An Assessment of Faculty Job Satisfaction in Georgia’s Technical College System Using Bolman and Deal’s Four Organizational Frameworks

This study examined the extent to which elements within Bolman and Deal’s (2003) four organizational frameworks impacted the job satisfaction of full-time faculty working within the Technical College System of Georgia (TCSG). A factor analysis coupled with a linear regression analysis found that elements within Bolman and Deal’s structural framework had the greatest impact. In an age of increasing professorial job dissatisfaction, high mobility rates within the teaching profession, and public accountability demands for quantifiable work performance, educational administrators must develop organizations that are not only highly effective but also promote worker morale (Sanderson, Phua, & Herda, 2000; Syptak, Marsland, & Ulmer, 1999; Kelly, 1989). By having a greater understanding of what forces within an institution have the greatest impact on faculty job satisfaction (or dissatisfaction), administrators can be better positioned to create such an environment. Job satisfaction is a topic of interest to leaders in a variety of fields because of its ability to impact an assortment of work attributes. Previous literature has shown that an employee’s level of job satisfaction can impact worker motivation, absenteeism, commitment, productivity, and even illness (Bozeman, B. & Gaughan, M., 2011; HMRS, 2005; Kelly, 1989; Syptak, Marsland, & Ulmer, 1999). This is of particular interest within the realm of higher education. There has been a growing level of dissatisfaction among college faculty (Levin, 2006), with 41.3% of nationally polled faculty indicating they have considered leaving the field for a different career (Sanderson, Phua, & Herda, 2000). With a better understanding of the factors contributing to satisfaction, or lack thereof, educational leaders can devise more effective strategies to promote recruitment and retention (Johnsrud & Heck, 1994; Seifert & Umbach, 2008; Smart, 1990; Weiler, 1985). Chen, S. H. , Yang, C. C. , Shiau, J.Y. and Wang, H. H. (2006) also note that institutions can only improve quality in teaching and learning if they identify mechanisms that improve faculty job satisfaction and contentment. Faculty job satisfaction studies have been carried out in traditional two-year and fouryear settings (e.g. Kessler, 2007; Levin, 2006; Sanderson, Phua, & Herda, 2000; and Jackson 2000); however, faculty job satisfaction studies within the technical college environment have been largely neglected (Brewer & McMahan-Landers, 2003) . Technical colleges provide a unique setting in which to consider faculty job satisfaction because they are inherently different than other educational settings in which faculty job satisfaction studies have been conducted. Cohen and Brawer (2003) note that technical colleges provide a unique educational work environment because their purpose is to prepare students for employment and provide industry with trained workers. Palmer (1987) also asserts that some view the technical college environment as being innately different than other branches of education for three reasons: an emphasis on workforce development; terminal program offerings that provide services to students that are seen as being less prepared academically than those pursuing baccalaureate degrees; and the social service perspective of providing economic improvements to communities. 28 Hart and Marina: Job Satisfaction in Georgia's Technical College System Published by Digital Commons@Georgia Southern, 2014 In this study, a multidimensional approach was used to assess organizational elements impacting job satisfaction of full-time faculty members within the Technical College System of Georgia (TCSG). The following provides a review of the fundamental constructs discussed within each of Bolman and Deal’s (2003) organizational frameworks. These constructs provide the theoretical foundation upon which this study was developed. Literature Related to Bolman and Deal’s Four Organizational Frameworks Bolman and Deal (2003) have divided organizations into four broad frames: the structural frame, the human resources frame, the political frame, and the symbolic frame. They define an organizational frame to be a set of ideas that enables one to better understand daily occurrences. These frames were chosen for this study to better understand how each facet of the work environment impacts faculty job satisfaction. By identifying major contributors to job satisfaction, organizational leaders may be better able to strengthen those aspects of the work environment to promote morale and limit turnover as well as improve the quality of services provided. A brief overview of each of the four frames is provided below along with representative job satisfaction studies (Zabriskie, Dey, and Riegle 2002; Truell, Price, and Joyner, 1998; Chatman, 1991) discussed within the context of the given frame. The Structural Frame. The structural frame posed by Bolman and Deal (2003) relates to the administrative hierarchy of an organization. They contend that the structural framework of an organization can accommodate institutional goals while allowing for individual differences and have outlined six foundational assumptions of this frame: 1. Organizations exist to achieve established goals and objectives. 2. Organizations increase efficiency and enhance performance through specialization a clear division of labor. 3. Appropriate forms of coordination and control ensure that diverse efforts of individuals and units. 4. Organizations work best when rationality prevails over personal preferences and extraneous influences. 5. Structures must be designed to fit an organization’s circumstances (including its goals, technology, workforce, and environment). 6). Problems and performance gaps arise from structural deficiencies and can be remedied through analysis and restructuring. (p. 45) Zabriskie, Dey, and Riegle (2002) found a supportive environment allowing faculty to focus on teaching without having to divert their available time and energy towards being defensive to be positively correlated with job satisfaction. The Human Resources Frame. The human resources frame considers the relationship between individual and organizational needs. Steers and Porter (1991) define a human need as an internal state of imbalance that causes an individual to pursue a set of actions by which to regain balance. Hoy and Miskel (2005) note that the ultimate objective of an individual’s action is to fulfill a need or otherwise reduce an existing imbalance and it is within the context of needs that human behavior can be explained. Bolman and Deal (2003) note that the alignment between the needs of an employee and the needs of the organization is critical in providing meaningful and satisfying work for the employee and have outlined the following four core assumptions: 29 Georgia Journal of College Student Affairs, Vol. 30 [2014], Iss. 1, Art. 4 https://digitalcommons.georgiasouthern. edu/gcpa/vol30/iss1/4 DOI: 10.20429/gcpa.2014. 300104 1. Organizations exist to serve human needs rather than the reverse. 2. People and organizations need each other. Organizations need ideas, energy, and talent; people need careers, salaries, and opportunities. 3. When the fit between individual and system is poor, one or both will suffer. Individuals are exploited or exploit the organization – or both become victims. 4. A good fit benefits both. Individuals find meaningful and satisfying work, and organizations get the talent and energy they need to succeed (p. 115) In a study of job satisfaction among community college occupational and technical faculty, Truell, Price, and Joyner (1998) found that full-time faculty members were most satisfied with the nature of the work being performed. Waltman, J., Bergom, I. , Hollenshead, C. , Miller, J., and August, L. (2012) found similar outcomes when studying the job satisfaction of non-tenure track faculty. The work of Bozeman and Gaughan (2011) regarding university faculty also led to similar findings, showing that these individuals were satisfied overall, but felt a need for their work to be considered important and appreciated. The Political Frame. The political frame posed by Bolman and Deal (2003) considers the interactions that impact individual and group interests within an organization. Mintzberg (1983) defines politics to be influence stemming from informal individual or group behaviors that are not sanctioned by formal authority and notes that these actions often serve the interests of a particular group at the expense of the organization as a whole. Bolman and Deal (2003) note, however, that politics can be used to benefit an organization and they have outlined five underlying assumptions regarding this frame: 1. Organizations are composed of coalitions of diverse individuals and interest groups. 2. There are enduring differences among coalition members in values, beliefs, information, interests, and perceptions of reality. 3. Important decisions involve allocating scarce resources-who gets what. 4. Scarce resources and enduring differences make conflict central to organizational dynamics and underline power as the most important asset 5. Goals and decisions emerge from bargaining, negotiation, and jockeying for position among competing stakeholders (p. 186). The Symbolic Frame. Bolman and Deal’s (2003) symbolic frame considers how people give meaning to symbols and how such meanings help shape an organization’s culture. They contend that symbols embody culture and culture defines for members of the organization “who they are and how they are to do things” (pg. 243). Chatman (1991) recommends that organizations desiring close employee-organization value relationships spend time developing selection and socialization strategies. Specifically, Chatman (1991) recommends that organizations seek out those individuals that possess values similar to those of the organization at entry and that organizations also develop socialization opportunit