None of the four independent variables (school size, tenure, age, or gender) was statistically significant to the dependent variables of general satisfaction, intrinsic satisfaction, or extrinsic satisfaction. Four additional independent variables (salary, free/reduced lunch, school grade, and principalship interest) were analyzed with the dependent variables (general satisfaction, intrinsic satisfaction, or extrinsic satisfaction). A multipleregression revealed significance between general satisfaction and school grade (p < .05) and intrinsic satisfaction and school grade (p < .05). High school assistant principals in lower performing schools were less satisfied than assistant principals in higher performing schools. The relationship between extrinsic satisfaction and free/reduced lunch (p=.07) is worthy of notice. Telephone interviews provided qualitative data suggesting respondents lack desire to pursue the high school principalship. This supports the growing concern regarding high school principal shortages. The correlation (r = .35, p < .0001) between age and principalship (no-interest) indicated that as high school assistant principals got older they lost interest in becoming high school principals. As administrators spend time in their role as assistant principals they need to be mentored, trained, and encouraged to pursue their personal development of becoming a principal as soon as they are able. If assistant principals are not persuaded to move into principalships as soon as they are ready, their interest in that pursuit may quickly wane. It is important that school districts identify and maintain current job satisfaction data if they plan to persuade assistant principals into becoming principals. School districts must assess what satisfies and dissatisfies assistant principals if they want to be successful in recruiting positive, capable leadership for the role of high school principal.
502
Dissertation (Ed.D.)--University of South Florida, 2007.
504
Includes bibliographical references.
516
Text (Electronic dissertation) in PDF format.
538
System requirements: World Wide Web browser and PDF reader.
Mode of access: World Wide Web.
500
Title from PDF of title page.
Document formatted into pages; contains 177 pages.
Includes vita.
590
Adviser: Arthur Shapiro, Ph.D.
653
Education.
Leadership.
Secondary.
MSQ.
Principalship.
690
Dissertations, Academic
z USF
x Educational Leadership
Doctoral.
049
FHMM
773
t USF Electronic Theses and Dissertations.
4 856
u http://digital.lib.usf.edu/?e14.1932