4. Title and Subtitle 5. Report Date 

JOB ATTITUDES OF AIRWAY FACILITIES PERSONNEL Auqust 1977 6. Pertorming Organi zotion Code 

f-;;-~~~--------------------------! 8. Performing Organization Report No. 

7. Author/ s) 

Roger C. Smith and Gary L. Hutto 

9. Performing Or~ani zation Nome f"d Address 

FAA Civil Aeromedica Institute 10. Work Unit No. (TRAIS) 

P. 0. Box 25082 

Oklahoma City, Oklahoma 73125 11. Contract or Grant No. 

r---;--;;--;:-----~--:-:----:-:-;-:-------------------J 13. Type of Report and Period Covered 

12. Sponsoring Agency Name and Address 

Office of Aviation Medicine 

Federal Aviation Administration 

800 Independence Avenue, S. W. 

Washinoton, D.C. 20591 15. Supplementary Notes 

14. Sponsoring Agency Code 

FAA 

Work was performed under Tasks AM-C-75-PSY-52 and AM-C-76-PSY-52. 

16. Abstract 

A total of 2,366 employees of the Airway Facilities (AF) Service responded to 

a detailed questionnaire concerning job satisfaction and such factors as 

salary, shift schedule, workload, and geographic location. In general, AF 

employees reported satisfaction with employment by the AF Service, 

particularly in the areas judged most important by them: salary, job security, 

independence and personal responsibility, and achievement. Dissatisfaction was 

focused on various aspects of working conditions, such as shift rotation, 

management effectiveness, promotion opportunities, and paperwork. Detailed 

analyses of responses as a function of such variables as age, grade level, 

location, and AF program were also presented. The findings were discussed in 

terms of the implications for improving the job-related attitudes of AF 

personnel. 

17. Key Words 

Airway Facilities 

Job Attitudes 

Job Motivation 

Personnel 

Psychology 

19. Security Classif. (of this report) 

Unclassified 

Form DOT F 1700.7 (8-72) 

18. Distribution Statement 

Document is available to the public 

through the National Technical Information 

Service, Springfield, Virginia 22161 

20. Security Classi f. (of this page) 21. No. of Pages 22. Price 

Unclassified 82 

Reproduction of completed poge authorized 
ACKNOWLEDGMENT 

The completion of this study would not have been possible without 

the cooperation of many people, particularly the nearly 2,500 employees 

of the Airway Facilities (AF) Service who completed the questionnaires. 

Excellent support was also provided by personnel at all levels of AF 

management. While it is not possible to list all the individuals who 

made contributions to the study, the authors do wish to express their 

special appreciation to Mr. Thomas Hunt, now of AAF-200, who as chief 

of the Evaluation Staff (AAF-20) provided invaluable assistance 

throughout the conduct of this study. The authors also gratefully 

acknowledge the dedicated efforts of Ms. Cindy Mayes in the preparation 

of this manuscript for publication. 
INTRODUCTION 

PART ONE. OVERVIEW 

I. Finding 

A. Likes and Dislikes About AF Work 

B. Job Satisfaction 

C. Other Important Work Factors 

D. Employee Characteristics 

II. Conclusions 

PART TWO. MAJOR FINDINGS 

I. Method 

A. Subjects 

B. Survey Questionnaires 

C. Procedure 

II. Results and Discussion 

Page 

1 

1 

1 

1 

2 

2 

3 

4 

5 

5 

5 

5 

5 

7 

A. Rate of Return 7 

B. Likes and Dislikes of AF Work 7 

C. Job Satisfaction 15 

D. Attitudes Toward Certain Important Work Factors 22 

III. Conclusions 32 

PART THREE. AF EMPLOYEE CHARACTERISTICS 33 

I. Age 34 

II. Years of Service 38 

III. Grade Structure 40 

IV. Type of Employment 47 

V. Type of Facility 58 

REFERENCES 67 

APPENDIX A AF Employee Attitude Survey 68 

APPENDIX B Description of Herzberg Motivator-Hygiene Factors 82 
JOA ATTITUDES OF AIRWAY FACILITIES PERSONNEL 

Introduction. 

One foundation of effective managerial and personnel programs is an 

understanding of the attitudes, needs, and motivations of employees. To 

date, assessment of these factors within the FAA work force has been limited 

to air traffic controllers (9,10) and to selected segments of the Airway 

Facilities (AF) Service (1,2,3,4,5). It is the purpose of this study to 

provide a comprehensive, agencywide analysis of the work-related attitudes 

and motivational factors present in the AF Service. This study provides (i) 

a more complete description of the work attitudes of the employees in all 

facets of AF work than was previously available, ( ii) an agencywide benchmark 

against which future analyses of attitudes of AF personnel may be compared, 

(iii) a consideration of several aspects of work, such as workload and 

geographic location, that have not previously been evaluated in studies of 

FAA personnel, and (iv) a comparison of the attitudes and motivations of AF 

personnel with those of air traffic controllers. 

This report is presented in three parts. The first part provides a short 

overview of the entire study. The second part presents in detail the methods 

employed, principal findings, and major conclusions drawn from the findings. 

The third part of the report contains the results of analyses conducted on 

each of the many employee characteristics (e.g., age, specialty) considered 

in this study. The reader seeking a basic understanding of AF employees will 

want to focus on Parts One and Two of the report. Those who have an interest 

in the attitudes of specific segments of the AF work force will also want to 

refer to the relevant portions of Part Three. 

PART ONE. Overview 

To determine the attitudes of AF personnel toward work in the AF system, 

we visited approximately 200 facilities and contacted another 200 by mail. 

Of 4,800 detailed questionnaires distributed, 2,366 were returned. The 

distribution of returns was generally proportional to the distribution of AF 

employees in the various regions, programs, specialties, and facilities. 

I. Findings. 

A. Likes and Dislikes About AF Work. The overall pattern of likes and 

dislikes about AF work was much the same as the pattern found in surveys of 

accountants, assembly line workers, scientists, janitors, and managers (7). 

AF employees indicated they liked those aspects of their work associated with 

the job tasks themselves, personal growth, and personal competence. Dislikes 

focused on such things as working conditions, administrative policy, 

1 
pyy j

do employees in other types of settings. 

In terms of specifics, three areas were identified as major sources of 

positive feelings about AF work. These were (i) the nature of the work 

itself, particularly the technical character of the work and the challenge 

inherent in such work, (ii) the AF career including job security and 

retirement considerations, and (iii) the feeling of independence, personal 

responsibility, and freedom to work on one's own without continual 

supervision. 

The major sources of complaint were quite specific as well. Management 

and management policies received a considerable share of the negative comments

This was also true of shift-rotation requirements. Working the midnight (mid) 

shift (2400-0800) is particularly objectionable. Paperwork was also a focus 

of many complaints, as was the Merit Promotion Plan and also the status of AF 

personnel within the FAA, particularly in comparison to employees of the Air 

Traffic Service. 

B. Job Satisfaction. On the whole, AF employees expressed satisfaction 

with their work situations. More than 86 percent indicated they were 

satisfied or very satisfied with being employed in the AF Service, and 90 

percent reported satisfaction with their choice of occupation. These 

percentages are 6 to 10 points higher than those typically obtained in other 

types of work settings (8). 

At least three-fourths of the AF personnel indicated good or better 

satisfaction on the four factors they rated most important to job 

satisfaction: salary, job security, independence and personal responsibility, 

and achievement on the job. Generally, those factors that were rated low in 

adequacy of satisfaction were also rated low in relative importance 

(management effectiveness and recognition). The exception was the factor of 

promotion opportunities. This factor was rated as being of intermediate 

importance to satisfaction but was judged to provide adequate satisfaction by 

only 23 percent of the respondents. This rating indicates the promotion 

opportunity situation is a source of some frustration to the AF workforce. 

C. Other Important Work Factors. Detailed inquiry was made about 

several important work factors. As noted above, shift work was a major area 

of discontent. However, even though the various shift-rotation schedules now 

employed were disliked by most of the respondents, there was no clear 

consensus as to the most desirable shift-rotation pattern. Only a transition 

to straight day shifts was endorsed by a substantial proportion of the AF 

employees. 

2 
y pppgy pyg

current salaries. 

The AF resident training program at the Academy got very high ratings, as 

85 percent of the AF employees responding indicated this training was 

adequate or better. There were many specific comments on the excellence of 

the courses. Complaints concerning Academy training were usually directed at 

the administration of travel rather than the quality of training. 

The information obtained on workload indicated that on the average, 

almost half (45 percent) of all workdays were rated moderate in workload, 33 

percent were rated heavy workload days, and 22 percent were judged to have 

light workloads. In contrast, preferred workloads would be 62 percent 

moderate, 22 percent heavy, and 16 percent light. In other words, on the 

average, AF employees experience more light and more heavy workdays than they 

prefer. However, if the choice were to be made ·between a predominance of 

light or heavy workload days, the preference would be for heavy workloads. 

Most (80 percent) of the respondents indicated satisfaction with their 

geographic location. While a substantial proportion (43 percent) indicated 

a desire to move to another location, about half these employees only wanted 

to move about within the same region. The desire to move was particularly 

prevalent among younger employees and personnel at regional offices. 

o. Employee Characteristics. The AF workforce is a complex service 

whose employees have highly diverse characteristics. For this reason, many 

analyses were conducted comparing the attitudes of various groups of AF 

employees. 

The related characteristics of age, years of service, and grade level 

yielded similar patterns of attitudes. As these increase, the attitudes 

toward the AF work situation tend to become more positive. The major 

exception relates to promotion opportunities, where increasing age and grade 

level result in decreased promotion opportunities. 

There were few differences between Wage Grade (WG) and General Schedule 

(GS) personnel. The only major difference concerned salary, as more GS than 

WG employees felt their salaries to be adequate. The problem seemed related 

more to comparative standing than the actual amount received, as WG personnel 

felt that virtually all other FAA employees receive more equitable salary 

treatment than they. Except for this one area, WG employees seem reasonably 

content; they show little inclination toward mobility and have more positive 

feelings toward management than do GS employees. 

The Facilities and Equipment (F&E), Maintenance, and other AF employees 

showed more similarities than differences in attitudes, although F&E 

personnel were somewhat more critical of their work situation than was the 

3 
pp)

reported by those involved in plans and programing, while the least favorable 

came from the environmental support group; however, the differences were not 

great. 

Technicians and engineers held comparable attitudes toward AF work and 

were more favorably disposed toward their work situations than were other 

specialists in the AF system. The least satisfied of all AF employees were 

the draftsmen, who feel substantially less positive about their salary, 

status, and degree of independence than do most other AF employees. 

The analyses also considered the diiferent types of facilities within the 

AF system. The individuals at smaller facilities had the most positive outlook 

on their work, followed by AF employees at Air Route Traffic Control Centers, 

and then by those at regional offices and level III and IV towers. These 

differences may have been due in part to the greater degree of independence 

afforded workers at smaller facilities and the lack of shift rotations in 

those locations. 

II. Conclusions. 

On the basis of this sizeable cross section of the AF workforce, it can be 

concluded that, by and large, AF employees view their work situations in 

positive terms, particularly in those areas judged to have the greatest 

importance to them. 

The areas of discontent were not particularly surpr1s1ng. Management, a 

major focus of complaints in most settings (7), was also a principal 

recipient of criticism in this study. This finding underlines the need for 

continual upgrading of managerial/supervisory performance through improved 

selection and through training programs such as the Management Training 

School (MTS). 

This survey also demonstrated that promotion and career opportunities are 

a significant problem for the AF Service. Clarification of the opportunities 

available and the procedures by which an employee can become ready for these 

opportunities, such as are detailed in the new Airway Facilities Career 

Planning Program (6), should be helpful in alleviating some aspects of this 

problem. 

For those working rotating shifts, the selection of an appropriate shift 

schedule is a primary concern. As there is now no clear consensus among AF 

personnel as to the most appropriate schedule, it appears that further investigation concerning the effects of various schedules on employee satisfaction, 

efficiency, physical well-being, and general work adjustment would be 

appropriate. 

4 
The material presented in this part of the report primarily concerns 

those findings that apply to the employees of the AF Service as a whole. 

Discussion of differences among various segments of the AF work force are 

presented only when the differences are substantive. A comprehensive 

documentation of all the statistically significant findings derived from 

comparisons of the various groups of AF personnel is presented in Part Three. 

I. Method. 

A. Subjects. A total of 2,366 nonsupervisory AF personnel responded 

to the survey. These respondents were well distributed across all major 

elements of the AF Service (Table 1). 

B. Survey Questionnaires. The questionnaire used in this survey 

(Appendix A) had three major divisions. First, AF employees were asked to 

indicate, in their own words, what they liked best and least about AF work 

and to rate their like or dislike of specific aspects of AF work. The 

second section covered various aspects of job satisfaction. The third 

section consisted of evaluative ratings of many specific factors associated 

with work in the AF Service, including management, supervision, training and 

development, the Merit Promotion Plan (MPP), equal employment opportunity 

(EEO), salary, work schedule, facility location, workload, and employeemanagement relations. 

C. Procedure. The survey was conducted during June, July, and August 

of 1975. Two methods of distribution were employed: on-site and mailout. 

On-site distribution was undertaken by the authors at approximately 

200 individual AF facilities of all sizes and types in locations that varied 

from urban (e.g., Seattle-Tacoma airport) to remote (e.g., Hoquiam VORTAC, 

Washington). During the visits to each facility, the authors explained the 

survey to the employees and answered questions. The questionnaires, along 

with written instructions, were then left with the personnel to complete 

on their own. Questionnaires normally were supplied only to those persons on 

duty at the time of the visit, although on several occasions questionnaires 

were left for specific individuals not present for the briefing. Mail 

distribution of questionnaires was used to reach AF employees in locations 

not readily accessible from major metropolitan areas. Each facility 

receiving mailed questionnaires was also supplied a li~t of individuals 

selected to receive questionnaires. The names were drawn at random from the 

entire complement at each facility to insure unbiased distribution of the 

survey forms. No record of these names was kept nor were names of any 

respondents asked for or recorded, as participation in the survey was 

entirely anonymous and voluntary. All questionnaires, from both the on-site 

and the mail distributions, were returned by mail directly to the authors. 

5 
Number of Participants 

Grade Structure 

Wage Board 

WG-3/9 

WG-10 

WG-11 

WG-12 

General Schedule 

GS-3/8 

GS-9 

GS-11 

GS-12 

GS-13/14 

Occupation 

Engineer 

Technicians 

Others 

Program 

Facilities and Equipment 

Maintenance 

Other 

Specialty 

Navaids/Radar/Communications 

Automation 

Environmental Support 

Plans and Programing 

Other 

Type of Facility 

Regional Office 

Major Tower (Level III/IV) 

ARTCC 

Small Facility 

Region 

Age 

Southern 

Great Lakes 

Southwest 

Eastern 

Western 

Rocky Mountain 

Northwest 

Central 

New England 

Alaskan 

Pacific 

Average 

Range 

Years of Service 

Average 

Range 

12 

20 

47 

57 

88 

136 

775 

932 

189 

2,366 

2,178 

188 

2,063 

58 

167 

1,931 

74 

1,755 

242 

189 

72 

54 

224 

587 

375 

1,034 

415 

377 

317 

312 

264 

189 

151 

135 

88 

62 

20 

41.9 years (S.D. 

20 to 73 years 

12.1 years (S.D. 

1 to 35 years 

8.2 years) 0 

7.1 years) 

a Totals under each heading will not add to 2,366, since not every respondent supplied 

complete demographic information. 

b The range of values included by the standard deviation (S.D.) includes 66 percent of 

the respondents; e.g., 66 percent of the participants fell between the ages of 33.7 and 

50.1 years. 

6 
A. Rate of Return. Of the 4,800 questionnaires distributed, 2,366 were 

returned. This return rate of 49.3 percent is, however, a somewhat 

conservative estimate of the true rate because it is known that some 

questionnaires sent by mail did not reach the intended recipients for a 

variety of reasons. In any event, this rate is consistent with those for 

surveys previously conducted with the AF work force (1,2,3,4,5), which have 

produced an average return rate of 52 percent. 

B. Likes and Dislikes in AF Work. The data from this section of the 

survey consisted of open-ended statements made concerning likes and dislikes 

about AF work as well as likes-dislikes ratings of specific aspects of 

AF work. 

l. Open-ended questions. Two processes were employed to analyze these 

data. First, the statements were classified according to the Herzberg 

Motivator-Hygiene model of job satisfaction (7). This system was used to 

consider the relationship of the attitudes of AF employees to those of many 

other occupational groups previously subjected to analysis by the Herzberg 

approach. The second analysis was designed to sort the statements into 

categories of specific relevance to the AF system within the FAA. 

a. Herzberg Motivator-Hygiene analyses. The Herzberg analysis 

consisted of sorting each individual statement into one of the 16 categories 

identified by Herzberg (described in Appendix B) as relevant to job satisfaction. The factors were derived from research by Herzberg and others on 

the job attitudes of various occupational groups (e.g., engineers, laborers, 

supervisors) (7). Six of the factors, Work Itself, Responsibility, 

Possibilit~ for Growth, Advancement, Recognition, and Achievement, are 

designated "motivators" and typically account for most aspects of job satisfaction. The sources of dissatisfaction are usually associated with 

10 hygiene factors: Company Policy and Administration (Management), Working 

Conditions,, Supervision, Salary, Status, Job Security, Factors in Personal 

Life, and Interpersonal Relations With Peers, Supervisors, and Subordinates. 

These hygiene factors generally relate to the work circumstances of employees, 

while the motivators generally refer to the individual's actions and feelings 

at work. According to the Herzberg theory, the internalized, or motivator, 

factors have the greatest potential for providing job satisfaction, while 

hygiene factors have relatively little impact on satisfaction. Dissatisfaction, however, arises from defects in the hygiene aspects of work. For 

example, job satisfaction may be derived from the pride and sense of 

fulfillment (a motivator) an AF employee experiences in maintaining a piece 

of equipment for long periods of time with no outages. The employee is 

likely to feel dissatisfaction when inadequacies exist in the form of 

excessive heat or noise, supply problems, or management interference (all 

hygiene aspects). According to Herzberg, the alleviation of these hygiene 

7 
will not alleviate dissatisfaction when needs associated with hygiene factors 

remain unfulfilled. An effective program will incorporate a balance between 

these considerations so that all attempts to enhance employee motivation and 

morale are not directed exclusively to either the hygiene or motivator 

factors. 

The sorting of statements into the 16 Herzberg classifications was 

accomplished by three raters, two of whom were research assistants trained 

by the first author. The two raters classified independently each of the 

statements made by the respondents. After completion of the ratings, the 

classifications were compared and the first author served as the third rater 

to resolve disagreements in ratings. Of the 17,899 statements rated, the 

two primary raters agreed on 81 percent of the classifications, a percentage 

of agreement that is very close to the agreement of raters in previous 

work ( 10). · 

As motivator-hygiene theory predicts, the motivators account for a clear 

majority (65 percent) of the statements indicating the best liked aspects of 

AF work in general (Figure 1). Two motivator factors, Work Itself (42 percent

and Responsibility (10 percent), accounted for more than half the likes 

statements. The one other factor to contribute substantially to employee 

likes about AF work was the hygiene factor of Working Conditions, which at 

17 percent of the responses was the second most frequent type of response. 

CATEGORY 

WORK ITSELF 

RESPONSIBILITY 

POSSIBILITY OF GROWTH 

ACHIEVEMENT 

ADVANCEMENT 

RECOGNITION 

WORKING CONDITIONS 

COMPANY POLICY AND 

ADMINISTRATION 

SALARY 

INTERPERSONAL RELATIONS 

SUPERVISION- TECHNICAL 

OTHER 

MOTIVATOR FACTORS 

HYGIENE FACTORS 

DISLIKES LIKES 

IN GENERAL IN GENERAL 

60% 40% 20% 0 20% 40% 60% 80% 

(M) 41.6 

(M) 10.2 

(M) 

(M) 

(M) 

(M) 

(H) 30.7 16.8 

(H) 24.6 

(H) 

(H) 

(H) 

(H) 

90% 60% 30% 0 30% 60'fo 90% 

11~1 "·' "·' 65.5 ~ 

FIGURE 1. Percentage of likes and dislikes statements about AF work 

in general classified in each Herzberg factor. 

8 
Conditions (31 percent) and Management (25 percent) and the motivator factor 

of Work Itself (22 percent) contained the largest percentages of responses. 

Most of the negative statements in the Work Itself category concerned dislike 

of paperwork. 

Overall, the distribution of statements about work in general made by 

AF technicians was similar to that found for air traffic control (ATC) 

personnel. AF personnel mentioned Workin Conditions, Responsibility, and 

Salary significantly (£ < .05 by chi square more often in listing their 

likes about work than did air traffic controllers. The reverse was true for 

the factor of Work Itself, even though it was the most frequently cited 

factor for both groups. For dislikes, the two groups differed significantly 

on the two factors of Management, which was cited less often by AF personnel, 

and Work Itself, which was cited less often by air traffic controllers. 

In examining the responses directed toward AF work at one's own facility, 

it appears that these statements focused more specifically on hygiene factors 

(Figure 2) than was the case for the statements about AF work in general. 

Hygiene factors accounted for more than half (56 percent) the likes and 

nearly three-fourths (72 percent) of the dislikes responses in this part of 

the survey. The hygiene factors of Working Conditions (31 percent), 

Interpersonal Factors (a combination of the three interpersonal factors 

CATEGORY 

WORK ITSELF 

RESPONSIBILITY 

ACHIEVEMENT 

POSSIBILITY OF GROWTH 

RECOGNITION 

ADVANCEMENT 

WORKING CONDITIONS 

COMPANY POLICY AND 

ADMINISTRATION 

SUPERVISION- TECHNICAL 

INTERPERSONAL RELATIONS 

SALARY 

OTHER 

MOTIVATOR FACTORS 

HYGIENE FACTORS 

DISLIKES LIKES 

AT FACILITY AT FACILITY 

so•4 40"4 zo•.t. o 20"4 40% so•4 so% 

(M) 18.2 26.9 

(M) 11.0 

(M) 

(M) 

(M) 

(M) 

(H) 39.7 31.3 

(H) 19.6 

(H) 

(H) 13.9 

(H) 1.3 2.1 

(H) 0.6 1.4 

90'4 60'4 30'4 0 30'4 60'4 90'4 

II 28.3 =II 44.3 

71.8 I~ 55.8 

FIGURE 2. Percentages of likes and dislikes statements about work 

at AF facilities classified in each Herzberg factor. 

9 
(p) g 

at the facility. On the dislikes side, the hygiene factors of Working 

Conditions (40 percent) and Management (20 percent) and the motivator factor 

of Work Itself (18 percent) were the categories that accounted for most of 

the statements. 

The relatively low number of motivator-type statements in this part of 

the open-ended questionnaire was probably due to the explicit focus on the 

facility, which in and of itself would generally fall under the hygiene 

factor of Working Conditions. It is perhaps noteworthy that the interpersonal 

aspects of work at the facility are generally viewed quite positively by AF 

employees. They tend to like those with whom they work. 

b. The FAA factors. To establish factors specific to the FAA, the 

raters evaluated each statement as to its specific content. All statements 

with the same specific content (e.g., like to work on radar equipment) were 

then tabulated and grouped into larger classifications (e.g., working on 

electronic equipment) as conceptually appropriate. These classifications 

were then arranged under major themes. In general, these major themes 

parallel the Herzberg factors and serve to verify the validity of the 

Herzberg approach to FAA data. These themes also serve to organize the more 

detailed findings considered below. 

Looking at the individual themes (Table 2), one can see that a number of 

different aspects of Work Itself were frequently cited, both in general and 

at the facility, as sources of satisfaction. Specific tasks, variety and 

diversity, challenge, troubleshooting, and problem solving were all frequently 

mentioned as likes and rarely as dislikes. Three additional areas of the 

Work Itself theme were mentioned mostly as dislikes: paperwork and 

administration (far and away the most frequent source of complaint in this 

area), routine or repetitive work, and what respondents considered menial 

tasks, such as janitoring. 

Under the Working Conditions theme, the environment for work 

(e.g., cleanliness, temperature control, lighting, spaciousness) brought many 

comments about conditions in general and at the specific facility. There 

were also many general references to appreciation of unelaborated "working 

conditions." The principal source of dislikes was rotating shifts (even 

more so than is apparent, as only about 35 percent of the respondents work 

rotating shift schedules). The related topic of "callbacks" (a call to an 

off-duty technician after hours to return to duty to repair some malfunction) 

also was a frequently cited negative working condition. Lack of support in 

terms of technical assistance, supply availability, and manpower was 

frequently mentioned. For the specific facility, the single most often 

mentioned "like" was the location of the facility; the most mentioned 

complaint was the work environment. 

10 
AF Work in General AF Work at Facilit;r 

Category Likes Dislikes Likes Dislikes 

Work Itself 

The Work 177 28 104 39 

Job Challenge 328 13 122 10 

Troubleshooting 251 6 144 8 

Diversity 474 42 277 39 

Electronics Work 102 3 45 

Routine Work 13 146 8 92 

Paperwork/Administration 23 441 8 211 

Janitorial/Menial Work ll9 124 

Miscellaneous Specific 597 184 345 172 

tasks (e.g., planning, 

training, etc.) 

Working Conditions 

General 237 220 189 161 

Workload 82 89 108 80 

Working Hours 98 51 121 47 

Rotating Shifts/Mid.Shifts 12 292 15 218 

Callbacks 162 88 

Locations (geographic, 48 38 291 ll9 

rural/urban) 

Work Environment 132 78 257 221 

(Buildings, workspace) 

Support (Technical, supply, 22 175 33 203 

manpower, administration) 

Personal Factors 

Responsibility 125 21 88 25 

Independence 375 26 343 53 

Satisfaction From Work 176 17 88 11 

Recognition 42 119 38 93 

Importance of Work 163 35 

Human Relations 

General 61 85 121 75 

Peers 330 80 587 137 

Management 

Management 41 616 87 471 

Immediate Supervision 38 134 206 241 

Personnel Policies 

General 30 150 3 52 

Advancement 106 255 20 171 

Benefits 

Salary 325 123 74 71 

Security 141 8 20 4 

Miscellaneous 83 5 12 1 

Possibility of Growth 293 187 101 113 

AF Equipment 97 251 125 296 

Miscellaneous 97 31 45 21 

11 
of positive statements but few of the negative. Respondents placed 

particular emphasis on the independence they felt in their work settings. 

The opportunity to work on their own with little interference from 

supervisors or managers was a very highly regarded aspect of AF work. 

Management was usually mentioned in a critical fashion; however, 

immediate supervision at the facility was mentioned almost as often as a 

positive factor as it was a negative factor. In other words, those engaged 

in direct supervision of AF employees were seen as being a positive feature 

in the work setting almost as often as not. 

Under Human Relations, it was apparent, as in the Herzberg analysis of 

facility likes and dislikes, that AF employees like and respect the people 

with whom they work each day. 

Personnel Policies were more often than not a source of irritation, 

particularly with respect to advancement opportunities. Tangible working 

Benefits, on the other hand, were usually a source of satisfaction, as was 

the Possibility for Growth in the job. 

In summing up the findings for the factors developed specifically for 

these AF employees, it is clear that they match the Herzberg categories in 

most respects. In addition, they provide a degree of added detail that makes 

the exact nature of the likes and dislikes clearer. 

2. Likes-dislikes ratings. The analyses of the open-ended statements 

provide an indication of the factors that contribute most to whether or not 

AF personnel like their work. To determine how much they like or dislike 

specific features of their work, we found it necessary to have the respondents 

rate these features on a "like-dislike" scale. Thirty-two characteristics of 

AF work were rated on a five-point scale with end points of "like very much" 

and "dislike very much" (Appendix A). The average ratings for all but eight 

factors fell to the "like" side of the scale (Table 3). Most aspects of the 

work itself (e.g., working with equipment, challenge, variety) and the 

AF career (e.g., retirement benefits, working in Civil Service, the career 

itself) were highly regarded. The items that fell on the "dislike" side 

of the scale were usually concerned with management or working conditions, 

particularly shift schedules. The lowest rating of all was for working the 

mid shift. 

The ratings of superv~s~on and management generally followed a 

progression typical of these kinds of ratings. The more immediate the 

contact, the more positive the rating (10). Thus, the quality of immediate 

supervision was liked by more than 50 percent of the respondents. Quality 

of local management, while not rated as high as that of immediate supervision, 

12 
Af Af ATCc ATC 

Scale a Average • Average • Rating liking Rating Liking 

Working With Equip~~~ent 1.2 90.4 

Retire~~~ent Benef'i ts 1.2 89.1 o.s 59.6 Associating With Coworkers 1.2 69.1 1.3 91.2 Challenge of Work 1.2 86.6 1.7 97.5 Service to Aviation 1.1 64,2 1.4 90.2 AF Career 1.1 64.0 1.5 90.8 Working in Civil Service 1.1 81.3 0.6 53.8 Working in Avhtion 1.1 80.6 1.7 97.4 IF Job Tasks 1.0 79.2 1.5 91+.8 Work Variety 1.0 78.8 1.4 89.7 Working Dayshifts (0800-1600) 1.0 78.5 0.7 65.2 Difficulty of Work 0.9 75.6 1.3 83.8 Salary 0.8 72,9 0.9 81.9 Moderate Workloads 0.8 70.8 0.9 82.6. Physical Work EnvirOOMent 0.6 64.8 0.3 48.9 Respect and Prestige 0.6 58.9 1.4 85.8 NUIIItler of Trained Coworkers o.s 59.6 0.0 38.0 Qual! ty of s....>ervision 0.4 56.7 -0.1 33.2 General Workload 0.4 53.4 0.8 65.7 Heavy Workloads 0.4 50.6 0.8 67.2 Established Work Procedures 0.3 45.0 0.3 42.3 Test EquipMent 0.1 45.5 Qual! ty of local Manage.ent 0.1 41.7 -0.2 27.6 Working With Controllers 0.1 35.5 Miscellaneous Duties o.o 31.0 -0.1 29.3 PrOMOtion Opportunities -0.1 38.4 -0.1 39.3 Working Evening Shifts ( 1600-2400) -0.1 36.3 0.3 >0.3 light Workloads -0.1 23.5 -0.3 20.9 National Managen~ent -0.1 19.9 -0.6 ll.5 Regional ManageMent -0.2 23.5 -0,4 15.0 Rotating Shifts -0.6 21.7 0.2 53.4 Working Mid Shifts (2400-0800) -1.1 9.2 -0.8 16.0 

a For coq:~lete scale titlf:s, see Appendix I. 

b The possible rating scale values were "like \lery much" (+2), "like" (+1), "neither 

like or dislike" (O.O), "dislike" (-1), and "dislike very much" (-2). An average 

rating of 1.2 means the average rating fell between the "like very IIIUCh" and "like" 

points on the scale but closer to the "like" point. 

c Values for the air traffic controllers were obtained from an earlier study of controller 

attitudes. Blank spaces indicate no coq:~arable controller scale. 

was still on the "like" side of the scale. The average ratings for nationalJ 

and regional management were slightly on the "dislike" side. The differences 

between the distributions of the ratings for each of the levels of managemen 

were all significant (£ < .001 by chi square). With the exception of the 

difference between the regional and national levels of management, these 

findings are entirely consistent with studies of social psychology (12) that 

show increased distance in a social sense (a function of physical, cultural, 

social, and psychological factors) is associated with increased incidence of 

negative or hostile attitudes between individuals or groups. The findings 

were not entirely consistent with this trend at the national and regional 

levels, however. As expected, respondents gave fewer "like" and more 

"dislike" ratings to regional management than to local management. At the 

national level, more than half the respondents indicated neutrality of 

feeling while the remainder of the ratings were distributed such that there 

were fewer responses for both the "like" and "dislike" sides of the scale 

compared to the other levels of management. This suggests that respondents 

see management at the national level as having relatively less impact, either 

bad or good, on their immediate work situations, particularly when compared 

to regional or local management. 

The tendency of employees to feel increasingly negative toward more 

distant levels of management is almost certain to be mirrored in management's 

13 
a function of distance and inaccessibility, they should be influenced by 

programs to encourage management-employee contact at all levels of the 

AF system. The proverbial admonishment to regional and national headquarters 

personnel to get out in the field and talk with personnel directly is most 

appropriate. Establishing procedures that encourage two-way communication 

between employees and all levels of management should also be helpful. 

The ratings for workload are interesting in that moderate and heavy 

workloads were more often rated as "liked" than "disliked," while the reverse 

was true for ratings of light workloads. These differences were highly 

significantly (£ < .001) and suggest that slack time is a relatively onerous 

state of affairs to AF personnel. 

As noted earlier, detailed analyses of the effects of such employee 

characteristics as age, occupation, and location are presented in Part Three 

of this report. Only major trends influencing the ratings are discussed in 

this part. In this respect, the findings for the likes-dislikes ratings were 

generally consistent across the characteristics considered. The overall means 

for these 32 rating scales tended to increase in the positive direction as a 

function of age, moving progressively from an average of +0.8 at age 29 and 

below to an average of +1.2 at age 60 and above. There was also a similar 

trend for GS grades at the GS-9 level and higher. Ratings for those from 

GS-4 through GS-8 were mixed. 

The most notable effects for type and levels of grade were found for 

salary. GS employees liked their salaries better than WG employees liked 

theirs; within the GS group those persons at or above the grade of GS-7 gave 

higher ratings than those below that grade. Correlated with this finding 

was a tendency for the degree of liking of salary to increase with age and 

years of service. Engineers and technicians felt more positive toward their 

salaries than did those in other occupations (e.g., draftsmen, computer 

personnel). Among the specialties (e.g., radar, communications), the 

environmental support personnel gave comparatively low ratings on this item, 

as slightly less than half (45 percent) these employees, as compared to 

73 percent of the employees in other AF specialties, indicated they liked 

their salaries. None of these differences should be too surprising, because 

in each case they do correlate with the relative amounts of money received 

by these employee groups. Perhaps most surprising was that WG levels were 

not associated with differences in ratings on this item. 

Ratings of promotion opportunities became less positive as age, years 

of service, and GS grade increased--again, a not surprising finding in view 

of the continually decreasing promotion opportunities available to 

individuals as they age and move up the present AF career ladder. 

14 
of age, the percentage of individuals who like working mid shifts drops from 

15 percent to 8 percent. The same break is true for years of experience 

after 4 years of AF service. 

In keeping with the previously noted hypothesis that ratings of 

management become increasingly negative as managerial-employee distance 

increases, there was a significant difference between the ratings of management at regional and national levels by field facilities and those made by 

regional office personnel. The regional office employees, having more 

contact with both regional and national management, gave these levels of 

management higher ratings than did employees in field facilities. 

Twenty-eight items used in this survey of AF employees had also been 

presented to air traffic controllers in an earlier study (10). Overall, the 

air traffic controllers were somewhat more extreme in their ratings than were 

AF employees; the highest rated items were rated higher and the lowest rated 

items were rated lower by controllers than by the AF respondents (with the 

exception of mid shifts). On almost every individual item (Table 3), the 

AF employees and the controllers differed significantly. Only the ratings 

of "Promotion Opportunities" and "Association with Coworkers" did not differ. 

The ratings of AF personnel were higher on 12 scales, and the ratings of 

controllers were higher on 14 scales. In comparison to ratings by air 

traffic controllers, the AF ratings were higher on all four scales relating 

to supervision and management and were particularly high on working for 

Civil Service. Controller ratings, on the other hand, were usually higher 

on various aspects of the work itself (variety, challenge, difficulty, etc.), 

shift rotation, and workload. With respect to shift rotation, it should be 

noted that the average age of the AF employees was 7 years greater than that 

of the air traffic controller sample. 

f C. Job Satisfaction. 

· l. An indirect measure. Before proceeding to the more direct measures 

of job satisfaction contained in this survey, let us examine the indications 

of relative satisfaction available from the open-ended portion of the questionnaire. Although each respondent was asked to provide three likes and 

three dislikes statements to the general section and again to the facility 

section of the open-ended questionnaire, it is common for the replies to 

include less than the full number of requested statements. In the 1968 

study (9) of Terminal area air traffic controllers, it was found that fewer 

statements were made about what they liked about their work than what they 

disliked about it; the percentages were 49.8 percent "likes" and 50.2 percent 

"dfslikes" statements, a small but significant difference. In 1972, the 

second survey (10) of air traffic controllers was conducted and the percentage 

of "likes" statements rose to 53.2 percent for Terminal area controllers 

15 
percentage of likes statements was significant and probably indicated some 

improvement in morale. Although there are no previous data on AF employees 

against which to compare the present sample, it is notable that the "likes" 

statements accounted for 52.5 percent of all the responses made in this survey. 

The value is obviously very close to the percentage obtained from controllers 

in 1972 and again shows the predominance of likes to dislikes in AF work. 

2. Rating scales. Each participant was asked to rate the four aspects 

of job satisfaction--employment in AF, present position in AF, occupational 

choice, and working conditions--on five-point scales with end points of "very 

satisfied" and "very dissatisfied." The highest ratings were given to choice 

of occupation, as 90 percent of the respondents indicated they were "satisfied" or "very satisfied" with their occupation (Table 4). This figure is 

nearly the equivalent of the 91 percent obtained from controllers in 1972 

when asked about their satisfaction in the choice of air traffic control as 

an occupation. Only 12 of the 2,366 AF respondents indicated that they were 

"very dissatisfied" with their occupational choices. In comparison to other 

occupations and professions, the value of 90 percent for AF employees is 

quite high, as typical values in industrial-organizational settings fall at 

the 80-percent level (11). 

The percentage of respondents indicating satisfaction with being 

employed in the AF system was 86 percent. On this scale, there were 37 

responses in the "very dissatisfied" category, still a very small proportion of 

the total sample of employees. 

Satisfaction with working conditions was not as great as for the previous 

factors, although 75 percent of the statements indicated some degree of satisfaction. The actual number of "very dissatisfied" respondents was still 

relatively small at 68. 

TABLE 4. Ratings of Job Satisfaction by AF Personnel 

Rating 

'll 

Item Very Very Average Indicating 

Satisfied Satisfied Indl fferent Dissatisfied Dissatis fled Rating Satisfied 

(l)a (2) (3) (4) (5) 

Satisfaction 

Wl th Occupation 975 1,066 132 85 12 1.7 90.0 

Satisfaction With 

Working in AF 851 1,129 170 104 37 1.8 86.4 

Satisfaction With 

Working Conditions 371 1,343 260 235 68 2.2 75.3 

Sa tis faction With 

Present Position in AF 379 1,205 256 363 95 2.4 68.9 

a Numbers in parentheses in this and following tables refer to assigned values for each point on rating scale that are used in determining average rating. 

16 
p, 

of 95 respondents gave ratings of "very dissatisfied." 

Ratings of these aspects of job satisfaction varied to some degree as a 

function of employee characteristics, as will be described in Part Three. 

However, for the most part, these were variations around the general trends 

discussed above and did not indicate any major discrepancies between employee 

groups on those measures of job satisfaction considered above. 

3. Rankings of importance. It is one thing to ask individuals to tell 

in their own words what they like or don't like about their work or what they 

find satisfying or dissatisfying about their work; it is another to have the 

same personnel rank selected factors according to the relative importance of 

each factor to the individual's job satisfaction. In the first case, one 

determines the major sources of gratification or dissatisfaction as experienc

by the employee. The second approach establishes the employee's personal 

priorities for job satisfaction, which may be quite different from the areas 

in which satisfaction is obtained in working. 

The 12 factors selected for ranking represent a composite of factors use

in previous AF surveys (1,2,3,4,5) and several factors thought to be importan

by motivational theorists (7). Each respondent was asked to rank the factors 

from 1 (most important) to 12 (least important). The rankings of these facto

resulted in five groups (Table 5). The first, or highest, rated group includ

the four factors of salary, job security, freedom and responsibility, and job 

achievement (success at job, solving problems, seeing results of work). The 

TABLE 5. Rankings of Importance of Selected Work Factors 

Average Ranka 

% Ranking 

Factor First in 

of Importance Importance 

Salary 4.3 12.9 

Job Security 4.5 25.6 

Responsibility for Own Work 4.5 12.7 

Job Achievement 4.6 15.5 

Possibility of Growth 5.2 14.8 

Working Conditions 6.1 5.3 

Supervision 6.4 4.3 

Promotion Opportunity 6.5 4.3 

Work Itself 6.8 7.2 

Management 8.0 1.7 

Recognition From Coworkers 8.9 0.4 

Recognition From Outside 10.7 0.1 

a Possible range of ranks is 1 to 12. 

17 
any of the other factors. 

The next "group" consisted of only the one factor of possibility of 

growth. Although the average rank for this factor was substantially lower 

than the ranks of the four factors forming the first grouping, fully as many 

individuals rated this factor as first in importance as for each of the 

higher ranked factors except job security. This indicates that opportunities 

to acquire new skills, improve on current capabilities, and otherwise 

develop as an employee are of considerable importance to AF employees. 

The next grouping included the factors of working conditions, supervisory competence and fairness, promotion opportunities, and the work itself. As 

the average rank of importance for this grouping suggests, each of these factors was usually ranked intermediate in relative importance; rarely were they 

designated by any respondent as of first importance. 

The fourth group included the two factors of management effectiveness and 

recognition from coworkers. Respondents almost never cited these two factors 

as of first importance. 

The final "group" consisted of only the single factor of recognition for 

work from outside of AF. Only two respondents indicated this factor to be 

t first in relative importance, and 87 percent rated it in the lower third of 

' the factors. 

By and large, the findings for employee characteristics resulted in only 

modest variations on the basic themes presented above. t~ost noteworthy was 

the effect of occupation on the ratings. Engineers rated salary less important 

than did technicians or other employees, while technicians rated job security 

much higher than did engineers and others. Engineers also rated responsibility 

more important than did technicians, who in turn rated it more important than 

did other types of AF employees. 

The type of facility (regional office, ARTCC, level III/IV tower, or 

small facility) at which the respondent was employed also had a notable effect 

on the ratings, particularly among the highest rated factors. Primarily, these 

differences were between regional office personnel and those at field facilities. Regional office respondents placed less importance on salary and job 

security and more importance on job achievement than did field employees. 

Significantly, it might seem that there are striking inconsistencies 

between these data on importance of factors to satisfaction and the Herzberg 

Motivator-Hygiene analysis of the open-ended questionnaire. Work itself is 

the most-often-mentioned factor in the Herzberg analyses; it ranked ninth in 

this section. Management was a primary source of discontent; in relative 

importance to job satisfaction, it ranked lOth. However, these discrepancies 

may be more apparent than real. What the Motivator-Hygiene findings tell us 

18 
ygy 

the other is of more importance to the worker, since creation of satisfaction 

is not more important than alleviating dissatisfaction. The AF employees have 

indicated that two hygiene factors, salary and job security, as well as two 

motivator factors, responsibility and job achievement, are most important to 

their overall well-being on the job. 

Looking at these data in this fashion, we see that management is not one 

of the most important factors in evaluating the AF work settings; it is, 

however, a prime contributor to dissatisfaction, as shown in the analysis of 

the likes-dislikes data. Similarly, the factor of work itself is judged of 

intermediate importance but is the single largest contributor to job 

satisfaction according to the open-ended survey. 

The managerial implications of these findings are clear: Attention must 

be directed to both motivator and hygiene aspects of the work situation in 

attempting to improve employee morale. A simplistic reliance on either set 

of factors is not likely to result in overall improvement in employee attitude

toward AF work. 

4. Adequacy of satisfaction. After ranking the 12 factors as described 

above, the respondents then indicated on a five-point scale how adequately 

their employment in AF provided satisfaction on each of the factors. The 

scale points ran from "very good" to "very poor" (Appendix A). 

The rank order of the factors from most to least adequacy of satisfaction 

(Table 6) is similar to the rankings of importance. The rank-order correlation was 0.69 (£ < .05), a value that confirms a general correspondence 

between the two orderings. It is noteworthy that the four factors judged most 

important to job satisfaction were also the four factors that received the 

highest ratings of adequacy of satisfaction. The ratings were remarkably high 

for job security, as more than 90 percent of the respondents indicated good or 

better adequacy of satisfaction for this factor. Approximately three-fourths 

of the ratings for the other three top factors were also at this level. 

At nearly the same level of satisfaction as the top four factors was the 

factor of work itself. About 71 percent of these ratings were at the ugood" 

or "very good" end of the rating scale. 

The next grouping of factors--recognition from peers, working conditions, 

and supervisory competence--were rated very similarly to and at a notably lowe

level than the previous five factors. Still, adequacy of satisfaction for 

these factors was judged good or better by more than half the respondents. 

The ninth factor in order of adequacy of satisfaction was possibility of 

growth. The ranking of this factor on this dimension was considerably below 

its rank of importance to satisfaction. Slightly less than half the responden

19 
Average Ratinga 

% Indicating 

Factor Good or Better 

Satisfaction 

Job Security 1.6 90.2 

Job Achievement 2.0 77.5 

Responsibility for Own Work 2.0 77.4 

Salary 2.1 74.0 

Work Itself 2.2 70.9 

Recognition From Coworkers 2.4 58.7 

Supervision 2.5 57.9 

Working Conditions 2.5 55.5 

Possibility of Growth 2.7 48.8 

Management Effectiveness 3.1 28.9 

Recognition From Others 3.2 30.4 

Promotion Opportunities 3.4 22.9 

a The possible rating scale values were "very good" (1), "good" 

(2), "fair" (3), "poor" (4), and "very poor" (5). An average 

rating of 2. 7 means that the average rating fell between "good" 

and "fair" points on the scale but nearer "fair" than "good." 

considered that satisfaction in this area was good or better. Considering its 

relative importance to satisfaction, this area should be given careful attention in any program designed to upgrade morale and job satisfaction. 

The remaining three factors (recognition from outside AF, management, and 

promotion opportunities) were the only factors for which less than one-third 

of the respondents indicated good or better adequacy of satisfaction. With 

the exception of promotion opportunities, these factors were also low in 

relative importance. However, promotion opportunities, like possibility for 

growth, received very low adequacy-of-satisfaction ratings compared to its 

ranking of importance. This finding is consistent with other responses to 

this survey and with findings from earlier AF studies (1,2,3,4,5) that indicate 

limited promotion potential is a continuing source of discontent for AF 

employees. 

Of the 12 factors ranked and rated in this study, eight are directly 

comparable to factors used in previous AF evaluations. As noted above, the 

findings for the promotion opportunity factor are consistent in all the 

studies. This is true for the other seven factors as well (Table 7). While 

the percentages of respondents indicating good or better satisfaction are 

consistent across the studies, in this study the percentages did seem to be 

higher for the three top-rated factors of job security, responsibility, and 

job achievement. 

Several employee characteristics were associated with substantive differences in the adequacy-of-satisfaction ratings. Judged adequacy of 

20 
TABLE 7. Percentages of AF Participants Indicating Good or Bett

on Selected Work Factors Evaluated in the Present and Pas

Present NEa so GL A

Survey Maintenance F&E F&E) W

Factor ( 1976) ( 1975) ( 1974) (1973) (

Job Security 90 85 83 69 

Job Achievement 78 68 54 69 

N 

1-' 

Responsibility 77 63 44 73 

Salary 74 85 48 68 

Working Conditions 56 60 41 61 

Management 29 26 l3 41 

Recognition From Others 30 30 20 41 

Promotion Opportunities 23 24 12 34 

a Regions are designated as follows: New England, NE; Southern, SO; Grea
and degree of satisfaction increased with GS-grade level, age, and years of 

service. 

Ratings of adequacy of satisfaction for promotion opportunities were 

lower as age, years of service, and GS grade increased. Ratings of satisfaction for possibility for growth also decreased as these variables 

increased. For both these variables, age 35, grade GS-9, and 3 years of 

service appeared to be principal demarcation lines in terms of notable 

changes in ratings. 

There were some other notable differences. Personnel in the WG system 

reported substantially more adequacy of satisfaction for recognition from 

peers than did GS employees. Employees in the Facilities and Equipment 

program reported less adequacy of satisfaction with respect to possibility 

of growth than did AF personnel in other programs. Finally, employees 

located at ARTCC's and regional offices found more satisfaction in their 

working conditions than did major-tower or small-facility personnel. 

D. Attitudes Toward Certain Important Work Factors. 

1. Salary. In addition to the open-ended comments, likes-dislikes 

ratings, ratings of importance, and adequacy of satisfaction ratings, the 

respondents were asked several detailed questions about salary matters. 

On the whole, most respondents (86 percent) rated their salaries as 

adequate or better (Table 8). The average rating of 2.4 fell between the 

"good" and "adequate" points on the scale. Only 47 of the respondents 

(2 percent) felt their salaries were "very inadequate." 

When asked to indicate an appropriate salary level for their work in 

AF, the respondents' average estimate was $21,210. This amount is 

essentially the equivalent of a GS-13, step 4, in salary level (according to 

1975 pay scales). Two-thirds of the estimates were between $16,490 and 

$25,930 (the standard deviation was $4,720), or ranged from approximately 

the amount paid a GS-11, step 2, to that paid a GS-13, step 5. These 

estimates were, on the average, approximately $320 higher than present 

salary levels. It is interesting to note that 105 respondents indicated that 

a decrease averaging $331 would be appropriate. 

As these ratings and estimates suggest, the majority of the respondents 

(60 percent) felt their salaries were "fair" or "very fair." The average 

rating of 2.5 falls between the "fair" and "neither fair nor unfair" points 

on the rating scale. This judgment of fairness was confirmed by the 

assessments of salary relative to other employee groups; a clear majority 

of the respondents felt they were treated at least as favorably as other 

AF employees (75 percent), employees in private industry (68 percent), and 

22 
Very Very Adequacy of Present Salary Good Good 

(2) 

Adequate Inadequate Inadequate 

( l) (3) (4) (5) 

Distribution of Ratings 482 827 621 364 47 

Average Rating . • • • • . . , . 2.4 

Percentage Rating Adequate or Better • • . . 85.5 

Appropriate Salary for Work 

Average Estimate--$21 ,210 

Average Increase-- $320 

Fairness of Salary 

Distribution of Ratings 

Average Rating, • • • . . 

(S.D.= $4,720) 

(S.D. = $175) 

Very 

Fair 

(l) 

360 

Fair 

(2) 

1,027 

Percentage Rating Fair or Very Fair • 

Salary Comparisons 

Percentage of Respondents Rating: 

Neither 

Fair nor 

Unfair 

(3) 

353 

2.5 

• 60.5 

Unfair 

(4) 

439 

Other AF Personnel Treated More Favorably. • • • • • • • 24.7 

ATC Personnel Treated More Favorably • • • • • • • • • • 64.3 

Other FAA Personnel Treated More Favorably • • • • • • . 13.5 

Personnel in Private Industry Treated More Favorably • . 31.5 

Very 

Unfair 

(5) 

111 

other FAA employees excluding air traffic controllers (86 percent). The onl

group perceived as receiving preferential salary treatment was, not 

surprisingly, the employees of the Air Traffic service. Of the AF responden

64 percent felt that controllers received more favorable salary consideratio

than did AF personnel. 

In terms of employee characteristics, the responses to this part of the 

survey paralleled those for the like-dislike and adequacy-of-satisfaction 

ratings. For adequacy of salary, significant effects were found for GS grad

years of service, WG versus GS employment, engineers and technicians versus 

AF employees in other occupations, and environmental support personnel. The 

effects of these characteristics on the other ratings and comparisons of 

salary fairness fit the same pattern: Those with lower pay generally feel 

less fairly treated than those with higher pay. The main point to be 

remembered is that most AF employees, no matter what their particular 

employment circumstances, feel reasonably well compensated for their work. 

2. Personnel programs. 

a. Training. Overall, the AF training and employee development program

were judged adequate or better by most of the AF employees (Table 9). 

Approximately two-thirds of the respondents indicated that the quality of 

on-the-job training, planning for training, consideration of employee develo

ment needs, and consideration of employee skills were generally acceptable. 

23 
Program 

Training 

Quality of Resident (Academy) Training 

Consideration of Eq1loyee Training Needs 

Consideration of EqJloyee Skills 

Quality of on-the-job Training 

Planning for Training 

Merit Promotion Plan (f.I'P) 

Concept of J.I'P 

Fair ness of J.I'P Concept 

Administration of f.I'P 

Fairness of f.I'P Administration 

Equal EqJloyment Opportunity (EEO) 

Concept of EEO 

Fairness of EEO Concept 

Administration of EEO 

Fairness of EEO Administration 

Average a 

Rating 

3.1 

4.0 

4.0 

4.1 

4.1 

3.6 

4.3 

4.9 

4.9 

3.5 

4.2 

4.4 

4.5 

% Indicating 

Adequate 

or Better 

85.3 

65.3 

65.3 

62.5 

62.0 

74.3 

56.7 

41.9 

40.0 

78.4 

61.4 

58.2 

54.2 

a The possible rating scale values were "excellent" (1), "very good11 (2), "good" (3), 

"adequate" (4), "poor" (5), "very poor" (6), and "totally inadequate" (7). 

There was one aspect of training that received even higher marks than 

those discussed above: resident training at the FAA Academy. More than 

85 percent of the respondents indicated this program was adequate or better, 

and the average rating was in the "good" range. These marks were also 

supported by numerous comments in the open-ended portion of the questionnaire 

that praised the quality of the training. Although no specific rating of 

the administration of Academy training was obtained, it should be noted that 

almost all the complaints about the Academy elicited by the earlier openended questions referred to perceived inequities and mismanagement of travel 

and per diem pay for Academy training rather then the quality of the training 

itself. 

The findings for employee characteristics were generally consistent with 

the overall trends reported above. The most noteworthy effects were obtained 

in an analysis of occupation and type of facility. Technicians rated the 

quality of Academy resident training better than did engineers or those in 

other occupations, not a surprising finding in view of the more extensive 

educational experiences often found in the latter two groups. In addition, 

engineers felt less positive about consideration of needs and skills in 

training plans than did the technicians and others. 

Employees at the regional offices were less positive than were personnel 

in field facilities in their judgments about quality of on-the-job and 

resident instruction, consideration of needs and skills in training, 

24 
b. Merit Promotion Plan. The Merit Promotion Plan (MPP) received rath

low ratings, except in terms of the concept of the plan itself (Table 9). 

Nearly three-fourths of the respondents felt the concept of the MPP is at 

least adequate; however, less than half felt it has been administered 

adequately or fairly. The average rating was "poor" on both these scales. 

Employee characteristics had relatively little effect on these ratings. 

Employees in grades GS-9 through -12 rated the fairness of the concept of 

the MPP lower than did personnel in both lower and higher grades. Also 

employees at grade GS-9 and higher were much more critical of the administration and fairness of administration of the MPP than those in lower 

grades. Engineers seemed to feel the MPP is a fairer concept than did 

technicians or those in other occupations. 

c. Equal employment opportunity. The equal employment opportunity (EEO

programs were rated adequate or better by a majority of the respondents as 

to concept (78 percent), fairness (61 percent), and administration (54 percen

(Table 9). Thus, there seems to be a solid core of acceptance of the EEO 

notion with less approval of the administration of the program. The mean 

scale values fall between "adequate" and "poor" and reflect the observation 

that while the majority may accept the program and its administration, those 

with the strongest feelings tend to be opposed to it. 

As might be expected, support for the EEO concept tends to diminish with 

increasing age. Of those below age 30, almost 85 percent describe the 

concept as adequate; between the ages of 30 and 60, more than three-fourths 

accept the adequacy of the concept; while of those age 60 and older about 

60 percent feel this way. WG employees tended to rate the administration 

and the fairness of administration of EEO programs more positively than 

did GS employees. 

3. Management and Supervision. 

a. Effectiveness. The ratings on the items concerned with various 

aspects of supervisory effectiveness were for the most part in the adequate 

or better range (Table 10) with all of the average ratings in the "adequate" 

to "good" range. Based on the percentage of responses in at least the 

adequate range, the highest rated aspect was the freedom the respondents 

felt to discuss work problems with supervisors (84 percent). Utilization 

of personal skills and abilities was next at 83 percent. Approximately 

three-fourths of the respondents felt their work tasks and goals were clearly 

defined (78 percent) and that their immediate supervisors adequately 

acknowledged ideas and suggestions put forth by employees (74 percent). The 

judgments were somewhat lower concerning the degree to which management is 

helpful in resolving technical problems (68 percent) and the adequacy of 

25 
Factor 

Managerial/Supervisory Effectiveness 

Freedom to Discuss Work Problems 

Use of Employee Skills 

Acknowledgment by Supervisor 

Clarity of Task Explanation 

Helpfulness With Technical Problems 

Acknowledgment by Managers 

Performance Evaluation 

Accuracy 

Fairness 

Thoroughness 

Indication of Needed Improvements 

Detailing of Work Standards 

Helpfulness in Improving Work 

Hanagerial/SI.4)ervisory Concern 

Level 

lnvnediate Supervisor 

Unit (e.g., Sector Field Office) 

Sector 

Region 

Agency 

g

Rating 

3.0 

3.3 

3.4 

3.6 

3.7 

3.9 

3.3 

3.3 

3.5 

3.6 

3.7 

3.8 

Distribution of Ratings 

High Moderate Low 

952 745 483 

526 762 457 

405 921 747 

157 934 1,097 

148 967 943 

Adequate 

or Better 

77 .a 73.8 

64.0 

49.9 

54.2 

83.7 

82.6 

74.0 

77.5 

68.2 

64.6 

82.8 

82.0 

78.1 

78.2 

77.1 

69.3 

61 

52 

42 

29 

30 

a The possible rating scale values were "excellent" (1), "very good" (2), "good" ( 3), "adequate 

(4), "poor" (5), "very poor" (6), and "totally inadequate" {7). 

b Score calculated by multiplying high ratings by 1.0 and moderate ratings by 0.5, dividing the 

Sllll of these values by the total nUltler of ratings, then multiplying by 100. 

managerial acknowledgment of ideas and recommendations from subordinates 

(65 percent). 

None of the ratings differed significantly as a function of the 

employee variables. 

b. Performance evaluation. One of the more difficult tasks of 

supervisors is the evaluation of performance; the clear majority of 

AF employees feel this is done at least adequately with respect to both 

accuracy (83 percent) and fairness (82 percent) (Table 10). Most also feel 

that the thoroughness (78 percent), detailing of work standards (77 percent), 

and indications of areas of needed improvement (78 percent) are also adequately 

handled. As for helpfulness in improving work, 69 percent felt the reviews 

were adequate or better. 

Ratings were reasonably uniform across employee characteristics, as 

no dramatic departures from the general trends were noted in any of the 

specific employee groups. 

c. Concern. The ratings of perceived management concern for AF 

employees decreased as distance of management from the employee increased 

(Table 10), a finding parallel to other ratings of management discussed 

previously. 

26 
concern for employee well-being at the unit or sector field office level and 

at the sector level. Only about one-half the respondents felt that management at the regional and national levels showed moderate or high concern 

for employees (48 percent and 50 percent respectively). 

There were some notable differences among groups of employees on their 

ratings. WG personnel gave management higher ratings of concern at each 

level above immediate supervision than did GS employees. Technicians were 

found to rate unit- and sector-level management as having more concern for 

employees than did employees in other occupations. Compared to employees 

in field facilities, personnel in the regional offices gave relatively lower 

ratings on concern for employees shown at the unit and sector levels. 

In previous studies of AF personnel, ratings were translated into a 

scale from O_to 100 by giving each rating of high concern a value of 1, 

each rating of moderate concern a value of 0.5, and each rating of low 

concern a 0, then dividing the sum of those values by the number of ratings 

and multiplying by 100 to give whole number results. The scale values for 

this evaluation (Table 10) are relatively close to the average obtained in 

the previous studies at the sector, regional, and national levels. At the 

immediate supervisory and the unit levels, the current values appear lower 

than those obtained earlier. 

4. Work schedule. Of the 38 percent of the respondents who were on 

rotating-shift schedules, 41 percent reported satisfaction and 39 percent 

reported dissatisfaction with their current rotation schedules (Table 11). 

These relatively equal degrees of satisfaction and dissatisfaction reflect 

the great difficulty in arriving at a rotation schedule satisfactory to all, 

or even most, of the AF personnel on rotating-shift schedules. Furthermore, 

there was no clear consensus among the respondents as to a preferred work 

schedule, outside the fact that 45 percent wanted to go on a straight-days 

work shift. Some 11 different types of shift rotation schedules (e.g., rota

tion by week, flex-shift rotation, rotation by month, rapid turnaround) in 

addition to straight shifts were given as preferred schedules, with numerous 

specific variations in each type. The rotation schedule that received the 

endorsement of the highest percentage of the respondents was the 2-2-1 

schedule (two day shifts, two evening shifts, and one mid shift in successio

or a variant thereof), as 15 percent of the participants indicated this as a 

preferred schedule. In a previous study (10), this schedule was endorsed 

by more than 60 percent of the controllers asked their preference, which 

indicates a clear difference in attitude between the two employee groups. 

One variable considered particularly important in assessing the impact 

of shift rotation schedules is age. In this study there were no differences 

in reported satisfaction with shift rotation schedule as a function of age, 

27 
Very 

Satisfaction With Satisfied Satisfied Neither 

(1) (2) (3) 

Work Schedule 86 289 188 

Dissatisfied 

(4) 

214 

Very 

Dissatisfied 

(5) 

147 

Average Rating. 3.1 

Percentage Indicating Satisfied or Very Satisfied 40.6 

nor were there any pronounced shifts in preference for the various schedules 

as a function of age. Dislike for any type of rotating-shift schedule was 

pervasive at all ages among AF personnel. 

When the effect on job satisfaction of working rotating shifts was 

evaluated in terms of satisfaction in choice of occupation or working in the 

AF Service, no trends were noted. However, those who indicated dissatisfaction with their present position in AF were more often working rotating-shift 

schedules (43 percent) than those who reported satisfaction (37 percent). 

5. Workload. On the average, 45 percent of the workdays were rated 

moderate, 33 percent were rated heavy, and 22 percent were rated light in 

workload (Table 12). However, the respondents indicated preferences for 

Amount of Workload 

Light 

Moderate 

Heavy 

TABLE 12. Evaluation of Workload 

Estimated 

%of 

Workdays 

21.7 

45.0 

33.3 

Preferred 

%of 

Workdays 

16.3 

61.8 

21.8 

Estimated Percentage of Shifts 

Shifts and Amount 

of Workload 

Day Shift Evening Shift Mid Shift 

(0800-1600) (1600-2400) (2400-0800) 

Light 

Moderate 

Heavy 

Percentage of Respondents 

Indicating Staffing to 

Handle 

Staffing Sufficient 

for Workload 

19.9 

41.3 

38.8 

Light 

Workloads 

16.1 

Always 

(1) 

232 

24.6 

49.4 

26.1 

Moderate 

Workloads 

57.9 

Usually Sometimes 

(2) (3) 

1,329 474 

Average Rating. • • • 2. 4 Percentage Indicating Usually or Always • • • . 67.7 

28 

38.0 

35.2 

26.8 

Peak 

Workloads 

26.0 

Rarely Never 

(4) (5) 

216 63 
now the case. 

There were significant differences between shifts in terms of workload 

(Table 12), according to those who work rotating-shift schedules. Heaviest 

workloads were reported for day shifts, the lightest were for mid shifts. 

The evening shifts were judged to have the most even workload distribution. 

The average respondent felt his/her time was well used 76 percent of th

time, and two-thirds of the replies fell between 54 and 98 percent. A total 

of 39 percent of the respondents indicated that 90 percent or more of their 

time was used effectively, another 52 percent felt that somewhere between 

50 and 80 percent of their time was productive, and only 9 percent felt 

that less than half their working hours were well used by the agency. The 

most important factor contributing to nonproductive time (Table 13) was 

erratic workloads, due in large part to the nature of maintenance on basical

reliable equipment (29 percent of all comments made). Management and 

supervision were the next most frequently cited reasons for reduced 

productivity (13 percent). These were followed by paperwork (11 percent) 

and travel time to facilities and remote sites (10 percent). The remainder 

of the responses were diverse and were related to such factors as weather, 

air traffic personnel, meetings, and equipment deficiencies. 

TABLE 13. Causes of Nonproductive Time 

Causes Number % of 

Endorsing Respondents 

Erratic Workload 473 29.1 

Management/Supervision 211 13.0 

Paperwork 172 10.6 

Travel to Sites 169 10.4 

Miscellaneous (Meetings, 

Coordination, Supplies, 

Air Traffic, Weather, 

Training, Equipment) 616 37.9 

29 
available for such coverage. About one-fourth (26 percent) felt staffs were 

adequate for peak workloads as well. Only 16 percent felt the numbers of 

available personnel were insufficient for all but light workloads. When 

asked to rate to what extent staffing is sufficient for the workload within 

the unit, two-thirds (68 percent) of the respondents indicated the number 

of personnel was usually or always sufficient to handle the required work. 

Only 12 percent felt that rarely or never were there enough workers 

available. 

Employee characteristics had relatively little influence on most of the 

items concerning workload; however, the type of facility did make a difference 

in that a greater proportion of personnel at ARTCC's indicated they felt 

adequately staffed to handle peak loads (34 percent and 24 percent respectively) and that they usually or always had enough personnel to handle the 

workload in the unit (76 percent and 66 percent respectively) than did 

personnel at other types of facilities. 

6. Location. When asked if they were satisfied with the location of 

their employment, 80 percent of the respondents responded affirmatively 

(Table 14). Even though generally satisfied with their location, many 

(43 percent) still expressed a desire to move. Of those wishing to move, 

30 percent wanted to move only within their present region, 32 percent wanted 

TABLE 14. Evaluation of Present Location 

Very 

Satisfaction With Satisfied Satisfied Neither Dissatisfied 

(l) (2) (3) (4) 

Location 941 919 206 190 

Average Rating. • • • . • • • . • . . • • • • . • • • • 1.9 

Percentage Indicating Satisfied or Very Satisfied • . • 79.7 

Very 

Dissatisfied 

(5) 

77 

Areas of Preferred Location 

Number 

Endorsing 

'!i of Those 

Responding 

Relocate Within Region 

West (RH, NW, WE) 

South (SO, SW) 

Other 

Incentives to Hove 

Promotion With More Pay 

Higher Pay 

Increased Promotion Opportunities 

Better Geographical Location 

Change of Work 

Promotion With Same Pay 

Other 

30 

220 

241 

109 

172 

Number 

Endorsing 

1, 734 

1,470 

1,144 

1,123 

816 

469 

249 

29.6 

32.5 

14.7 

23.2 

I of Respondents 

Endorsing 

73.5 

62.2 

48.5 

47.5 

34.4 

19.5 

10.5 
The major incentives to move focused on promotion and pay increases. 

However, many also would move for the opportunity to work in what they 

consider a more attractive geographical area. 

Among the employee variables, several were related to satisfaction with 

location and desire to move. Respondents over age 35 were more likely to 

express satisfaction with location (82 percent) than were their younger 

coworkers (71 percent) and WG personnel, more so (89 percent) than GS 

employees (79 percent). Similarly, 58 percent of the respondents under 35 

indicated a desire to move, 42 percent of those 35 to 55 years old wanted 

to move, and only 24 percent of those older than 55 expressed an interest 

in changing location. GS employees were much more inclined to want to 

move (44 percent) than were WG employees (32 percent). Not surprisingly, 

since they tend to be younger and seeking upgrade possibilities, GS employee

below grade GS-11 were more desirous of moving (56 percent) than were those 

persons in the upper grades (42 percent). WG level had no effect on desire 

to move. Desire to move was also related to type of facility; 50 percent of 

those employed in regional offices wanted to move, while 40 of those at 

smaller facilities expressed this desire. 

7. Employee-management relations. It is surpr1s1ng that the responden

were more aware of FAA policies than union policies concerning employeemanagement relations (Table 15), as 77 percent of the respondents indicated 

TABLE 15. Evaluation of E~loyee-Hanagement Relations 

Ratings 

Know ledge of Average \Some 

or Eq>loyee-Hanagement Policies Thorough Considerable Some Little None Rating More 

(l) (2) (3) (4) (5) 

Knowledge of FAA Policies 73 617 1,100 448 91 2.9 76.8 

Knowledge of Union Policies 53 326 840 718 386 3.5 52.5 

Ratings 

Quality of FAA Eq>1oyee- Average % Acceptable 

Management Relations at: Very Very Rating or More 

Good Good Acceptable Poor Poor 

(l) (2) (3) (4) (5) 

Unit Level 376 658 654 412 211 2.8 73.2 

Regional Level 56 412 938 571 245 3.2 63.3 

National Level 40 354 1,033 493 249 3.2 65.8 

Ratings 

FAA Fairness in E~loyee- Average % Acceptable 

Management Relations Very Very Rating or More 

Good Good Acceptable Poor Poor (l) (2) (3) (4) (5) 

79 443 988 515 218 3.2 67.3 

31 
The ratings of the quality of employee-management relations in the FAA 

were generally positive at all three levels questioned, as ratings of 

acceptable or better were made by 73 percent of the respondents when asked 

about the quality in their work settings, 63 percent when queried on relations 

at the regional level, and 66 percent at the national level. 

Approximately two-thirds (67 percent) of the respondents indicated that 

the FAA has performed at least acceptably in the fairness with which 

employee-management relations have been managed. 

Knowledge of FAA and union policies tended to increase with age, years 

of service, and GS grade; otherwise, employee characteristics showed little 

relationship to responses on this section of the questionnaire. 

III. Conclusions. 

In view of the large, diverse sample of AF employees who participated 

in this survey, it is reasonable to conclude that the opinions and attitudes 

sampled are representative of the feelings of the AF workforce as a whole. 

These feelings indicate that, by and large, AF employees view their work 

situations in positive terms. They report generally high levels of job 

satisfaction, particularly in those areas they judge most important. 

On the other side of the picture, the areas of primary discontent 

yielded no particular surprises. Management, a major target of complaints 

in most employee surveys (7), was also a major focus of criticism in this 

study. That the evaluation of management by AF personnel was relatively 

less negative than similar evaluations by other employee groups is a good 

sign. This does not, however, negate the importance of the need for 

upgrading managerial/supervisory performance as indicated by the many 

criticisms of management obtained in this survey. 

This survey confirmed also that providing promotion and career 

opportunities is a significant problem for the AF service. Part of the 

problem is intrinsic to the pyramidal structure of most employment careers; 

little can be done about this aspect of the AF work settings. Clarification 

of the types of opportunities available, the requirements for taking 

advantage of the opportunities, and a detailing of what may be expected in 

terms of typical career development would probably be useful in reducing 

dissatisfaction. The newly developed Airway Facilities Career Planning 

Program (6), with its detailed presentation of the various AF career trades 

in terms of both the nature and the developmental requirements of the career, 

should be directly relevant to this need. 

32 
there was no consensus among employees as to the best schedule, as even 

those schedules selected by a majority at a facility often lead to 

substantial dissatisfaction among the minority. More data in this area 

are needed, particularly concerning the effects of various schedules on 

employee efficiency, physical well-being, and general work adjustment. On 

the basis of research in other types of settings (8), the rule that the 

longer the interval between shift rotation, the better, is probably as 

appropriate for AF as elsewhere. 

Before we proceed to the third part of this report, it should be noted 

that these findings emphasize that the principles that should guide programs 

designed to enhance employee motivation and morale remain relatively constan

in spite of the diversity of employment circumstances. The major themes of 

the motivator-hygiene system are applicable throughout the AF system; to wit

attention must be directed to both types of factors in planning motivational 

programs. Solution of significant hygiene problems, even in such areas as 

management or work schedule, will not alone generate well-motivated employee

Programs that deal with the more complex issues of the "motivators," such as 

career development, job enrichment, and advanced training programs, must be 

included along with measures designed to solve "hygiene" problems. 

PART THREE. AF Employee Characteristics 

As noted at the outset of this paper, the division of the report into 

parts was designed to facilitate reader understanding of the findings by 

presenting an analysis of the general trends in the data first, then detaile

analyses in terms of the varied characteristics of AF employees. Some of 

the findings presented in this part have already been noted in Part One; 

this duplication occurs when an analysis resulted in trends sufficiently 

different from the general pattern to require elaboration of the basic 

results. As the reader will see in progressing through these analyses of 

employee characteristics, there are a great many statistically significant 

findings that reflect shades of differences in response tendencies (due to 

the large size of the sample) rather than radical departures from the genera

pattern of the AF data. Many of these differences add to a more complete 

understanding of the various aspects of AF work; however, one should be 

cautious not to become so attentive to the differences discussed herein that 

one loses sight of the general pattern about which almost all these differenc

fall. 

In the presentation that follows, the findings from the analyses 

concerned with each employee characteristic are presented, followed by a 

brief discussion of the meaning of the findings for that characteristic. 

33 
A. Likes and Dislikes Ratings of AF Work. As age increased, there 

tended to be an increasingly positive attitude toward AF work. The average 

rating on all 32 scales went from 0.8 on the five-point scale for the 25-

to 29-year-olds to 1.2 for those 60 or more years old (Table 16). For the 

specific items on which there were age differences, ratings concerning 

Civil Service and retirement benefits tended to be rated more positively by 

the senior age groups. This was also true of the judgments about quality 

of the test equipment and about management at the regional and national levels. 

Increasing age was associated with increasingly negative ratings for 

promotion opportunities and working mid shifts. 

B. Job Satisfaction. Only one of the four job satisfaction ratings 

showed any variation as a function of age (Table 16). The ratings on the 

scale concerning satisfaction with one's present position in AF showed 

greater satisfaction with increasing age. 

Although age did not relate to the ranking of importance of job 

satisfaction factors to any significant degree, the rating of adequacy of 

satisfaction for the factor of salary increased while the ratings for 

possibility of growth and promotion opportunities decreased with age. 

C. Salarx. Salary ratings were relatively uniform across ages, with 

the exception that respondents younger than 34 have a lower estimate of the 

amount of an adequate salary than do more senior personnel (Table 16). There 

was also a trend for respondents 30 to 39 years of age to rate the fairness 

of the salary less favorably than did both older and younger respondents. 

D. Personnel Programs. Training generally received high ratings; this 

was especially true of the ratings of Academy instruction made by respondents 

younger than 25 (Table 16). Older respondents (55 or more years old) felt 

better about the planning for training and consideration of training needs 

for personnel than did the rest of the participants. 

As age increased, appreciation for the MPP diminished substantially. 

This was also true of judgments about the administration of MPP; in this case, 

respondents 25 to 29 years of age were considerably more critical than those 

older or younger. 

There was also a clear age trend with respect to EEO programs. Of the 

total sample, 78 percent believed the EEO concept was at least adequate; of 

those 60 and older, 61 percent believed this to be true. 

E. Management and Supervision. Age effects on the management and 

supervision ratings were confined to judgments about the degree of concern 

shown by different levels of management (Table 16). In the 35- to 39-year 

34 
TABLE 16. Response Patterns of AF Employees as a function of Age and FAA Experience 

,,, 

Questionnaire Items Sign ificancea Significancea 

21-2~ ?S-?9 30-3~ 35-39 40-44 45-49 S0-54 SS-59 60-70 

likes-Dislikes Ratings 

Working With Equlp..entb. t-4o effect t-4o effect 

Retire~~ent Benefits. • . . . .05 85 88 86 86 90 92 90 90 92 t-4o effect Associating WIth Coworkers • No effect No effect Challenge of Work ...• No effect No effect Service to Aviation. . No effect No effect 

.'.f Career .•....... No effect No effect Working In Civil Service .01 74 74 84 75 82 82 86 66 89 .05 7

Working in Aviation. t-4o effect No effect M Job Tasks, No effect No effect 

Work Variety ......... No effect No effect Working [layshifts (0800-1600). No effect No effect 

DifficultY of Work No effect .01 6

Salary ......•. .05 53 72 71 70 76 74 73 7S 76 .01 6

Hoderate Workloads . . No effect No effect 

Physical Work Environtr~ent. No effect .05 6

Respect and Prestiqe .... No effect No effect 

NUJDer of Trained Coworkers. No effect .05 7

Quality of Supervision . No effect .001 7

General Workload . . . . . t-4o effect .01 6

Heavy Workloads. . No effect t-4o effect 

Established Work Procedures. No effect No effect 

Test Equip~~~ent .... .001 

" 41 " 40 58 49 52 71 60 .05 4

Quail ty of local Management. No effect No effect 

Working With Controllers .. No effect No effect 

VJ Miscellaneous Duties . . No effect .01 3

V1 Promotion Opportunities. . . . . . .001 82 66 52 3> 

" " 36 36 , .001 8

Working Evening Shifts (1600-2400) No effect No effect 

li!flt Workloads. No effect No effect 

National Hanage~~~ent . . . .05 29 18 18 17 20 20 26 20 

" ,001 3

Regional Hanaqement . . . .05 

" 21 22 21 23 2> 27 22 38 .001 3

Rotating Shifts. _ . • . . . . No effect Ho effect 

Working Hid Shifts (2400-0800) .05 18 18 14 10 7 7 9 8 24 .001 2

--

-- Job Satlsfactionc 

Ratings 

Satisfaction With Occupation .... No effect .001 

Satisfaction With Working in AF. No effect .05 9

Satisfaction With Working Conditions . No effect .05 

Satisfaction With Precut Position in Af. .001 62 60 65 66 71 72 74 7S 79 No effect 

Rankings of Iq>ortance/Ratings of Adequacy 

of Satisfaction 

Job Security . • . . . • . . No effect No effect 

Job Adlievement . No effect No effect 

Responsibility for ~n Work. No effect .05/ 

Salary .. .--/.001 --/52 --/66 --/71 --/72 --/77 --/79 --/72 --/76 --/83 --/.001 

Work Itself ... No effect No effect 

Recognition From Coworkers . No effect No effect 

Supervision. • No effect --/.05 

Workin9 Conditions No effect No effect 

Possiblli ty of Growth. . .--/.001 --/51 --/59 --/56 --/49 --/48 --/42 --/49 --/47 --/56 .001/.001 

Management Effectiveness No effect --/.001 

Recognition From Others. :--/.001 

No effect --/.OS 

Promotion Opportunities. --/67 --/42 --/32 --/23 --/16 --/19 --/23 --/22 --/23 .001/.001 
TABLE 16. (Continued) 

Ago 

Wutosllonro.siro. It~ Signif- Signlflcancea lcancea 

21-Z4 7~-79 30-34 3~- 39 40-44 45-49 50-54 55-59 60-70 

Salary 

Adequacy of Presen} 5dluye. .001 

" 7) 76 81 86 

" 82 87 

" .001 

Approprl.lte Amount . , . .oot• IZ.9 16.8 19.4 n.z 22.6 Zl.8 Zl.l 20.8 U.l Not evalua

fairness of 5alory9, .OS 

" 6) " , 61 6) 61 68 7) No effect Comparlsonsh 

Other Af Personne I . No effect .OS 

ArC Personnel. ... No effect lio effect Other fAA Personnel. .01 6 21 16 IS ll 10 

" 6 22 .001 

Private Industry . No effect .OS 

Perso~~:!n~~:~raMS 

Quality of Resident (Acadelll)') Training . .01 

" 81 84 

" " 84 86 82 8J .01 

Consideration of (f~J!loyee Training Needs . .Ul 6S , 62 62 70 64 67 77 49 .001 

Consideration of E~ioyee Skills .. No effect .01 

Quality of on-the-job Training . t-+oeffect .001 

Planning for Training. , , 

Merit Pr0110Uon Plan (tf>Ple 

.01 

" , 61 , 67 , " 7) 62 .001 

Concept of foPP • • • • .... .OS 81 7) 81 77 7S 69 68 67 68 .01 

fairness of MPP Concept .. Uoeffect .001 

Adlll.l.ni::.tration of fof'P. , , ••• .OS 77 48 

" " 4J 

" 41 42 

" .001 

fairness of MPP Administration , No effect .001 

Equal [!llployment Opport~J~.I.ty ([[O)e 

Concept of EEO . .OS 

" 84 " 77 82 74 81 81 61 .01 

..:..; Fairness of E£0 Concept. , • , , No effect .OS 

Achinistration of EEO •. , • , , No effect No effect 

~ Fairness of EEO Administration , t-+o effect .os 

-

-

Management and Supervision 

Managerlal/S~nisory Effectivenene 

freedom to Oiscuss \lrork ProbleiiiS , No effect .OS 

Use of [~~J~loyee Skills • . ... No effect t-4<> effect 

Acknowledgment by Supervisor .. No effect lio effect 

ClarityofTask[xplanation.,,,, .os " 74 

" 72 

" 76 77 82 " .001 

Helpfulness With Ted'lnical ProbleiiiS. No effect .001 

Acknowledgment by Managers . No effect lio effect 

Perfon<Jnce Evaluatione 

Accuracy . No effect .OS 

Fairness .•.. No effect No effect 

Thoroughness .. No effect No effect 

Indication of Needed Improvements, No effect .01 

Detailing of Work Standards .. No effect .OS 

Helpfulness in Improving Work. No effect .01 

Managerial/Supervisory Concern! 

level 

I...ediate Supervisor , No effect .001 

Unit (e.g., Sector field Office) . .001 90 S4 

" 66 72 71 

" " 90 .001 

Sector , .01 

" 64 66 

" 60 61 67 77 70 .001 

Region . No effect .001 

Aqency . No effect .001 

Work Schedule 

Satisfaction With Schedulec, No effect No effect 
TABLE 16. (Continued) 

,,, 

Questionndre Items Signif- Significance . icancea 

21-24 2';-29 )0-34 3S-39 40-44 4S-49 50-';4 ';5-59 60-70 1 

Workl~nt of Workloadj 

Light. No effect Not evaluated 

Moderate • No effect Not evaluated 

P:r:;~~d Vl~rkl~adj No effect Not evaluated 

Light ... No effect Not evaluated 

Moderate ... No effect Not evaluated 

Heavy •.•......... No effect Not evaluated 

Percent of Time Well Used. 'k' No effect No effect 

Causes of Nonproductive Time 

Erratic Workload ..... No effect No effect 

Managefllent/Supervislon .. No effect No effect 

Paperwork. , .. No effect No effect 

Travel to Sites. No effect No effect 

Miscellaneous .. No effect No effect 

Staffing k To Handle 

Light Workloads. No effect No effect 

Koderate Workloads . No effect No effect 

Peak Workloads ... e No effect No effect 

Sufficient for Workload. No effect No effect 

---

---

Locdtion 

Satishction With 

Present Locatlonc, ..... .01 74 70 69 79 83 80 

" 86 86 .001 75 

Would like to Hovem. ..... . 001 55 56 60 47 .. 41 ]6 24 24 .001 52 

V.J Incentives to Hovek 

-...! Promotion With More Pay. ..... .001 

" " 80 

" 76 74 6] 62 43 .01 76 

Higher Poly , . , , . .001 71 76 

" 67 62 61 51 54 51 .001 72 

Increased Promotion Opportunities, • , , • .001 65 61 60 54 45 46 40 43 24 .001 56 

Better Geographical Location ..... , .001 68 

" 62 51 52 42 42 34 J5 .001 6] Change of Work ...... .001 29 50 42 40 3J 3J 

" 29 16 .001 34 

PrOifiOtion With Sarne Pay. .... .OS 

" 15 25 25 20 20 

" 14 11 No effect 

Other, . . ....... No effect Noo effect 

~loyee-Hanagement Relations 69 94 KnO'IIledge of fM Policies~ . .001 7J 66 74 

" 79 so 80 .001 70 

KnO'IIledge of Union Policies, .001 ]8 J5 ]8 54 

" 55 57 

" 49 .001 ]6 

Quality of Ell!ployee-Management 

Relations at: 

Unit Levelo .. No effect .01 65 

Regional Level . No effect .OS 74 

National level .OS 72 62 67 64 66 67 66 64 87 .001 76 

fairness in Employee-Management Relatlons9 . No effect .05 81 

a Refers to significance level of chi-square aaaiyses except where an asterisk Is shown in 

which case the value refers to the significance level of an analysis of variance. 

b Percentage liking. 

c Percentage satisfied. 

d First nullber indicates ranking; nUIIber following slash indicates percentage rating good 

or better. 

e Percentage rating adequate or better. 

f Dollars in thousands. 

g Percentage rating fair. 

h Percentage reporting others treated more favorably. 

i Percentage rating hi!fl or moderate concern. 

J Percentage of workdays. 

k Percentage of respondents endorsing. 

1 Percentage indicating usually or always. 111 Percentage wanting to 1110ve. 

n Percentage indicating some or 1110re knO'IIledge. 

o Percentage indicating acceptable or better. 
followed a similar pattern, except that the range of relatively lower ratings 

extended from age 25 to 54; 58 percent of the respondents in this age range 

rated sector-level concern as moderate or high. No level of management 

received predominately negative judgments about their level of concern from 

AF personnel of any age. 

F. Work Schedule. No significant effects associated with age were 

observed. 

G. Workload. No significant effects associated with age were 

observed. 

H. Location. Satisfaction with one's location tended to increase with 

age (Table 16), particularly when those 35 and older are compared with those 

under 35. Of those over 35, 82 percent indicated satisfaction with their 

current location; of those under 35, the percentage was 71. The desire to 

move decreased with age, as more than half (58 percent) of the respondents 

under 35 wanted to shift locations while no more than a fourth (24 percent) 

of those over 55 indicated this desire. It was also found that each of the 

incentives to move listed in the questionnaire was less frequently endorsed 

as age increased. 

I. Employee-Management Relations. Respondents 40 and older tended to 

know more about FAA policies in the area of employee-management relations 

than did their younger counterparts (Table 16). The group most knowledgeable 

about union policies towards employee-management relations ranged in age 

from 35 to 59 years. 

J. Discussion. The variations in ratings associated with age were 

generally those that accompany the aging process. Increased attention to 

career and retirement benefits, the desire to stay located in one place, 

and the increased dislike of working mid shifts all seem to fit with the 

kinds of attitudes that may typically be expected from individuals as they 

mature. By the same token, the opportunities to grow, change jobs, and 

get promotions diminish with age. These findings point out that the sources 

of dissatisfaction for older persons may differ somewhat from those for 

younger employees and that motivational programs should take these agerelated differences into account. 

II. Years 6f Service. 

The findings for years of 

for age, as would be expected. 

effects resulting largely from 

tudes of employees who are new 

AF experience. 

service correlated highly with the findings 

There were also many additional significant 

rather marked differences between the attito AF (1 or 2 years) and those with more 

38 
liking for workload, supervisory quality, regional management quality, and 

national management quality than did more experienced personnel (Table 16). 

B. Job Satisfaction. New employees reported somewhat more satisfaction 

with AF employment and AF working conditions than did those with more 

experience (Table 16). On the other hand, individuals with 4 or more years 

of experience as well as new employees indicated higher satisfaction with 

occupational choice than did those workers with 2 to 3 years of FAA employment

In rating the importance of various factors to job satisfaction, 

employees with very few years of experience rated possibility of growth and 

promotion opportunities as more important than did those with more FAA 

experience. 

The ratings of the adequacy with which various factors are satisfied 

in AF follow the findings reported for age, with the added note that newer 

employees reported more adequacy of satisfaction for the factors of management effectiveness and recognition from others than did the more experienced 

respondents. 

C. Salar~. The only trends related to salary concerned equality of 

treatment with other employee groups (Table 16). As experience increased, 

there was a decrease in the proportion of respondents who felt that other 

personnel in AF, the FAA, and industry receive better salary benefits. 

D. Personnel Programs. Ratings of training indicated that relatively 

new employees tend to evaluate more positively the quality of on-the-job and 

Academy training, planning for training, and consideration of needs and skills 

than do those with more than 1 or 2 years of experience (Table 16). 

The same trend was true for each of the ratings concerning MPP and EEO 

except for the rating of the administration of the EEO program. In the 

latter instance, FAA experience was not related to the ratings. 

E. Management and Supervision. Beyond the 4-year level, there was some 

reduced feeling that management was helpful in solving technical problems 

or provided clear task and goal definitions (Table 16). After the first year 

there was also some moderate reduction in the belief that work-related 

problems could be freely discussed with supervisors. 

Management and supervisory concern at all levels was rated higher the 

first year than thereafter. 

In rating performance evaluation, a similar trend was apparent; after 

1 or 2 years of experience, the degree of positive reaction was reduced 

somewhat from earlier levels. 

39 
G. Workload. No significant effects associated with length of service 

were observed. 

H. Location. As with age, satisfaction with one's current location 

increased with experience, while the inclination to move, and the value 

of incentives to move, diminished (Table 16). 

I. Employee-Management Relations. The findings for employee-management 

relations also generally follow the age results, with the addition of the 

finding that relations at the regional level, as well as the unit and 

national levels, were judged as better by the relatively new employees than 

by employees with more than 1 or 2 years of experience (Table 16). There 

was also some decline in the belief that relations of this sort within 

the FAA are fair. 

J. Discussion. It is clear that there is a demarcation in attitudes 

between first-year, and sometimes second-year, employees and those who 

have been in the FAA long enough for the "new" to wear off. It should be 

noted, however, that this decline (i) is an expected and normal reaction 

and (ii) doesn't reflect any drastic reduction in morale. These changes are 

not of the magnitude to suggest that AF employees move from extreme 

enthusiasm to displeasure at their circumstances in AF; instead, there is 

a relatively moderate shift of feeling away from early enthusiasm to a 

more subdued, but generally positive, attitude toward work in AF. 

III. Grade Structure. 

Three sets of analyses are considered in this section: a comparison 

of responses of Wage Grade (WG) to General Schedule (GS) employees and 

analyses of grade levels within each of these two groups. 

A. Wage Grade/General Schedule. AF employees in the WG and GS groups 

generally had very similar attitudes toward their work; although, 

interestingly enough, when differences were noted, it was generally the 

WG employees who reported the more favorable attitudes (Table 17). 

1. Likes and dislikes ratings. Of the 13 items for which significant 

differences were found between these two groups of employees, WG personnel 

gave the higher rating on nine (Table 17). The one item on which GS 

employees indicated a far greater degree of approval than WG personnel was 

that of salary. GS respondents also reported a somewhat greater degree of 

liking for working in aviation, the AF career, and working evening shifts 

than did WG participants. WG employees liked all levels of management, the 

variety of job tasks, established working procedures, being in the Civil 

Service, the quality of test equipment, and working day shifts more so than 

did GS employees. 

40 
+:"' 

....... 

Questionnaire Items 

Likes-Dislikes Ratings b 

Working With Equipment • 

Retirement Benefits. . . 

Associating With Coworkers 

Ch3.llenge of Work. . 

Service to Aviation. 

AF Career . ...... . 

Working in Civil Service 

Working in Aviation. 

AF Job Task$ . 

Work Variety • . • • • • • • • 

Working Oayshifts ( 0800-1600). 

Oi fficu1 ty of Work • 

Salary • • • •••• 

Moderate Workloads . 

Physical Work Environment. 

Respect and Prestige . . . 

Humber of Trained Coworkers. 

Quality of Supervision . 

General Workload . 

Heavy Workloads. . . . . . . 

Established Work Procedures. 

Test Equipment . . . . . . . 

Quality of local Management. 

Working With Controllers . 

Miscellaneous Duties . . 

Promotion Opportunities. 

Working Evening Shifts (1600-2400) 

Light Workloads. . . 

National Management. 

Regional Management. 

Rotating Shifts ••• 

Working Hid Shifts (2400-0800) 

Job Satisfactionc 

Ratings 

Satisfaction With Occupation 

Satisfaction With Working in Af. 

Satisfaction With Working Conditions . 

Satisfaction With Precut Position in AF. 

Rankings of Importance/Ratings of Adequacy 

of Satisfaction 

Job Secur 1 ty . 

Job Achievement. . . . . . . 

Responsiblli ty for Own Work. 

Salary . • • . • . • • • • 

Work Itself. • • . • • • . 

Recognition from Coworkers 

Supervision. . . . . 

Working Conditions . 

Possibility of Growth. 

Management Effectiveness 

Recognition from Others. 

Promotion Opportunities. 

TABLE 17. Response Patterns of Af Employees as a function of Salary Schedule an

Salary Schedule 

Significance a Significance

No effect 

No effect 

No effect 

No effect 

No effect 

WG 

.05 80 

.001 91 

.05 79 

No effect 

.001 89 

.05 87 

.001 41 

No effect 

No effect 

No effect 

No effect 

No effect 

No effect 

No effect 

No effect 

.05 54 

.001 62 

.01 50 

No effect 

No effect 

.01 41 

.01 24 

No effect 

.001 33 

.001 36 

No effect 

No effect 

No effect 

No effect 

No effect 

No effect 

No effect 

.001/--

.05/--

--/.001 

.001/--

--/.01 

.05/--

No effect 

--/.05 

.05/.01 

No effect 

No effect 

5.5/--

5.1/--

--/43 

8.1/--

--/70 

5.5/--

--/50 

7.3/36 

GS 

84 

80 

81 

78 

78 

75 

44 

44 

41 

38 

37 

19 

23 

4.6/--

4.4/--

--/76 

6.7/--

--/58 

6.5/--

--/49 

8.1/28 

GS-4/5 

No effect 

No effect 

No effect 

.05 81 

.05 82 

No effect 

No effect 

.001 88 

No effect 

No effect 

No effect 

No effect 

.001 44 

.01 72 

.001 78 

No effect 

No effect 

No effect 

.001 68 

No effect 

.001 62 

No effect 

No effect 

No effect 

.01 51 

.001 71 

No effect 

No effect 

.01 46 

.001 49 

.001 

.05 

No effect 

No effect 

No effect 

No effect 

No effect 

No effect 

No effect 

90 

60 

--/.001 --/41 

No effect 

No effect 

No effect 

No effect 

--/.01 --/68 

--/.01 --/60 

--/.001 --/47 

.001/.001 4.5/72 

G

--

--

--

--

5.0
-+=" 

N 

Questionnaire Items 

Salary 

Adeqy.acy of Presen} Salarye. 

Ap.piopriate Amount . . . . . 

Fairness of Salaryg. 

Comparisonsh 

Other AF Personnel 

ATC Personnel ... 

Other FAA Personnel. 

Private Industry . 

Perso~~:in~~~2rams 

Quality of Resident (Academy) Training . 

Consideration of Employee Training Needs 

Consideration of Employee Skills 

Quality of on-the-job Training 

Planning for Training. . 

Merit Promotion Plan (t.PP)e 

Concept of MPP . . • • . 

Fairness of MPP Concept. 

Administration of MPP. • . . . . . 

Fairness of MPP Administration •. 

Equal Employment Opportunity (EEO)e 

Concept of EEO . 

Fairness of EEO. 

Administration of EEO. 

Fairness of EEO Administrati()n 

Management and Supervision e 

Managerial/Supervisory Effect! veness 

Freedom to Discuss Work Problems 

Use of Employee Skills • • •. 

Acknowledgment by Supervisor . 

Clarity of Task Explanation. . 

Helpfulness With Technical Problems. 

Acknowledgment by Managers 

Perfonnance Evaluatione 

Accuracy • •. • . . . • . • •. 

Fairness •• , , . • • • • •• 

Thoroughness . • • • , • • . , • • 

Indication of Needed lq:»rovet~~ents. 

Detailing of Work Standards. • 

Helpfulness in Improving Wor~. 

Managerial/Supervisory Concern 

Level 

lnnediate Supervisor , , •••• 

Unit (e.g., Sector Field Office) 

Sector 

Region .. , .•• , , , 

Agency • , , .•• , , ... 

Work Schedule 

Satisfaction With Schedulec 

TABLE 17. (Continued) 

Salary Schedule 

Sign if icancea 

WG 

.001 66 

Not evaluated 

No effect 

.001 47 

No effect 

-~ % .~ M 

.05 89 

-~ 77 .M A No effect 

.001 73 

.05 61 

No effect 

-~ ~ 

-~ ~ 

No effect 

.OS 65 

.001 69 

.001 66 

.OS 85 

.01 89 

No effect 

No effect 

.001 75 

.01 72 

No effect 

No effect 

.05 79 

.OS 84 

No effect 

.OS 77 

No effect 

.001 87 

.001 78 

.001 66 

.OS 66 

.os 56 

GS 

84 

23 

12 

30 

85 

64 

65 

61 

75 

42 

39 

61 

57 

53 

84 

82 

68 

64 

78 

78 

69 

7) 

63 

49 

53 

40 

Significancea 

GS-4/5 

.001 54 

Not evaluated 

. 001 55 

.001 22 

No effect 

.05 17 

No effect 

No effect 

.01 74 

.001 76 

.001 76 

.05 69 

No effect 

.001 72 

.001 80 

.001 72 

No effect 

.001 79 

.001 79 

No effect 

.OM " .001 n No effect 

.OS 86 

No effect 

No effect 

No effect 

No effect 

No effect 

.001 86 

No effect 

.001 77 

No effect 

.001 90 

.001 86 

.001 69 No effect 

No effect 

GS-6/7 

70 

74 

19 

19 

62 

71 

72 

64 

87 

61 

56 

68 

63 

88 

72 

87 

84 

74 

81 

72 

~ 
+-

\.J.) 

TABLE 17. 

Salary Schedule 

Questionnaire Items Significance a 

we GS 

Workload . 

Amount of WorkloadJ 

light ....... Not evaluated 

Moderate . . . . . Not evaluated 

Pr~:;~~d. W~rkl~adj. t~ot evaluated 

Light •...•.. Not evaluated 

Moderate . . . . . Not evaluated 

~ary, ...•..... Not evaluated 

Percent of Time We 11 Used. • k. .01 81 75 

Causes of Nonproductive Time 

Erratic Workload ... .001 5 31 

Management/ Supervision No effect 

Paperwork. . . . No effect 

Travel to Sites. .001 26 9 

Hi see llaneous. . . No effect 

Staffing k 

To Handle 

Light Workloads ..•. No effect 

Moderate Workloads .. No effect 

Peak Workloads ... ~ No effect 

Sufficient for Workload. .001 53 68 

location 

Sa~~:::~~i~~c:~~~n c. . . . .05 89 79 

Would Like to Move~. . . • .05 32 44 

Incentives to Hove 

Promotion With More Pay. .01 64 74 

Hi9her Pay .•..... No effect 

Increased Promotion Opportunities. No effect 

Better Geographical location .05 39 49 

Change of Work . • . . . No effect 

Promotion With Same Pay. .001 5 21 

Other ......•.... · No effect 

Emp lo~::~:~:~e~n~ ~e ~~~! ~~:s ~ .01 74 77 

Knowledge of Union Policies •• .05 47 53 

Quality of Employee-Management 

Relations at: 

Unit Level 0 • • • • • • • • • • • • • • No effect 

Regional level .••••..••.•. No effect 

National Level ••.. , ••...• 6 No effect 

Fairness in Employee-Management Relations. No effect 

a Refers to significance level of chi-square analyses except where an asterisk is shown in 

which case the value refers to the significance level of an analysis of variance, 

b Percentage liking. 

c Percentage satisfied. 

d First nunt>er indicates ranking; nurOOer following slash indicates percentage rating good 

or better. 

e Percentage rating adequate or better. 

f Dollars in thousands. 

g Percentage rating fair. 

h Percentage reporting others treated more favorably. 

i Percentage rating high or moderate concern. 

j Percentage of workdays. 

k Percentage of respondents endorsing. 

1 Percentage indicating usually or always. 

m Percentage wanting to move. 

n Percentage indicating some or more knowledge. 

o Percentage indicating acceptable or better. 

(Continued) 

Significance a 

GS-4/5 GS-6/7 

Not evaluated 

Not evaluated 

Not evaluated 

Not evaluated 

Not evaluated 

Not evaluated 

No effect 

No effect 

.01 5 10 

No effect 

No effect 

No effect 

.01 00 lJ 

.01 51 55 

.01 49 32 

.05 74 77 

.001 75 83 

.01 51 48 

No effect 

No effect 

No effect 

.05 59 46 

No effect 

.001 12 15 

No effect 

.001 71 70 

.001 42 30 

No effect 

.01 50 60 

No effect 

.001 80 81 
to job satisfaction were rated differently by the two groups (Table 17). 

GS respondents rated independence on the job, job achievement, and the work 

itself as more important than did WG participants, while the reverse was 

true for the factors of supervisory and management effectiveness. There 

were also some differences in the perceived adequacy of satisfaction for 

salary, as only 43 percent of the WG personnel reported good or better 

adequacy of satisfaction on this item as opposed to the 76 percent approval 

indicated by GS employees. The WG group reported more satisfaction, however, 

in possibility of growth, management effectiveness, and recognition from 

peers. 

3. Salary. As would be expected on the basis of the findings discussed 

above, GS respondents rated satisfaction with salary substantially higher 

than did WG employees, as 84 percent of the GS and 66 percent of the 

WG employees judged their salaries to be at least adequate (Table 17). The 

WG group was also considerably more inclined to see other employee groups 

(other AF, other FAA, and outside industry personnel) as receiving better 

salary consideration than they. 

4. Personnel programs. Respondents from the WG group gave higher 

ratings to management's planning for training and consideration of training 

needs than did the GS group (Table 17). WG personnel rated administration 

and fairness of administration of the MPP program higher than did 

GS personnel. The reverse was true for ratings of the concept of MPP. 

WG respondents rated the administration and fairness of administration 

of the EEO program in more positive terms than did the GS group. 

5. Management and supervision. Effectiveness in terms of use of talent, 

helpfulness in solving technical problems, and acknowledgment of employee 

suggestions and contributions were rated higher by WG than by GS respondents 

(Table 17). The same was true for judgments of concern at the unit, sector, 

regional, and national management levels. WG employees also gave higher 

ratings on the items concerning the effectiveness of supervisors in 

indicating areas of needed improvement and helpfulness in the performance 

evaluation process. 

6. Work schedule. WG personnel indicated greater acceptance of their 

work hours than did GS respondents, as 56 percent of the WG respondents 

indicated such approval as opposed to 40 percent of the GS employees (Table 17). 

7. Workload. WG respondents felt a greater proportion of their time was 

well used than did GS personnel. GS personnel felt that the sometimes erratic 

nature of their workload was a greater contributor to nonproductive time than 

did the WG group. The WG respondents were more likely to attribute 

nonproductive time to travel, delay in supplies, and weather. 

44 
incentives as enticements to move. 

9. Employee-management relations. The only significant difference among 

the ratings for this section resulted from GS employees' rating themselves 

higher in terms of knowledge of union policies than did the WG group. 

10. Discussion. In sum, these data suggest that in many respects, WG 

employees are more satisfied with the status quo than are GS personnel. Only 

in the area of salary do WG employees consistently respond with ratings less 

positive than those given by employees under the GS system. This finding 

would suggest that with exception of salary, WG personnel are likely to be 

less interested than GS employees in programs calling for changes to the 

AF system, particularly if such changes involve increased requirements for 

mobility. 

B. WG Grades. The only item that yielded a significant effect for 

grade levels with the WG group was the rating of liking for promotion 

opportunities; predictably, those at the lower grades were more favorable 

in their ratings than were those at higher levels. The major difference 

was between those at the WG-10 level and below and those at the higher 

grades. Seventy-two percent of the former and 33 percent of the latter 

indicated they liked their opportunities for promotion. 

C. GS Grades. Unlike WG employees, whose attitudes were invariant 

across grade levels, GS employees in almost every aspect of this study had 

differences of opinion associated with GS level. 

1. Likes and dislikes ratings. Eleven of the 32 items yielded differences in ratings as a function of grade level (Table 17). Employees at 

the GS-11 level and higher liked the challenge of their work and their 

salary levels better, but their promotion opportunities less, than did those 

at lower grades. Those in grades GS-8 and lower also indicated a higher 

degree of liking for their workload, work environment, miscellaneous duties, 

and national management. Comparing those at the GS-6 level and lower with 

those at the GS-7 level and higher showed a greater appreciation of working 

in aviation, work procedures, and regional management for those in the lower 

grades. 

2. Job satisfaction. Those at the GS-11 level and higher expressed 

more satisfaction with their present AF position than did those lower in 

grade, while those at the GS-8 level and lower appeared to be more satisfied 

with their working conditions (Table 17). 

45 
g

Ratings of adequacy of satisfaction again revealed a discontinuity 

between those at or above and those below the GS-11 level. Salary was rated 

higher, and possibility of growth, management effectiveness, and promotion 

opportunities were rated lower, by the personnel with higher grades. Those 

at the GS-8 level and below also reported more adequate satisfaction in the 

area of recognition from others than did respondents with higher grades. 

3. Salary. The ratings of satisfaction with salary followed the same 

general trend; those at and above the GS-11 level reported more satisfaction 

than did those at lower levels (Table 17). When rating salary fairness, 

however, the findings were more complicated. Those at the GS-7 level and 

below and at the GS-12 level and higher rated fairness higher than did an 

intermediate group of GS-8, -9, and -11 personnel. 

The ratings of AF pay in comparison with that of other employee groups 

indicated that persons at the GS-11 level and lower were more likely than 

GS-12 and -13 employees to feel other AF and other FAA personnel receive 

more favorable salary consideration than they. 

4. Personnel programs. Personnel at or below the GS-8 level evaluated 

the quality of training more positively than did those with higher grades. 

Similarly, those at the GS-6 level and below rated planning for training 

better than did personnel with higher grades (Table 17). Respondents at 

the GS-7 level and below and at the GS-11 level and above rated consideration 

of both individual training needs and skills higher than did GS-8 and -9 

participants. 

The MPP program was more highly evaluated as to fairness of the concept, 

administration, and fairness of administration by those at the GS-8 level 

and below than by those above this grade level. 

The EEO findings indicated that personnel below the GS-6 level and at 

the GS-13 level felt the EEO concept was fairer and better administered than 

did respondents in the intervening grades. 

5. Management and supervision. Management and supervisory effectiveness 

in terms of use of talent was seen as better by respondents above the GS-8 

level. The group with lower grades felt that clarity of explanation of 

tasks was better accomplished than did the respondents with higher grades. 

Personnel at the GS-7 level and below and at the GS-13 level felt more able 

to discuss work problems with their superiors than did the other respondents. 

Generally, managerial and supervisory concern was rated higher by the 

participants with lower grades than by those with higher grades. This was 

46 
GS-7 level and by those at the grade of GS-13 (who perhaps were more often 

employed in regional offices) than by those in the middle grades. 

There were two areas concerning performance evaluation that yielded 

effects associated with grade level. These were the items concerning 

indication of areas of needed improvement and helpfulness of the evaluation. 

For both items, personnel in the lower grades gave the higher ratings. 

6. Work schedule. GS grade level made no difference in the ratings 

given with respect to work schedules. 

7. Workload. The principal finding on items concerning workload was 

that personnel at the GS-8 level or lower felt staffing levels were better 

in terms of workload than did personnel in other grades (Table 17). 

8. Location. Satisfaction with location was lowest for those in the 

GS-9 grade. Those at grade GS-9 and below reported a greater desire to move 

than did those above that level, particularly for the incentive of moving 

to a more preferred geographical location. Those at high grade levels were 

more likely to respond to a promotional opportunity independent of pay than 

were those at lower levels. 

9. Employee-management relations. Employees above the GS-9 level rated 

their own level of knowledge of FAA and union policies higher than did 

personnel in the higher grades. 

10. Discussion. The findings for GS-grade level roughly paralleled those 

for age and experience. However, there was a particularly marked division 

of feeling between the GS-8 and -9 levels and those above and below. The 

respondents at the GS-8 and -9 levels seemed considerably less positive in 

their outlook toward AF work. Although the precise reasons for this are not 

clear, it may be that personnel in these levels feel some frustration in 

being close to, but not quite at, full journeyman status in AF. 

IV. Type of Employment. 

This heading includes three different sets of analyses. The first set 

is concerned with the AF program under which an individual is employed, the 

two primary classifications being Maintenance and Facilities and Equipment 

(F&E). The second set is considered the general occupation of the employee; 

again, there are two major groups, the engineers and the technicians. The 

third set is concerned with specialty, and there are several different categories at this level. 

A. AF Program. Most of the employees surveyed fell into the two major 

AF programs, Maintenance and F&E. Those not employed directly in these two 

47 
1. Likes and dislikes ratings. Maintenance personnel gave higher ratings 

than did F&E or other AF respondents to the items concerning the AF career 

and working evening shifts (Table 18). The Maintenance group also indicated 

more liking for working with equipment than did those in F&E programs. 

Maintenance and F&E respondents both liked the quality of test equipment 

more than did those in other AF programs. F&E participants gave higher 

ratings for promotion opportunities than did the Maintenance and other 

AF respondents and gave higher ratings of the quality of regional office 

management than did the Maintenance group. 

2. Job satisfaction. Compared with F&E personnel, there was a tendency 

for those in Maintenance and other programs to express a greater degree of 

satisfaction with being employed by AF and with the working conditions in 

AF. 

In terms of the judged importance of various factors to job satisfaction, 

the Maintenance group rated both salary and job security as more important than 

did the F&E and other AF employees. 

In assessing adequacy of satisfaction, F&E employees indicated a lower 

degree of satisfaction with the factors of independence and possibility of 

growth than did the other respondents. 

3. Salary. When asked to indicate an appropriate salary level, both 

the F&E and other AF employees indicated a value approximately $1,000 

less than the amount indicated by the Maintenance group (Table 18). 

In comparison to Maintenance employees, F&E personnel were also more 

likely to feel that other AF and other FAA employees received better salary 

treatment than they. 

4. Personnel programs. Training was the only item under this heading 

to show any effects of AF programs (Table 18). F&E respondents indicated 

less positive reactions to quality of Academy training, planning for 

training, and consideration of employee needs for training than did the 

Maintenance and other AF employees. 

5. Management and supervision. The only significant findings on this 

topic related to managerial concern for employees (Table 18). F&E and 

Maintenance personnel rated the level of concern of their immediate supervisors higher than did other AF employees. At the unit level, the 

Maintenance group perceived a higher level of concern on the part of 

management than did the F&E group. 

48 
T,t,BLE 18, Response Patterns of AF EMployee as a function of Specialty, Occupation, and AF Progr

Specldty 

Questlonn.aire Ite.s Significance . Significance . 

Plans&: C~nl- -'uto- Environ~~~ental Engi- 

Programs cations Radar Navalds matlon Support Other neers n

Likes-DislikesRatings b .001 81 

" 9) 9) 91 91 67 .001 72 

Working With Equlp.ent · • • • • • · • • • · 

Retirenent Benefits ••. - •••• - .•.. .OS 91 9<) 

" " " " " No effect 

Associating With Coworkers · • • · .01 93 89 

" 90 90 91 86 No effect Challenge of Work. • • • - • • • • • • • • • .001 96 

" S7 89 88 83 79 .001 83 

Service to Aviation ••.•••••••• .001 91 86 83 87 79 82 73 .001 81 

Af Career •••• • ••. • • • • • • • • • • No effect No effect 

Working ln Civil Service • • • . • • . • . .001 8{) 83 82 77 S3 87 75 .01 73 

Working in Aviation. , •••••• · • • .• .001 

" " 78 81 75 79 76 .001 

" Af Job Tasks •.••••..••• • · · • • .001 81 78 80 80 78 77 83 .001 81 

Work Variety .• , . , ••••.• · • • · • .001 86 73 76 74 75 87 81 .05 80 

Worki~g Dayshlfts (0800-1600) ••••••. .001 76 84 74 87 70 79 77 Ho effect 

Olffieulty of Work •.•••• .001 81 71 76 78 81 72 67 .001 71 

Salary •••••••••. • •. • • • • • • .001 80 72 80 72 77 50 64 .001 77 

Moderate Workloads • , • • · . • • · .001 77 71 73 73 67 64 62 .001 6) 

Physical Work Envirorvnent, • , . .001 74 65 60 63 77 70 58 .05 60 

Re"P<'ct and Prestige ••••••••• • •. No effect .05 50 

Ho..ber of Trained Coworkers •.• · • • • · • Hoeffect No effect 

Quality of Supervision , .••.•• • • • • No effect No effect 

General Workload ••••••.•• · • • • • No effect No effect 

Heavy Workloads. .......... Hoeffect No effect 

Established Work Procedures •.••• • • • · .05 46 47 45 46 35 42 53 .05 JO 

Test Equipment . , •• .001 J7 41 47 42 52 54 48 .001 39 

Quality of local Ha.nagement. , ••• · No effect No effect 

Working With Controllers • , No effect No effect 

Miscellaneous Duties • , , • , • , • • · • • No effect .05 16 

PrOIIIQtlon Opportunities •••.• , ••••• .01 

" 42 35 

" Jl 39 51 .OOl 50 

~ Working Evening Shifts (l600-Z400) ••••. .001 58 28 45 22 52 28 23 .01 22 Light Workloads ••.• , •• , ..... .01 9 26 25 23 21 25 15 .001 16 

~ Kational Management , • • .001 24 20 20 !9 14 27 )8 No effect 

Regional Manage-ent • • • . • , • • • • • • • .001 44 

" " 22 lJ Jl )8 No effect 

Rotating Sh.ifts .• , ••••••••••.• .001 18 17 28 14 21 21 20 No effect 

Working Hid Shifts (2400-0800) •.••.•• No effect No effect 

--

-- Job Satisfactionc 

Ratings 

Satisfaction With Occupation •••.•.• Me effect .05 90 

Satisfaction With Working In ~ •••.• • tb effect No effect 

S.atisfaction With Wor-king Conditions • , • .001 77 74 75 76 77 74 78 .05 68 

S.atbfactlon With Precut Position ln /IE •• No effect »a effect 

Ranldngs of I~~portance/Ratings of Adequacy 

of Satisfa.ctlon 

Job Security •.••••••.• • • . • • .001/.01 ).6/86 3.1/90 3.1/90 3.2/91 3.6/94 3.2/66 4.Z/86 .001/-- S.8/-- 4.

Job.l.chieveMent, •. ,, •• , ••• , •• Mo effect --/.01 --/69 -

Responsibility for Own Work , •.. • • , • , .05/-- 2.4/-- Z.6/-- 2.6/-- Z.6/-- 2.5/-- Z.6/-- 4.1/-- .01/.os 3.8/68 4.

S..lary •••• , ..•••••••• , .001/.001 3.1/82 2.6/70 Z.7/61 3.0/76 3.0/77 3.0/5Z ).0/72 .01/.()01 S.4/8Z 4.

Work Itself. , .••••• , •.••• No effect --/.01 ··/67 -

RecogOition fr0111 Coworkers .•• , , . --/.01 --/69 --/S6 --/58 --/62 ·-/5Z ·-/6Z --/51 --/.05 --/55 -

Supervision. , , •••••.• , •• , No effect »a effect 

Working Conditions, ..• ,, ••• , --/.001 --/70 --/50 --/54 --/51 --/77 --/54 --/58 .001/.0S 7.0/60 6.0

Possibility of Growth. , • , •.• , . No effect --/.001 --/41 -

ManageMent Effectiveness, .• ,,,. --/.05 --/44 --/28 --/28 ·-/28 ·-/26 ··130 --/44 .OS/.001 7.8/36 a.

Recognition fro~~~ Others .•. , , •. , , . --/.001 --/39 --/33 --/2S --/32 --/26 --/33 --/48 No effect 

Pr01110tion Opportunities • , • • . • • • No effect --/.01 --/28 -
TA.Blf 18. (Continued) 

Sp~Cidlty 

Questionnaire Ite~~~s Slgn!flcancea Significance• 

Plans& (OI*ftllni- Auto- EnvironMental Eng!- 

Programs cations Rddar Ndvaids mat! on Support Other neers 

Salar~dequdcy of Presen} Sdi.nye ... .001 88 BO 87 

" 84 " BO .001 

" 

Appropridte Amount , .. , .. , Not ~valuated Not evaluated 

fairnessofSalary9 .. , .01 71 

" 67 60 64 41 61 .01 72 

Cotnpdrlsonsh 

Other Af Personnel .. , , .. .001 

" 26 16 JO II 

" 29 .05 26 

AlCPersonnel.,., •... .001 73 

" 65 , 71 

" 57 No eff~ct 

Other fM Personnel .•.. ,001 9 I) 10 

" ' 36 14 .01 10 

Private Industry , ,001 30 )) 28 30 19 54 

" No effect 

----

---- Perso~~:! n~~~fd~S 

Qudlity of Resident (Academy) Training , .001 75 84 87 

" 79 86 80 .001 70 

Consideration of [!llplOyee Training Needs . .001 60 , " 71 

" 65 69 .001 50 

Considerdtion of [!llployee Skills . .01 41 64 67 67 64 58 74 .05 

" 

Qu<llityofon-the-JobTralning. No effect No effect 

Me~!~n~~;!~~~n T~~!~ 7iPPie' ' . .01 

" 57 " 67 

" 61 58 .001 48 

Concept of MPP . , . ........ Ho effect .05 79 

fairness of tfl'P Concept. , . No effect .05 71 

Administrdtlon of HPP. , .. .OS 53 42 40 44 

" 46 47 No effect 

fdirnessoflfl'I>Adrninlstration .01 , 40 )7 41 

" 47 48 .0> 49 

[qudl lmployrnent Opporturlity ([EO)e 

l..n Conceptof[[Q,,.,. No effect No effect 

0 fairnessofEEO., .. ,,. Ho effect No effect 

Administration of [[Q,,, .. .OS 64 57 , 60 

" 68 67 No effect 

fdrness of [[0 Mrdnistr<ltion, .OS 62 54 , 56 49 64 61 No effect 

Molndgernent and Supervision 

' Man<~geriai/Supervisory Effectiveness 

freedom to Discuss 'll'ork Problems .. , No effect No effect 

Use of Employee Skills ..• , , . .001 76 82 82 8) 78 84 82 .01 79 

flcknowledgment by Supervisor . .o> 75 72 71 76 81 69 81 Ho effect 

Cldrity of ldsk [10;p}andtlon ... , • .05 73 74 78 81 79 72 86 No effect 

Helpfulness 'll'ith Technic<ll Problet~~s. .05 74 68 

" 69 

" 71 77 No effect 

A.cknowledgr~~ent by Managers .. 

Perforcnance [valuatione 

No effect No effect 

A.ccurdC)' , ............ No effect No effect 

fairness .. No effect No effect 

Thoroughness , ... , , .. , • , . No effect No effect 

Indicdtion of Needed Improvements •. No effect No effect 

Det<11ling of Work StGnddrds. , .. .05 

" 76 76 78 76 74 74 No effect 

Helpfulness in lll'lproving 'll'ori· . No effect No effect 

Managerial/Supervisory Concern 

level 

Ir~~~~ed1Gte Supervisor . , •..•• No effect No effect 

Unit (e.g., Sector field Office) . .001 , " 71 77 68 8J 49 .001 76 

Sector . , ........ .001 66 64 

" 62 60 78 

" .001 84 Regtor1 , , •. . .... .001 58 48 50 52 )7 58 52 .001 

" 

Agency • , ........ .001 50 52 57 , 4] 62 47 No effect 

'll'ork ~~~:~!~tion 'll'lth Schedulec •... , . No effect No effect 
TABLE IS. (Continued) 

Specialty 

' Significance ' 

Questlonrwire IteMS Significance 

Plans! C~ni- Auto- Environmental Engl- 

PrograMs cations Radar Navaids matlon Support Other neers 

'lorkl::!uAt of 'lorkloadj 

L1gl1t •...•..•..... Not evaluated Not evaluated 

Moderate .. Kot evaluated Not evaluated 

p:r:~d Worlcio~dl . • . Not evaluated Not evaluate<! 

light •. . .... Hot evaluate<! Not evaluated 

Moderate ..•..• · Not evaluated Kot evaluated 

Heavy •••••• . ... N.ot evaluated Not evaluated 

Percent of Title Well Used • ~ .• .... .05 24 

" 26 .OOl 66 

Cause$ of Nonproductl ve The 

Erratic Workload •..• ,001 2l 26 36 24 43 l2 5 No effect 

Manage.ent/~rvhion. No effect No effect 

P.aptMIOrk ..•.. ..... No effect No effect 

Tr.aveltoSites ... .... Ko effect No effect 

Mhcelhneous .... No effect No effect 

Staffing k 

To Handle 

Light Workloads ..••.•.. .01 l9 l6 

" •• ll 20 17 No effect 

tbderate Workloads .• ..... No effect No effect 

Su~tc~::~~~=~rkl~;r: : 

,01 20 23 22 29 34 22 33 .05 23 

.001 

" 65 66 7l 78 " 66 .001 63 

Location 

Sa~~!:~i~c!!~on: • . . . . . • • No effect N.o effect 

Would Like to 14ovek • . . . . . • • . . • • • N.oeffect No effect 

\J1 Incentl ves to Hove 

ProMotion Wl th More Pay . • • . .... No effect .05 77 

...... Hl.ljher Pay .....•... Ko effect N.o effect 

Increased PrOfM)tion Opportunities • .05 51 50 46 46 4& 

" 4& .05 

" 

Better Geographical Location ...•.. No effect No effect 

Change or Work. • . . • • . . • . . . • .05 4& 39 )6 34 

" 31 26 No effect 

Pra.otion With Sa.e Pay ..•. .01 26 18 23 18 29 13 18 No effect 

Other •••. ...... No effect No effect 

~l~~::n;!e~~i!~:sn ...••..••. .001 

" " " 78 77 78 36 .001 77 

KnCMledge of Union Policies •• .05 66 

" S4 50 

" 47 12 .001 44 

Qual! ty of Ullployee-Manage.ent 

flelationsat6 

Llnit LeYel ..••..••..••.. No effect No effect 

Regional Level .••...•..•.... . 01 70 &2 62 65 56 67 74 .05 70 

Fair=~!~~~ ~:;~~~~nt Reiatl~;o: : .05 

" 62 68 68 

" 66 76 .01 73 

.01 79 63 66 73 73 

" 77 .01 77 

a Refers to significance level of chi-squar-e analyses except where an asterisk h shown in 

wtdcl1 case the value refers to the significance level of an aialysls of variance. 

b Percentage liking, 

c Percentage satisfied, 

d First nl,llllber indicates ranking; nUIIDer follOIIIlng slash indicates percentage rating good 

or better. 

e Percentage rating adequate or better. 

f Doll.arl ln thouunds. 

9 Percentage: rating fair. 

h Percentage reporting others treated 1110re favorably. 

1 Perce,.tage rating high or IIIOderate concern. 

j Percentage of workdays. 

k Percentage of respondents endorsing, . 

1 Percentage indicating usually or always. 

M Percentage wanting to 110ve, 

~ ::~:~~!= ~~:~=~~~~ ==P~~~r~rk::i:~~· 
7. Workload. F&E personnel reported more heavy and fewer light 

workdays than did other AF employees (Table 18), who in turn reported 

more heavy and fewer light days than did those in Maintenance. However, both 

Maintenance and other AF personnel felt a higher percentage of their time 

was well used than did F&E people. 

Judgments concerning the most important factors for nonproductive time 

showed that Maintenance personnel were more likely to attribute nonproductive 

time to erratic workloads and less likely to fault management or supervision 

than were those in F&E or other AF programs. 

8. Location. None of the responses to items under this topic varied 

as a function of AF program. 

9. Employee-management relations. The only finding of note in this 

portion of the questionnaire indicated that Maintenance and other AF employees 

reported a greater awareness of union policies than did F&E employees 

(Table 18). 

10. Discussion. While these findings reveal only what appear to be 

relatively minor variations in ratings between employees in the different 

AF programs, there does seem to be a general trend that orders three groups 

of employees. With respect to the two major programs, it appears that, 

overall, Maintenance employees seem more satisfied and less critical then 

employees in the F&E program. While the difference is not great, it does 

show that when effects were noted, Maintenance employees responded with 

higher ratings than did F&E personnel. 

The employees outside these two programs were more variable in terms 

of relative standing. Although rarely more laudatory in their ratings, 

often their ratings were at an equal level to the Maintenance ratings or 

at an intermediate level between the Maintenance and F&E programs. Such 

variability precludes a simple statement of their relative standing in 

terms of job satisfaction and morale in comparison to that of the employees 

of Maintenance and F&E programs. 

B. Occupation. The findings concerning occupation revealed several 

differences between AF personnel employed as engineers and technicians and 

those in other occupations. 

1. Likes and dislikes ratings. The ratings for engineers and 

technicians were generally similar except for the four items of work 

procedures, working with equipment, working evening shifts, and light 

workload days, each of which received a higher rating from the technicians 

(Table 18). Both engineers and technicians gave higher ratings than did 

52 
procedures, miscellaneous duties, working in the Civil Service, the working 

environment, and quality of the testing equipment. 

One relatively small group of employees, the drafters (formerly called 

draftsmen), responded quite differently from other employees to some of 

these items and to several other parts of the questionnaire. Drafters 

gave very low ratings relative to the other occupational groups on the items 

concerning challenge of the work, difficulty of the work, service to 

aviation, working in the Civil Service, and working evening shifts. 

2. Job satisfaction. Engineers and technicians reported a higher 

degree of satisfaction in occupational choice than did other AF occupational 

groups (Table 18). Drafters reported less satisfaction with working 

conditions than did the engineers, technicians, and other AF occupational 

groups. 

In rating the importance of various work factors to job satisfaction, 

technicians indicated that salary and job security were more important 

than did engineers, while engineers assigned more importance to personal 

independence on the job and to the work itself (Table 18). Both engineers 

and technicians rated independence as more important than did employees 

in other occupations. These other groups rated working conditions and 

promotion possibilities as more important than did engineers or technicians. 

Finally, drafters rated salary as more important to satisfaction than did 

any of the other groups of AF employees. 

Technicians and engineers gave essentially the -same ratings to all 

adequacy-of-satisfaction items. They differed from other AF occupational 

groups in that they were better satisfied with salary and promotion 

opportunities and less adequately satisfied with working conditions, 

management effectiveness, and recognition. Again, drafters yielded very low 

ratings for adequacy of satisfaction in comparison with all other 

AF employees on the factors of independence, job achievement, work itself, 

and possibility of growth. 

3. Salary. Ratings of salary followed a fairly predictable line, 

with engineers providing the highest ratings of satisfaction and fairness 

of salary followed by technicians, then those in other AF occupational 

groups, and finally drafters (Table 18). Personnel in the drafting and 

other AF occupations were twice as likely as technicians or engineers to 

indicate that other AF or other FAA employees received better salary 

consideration than they. 

4. Personnel programs. Ratings of training indicated that technicians 

were more positive toward quality of training, planning for training, and 

53 
needs than were all others employed by AF. Both engineers and technicians 

felt more positively about the consideration given to employee skills in 

training programs than did those in other occupations. 

Engineers and technicians generally agreed on their assessment of the 

concept of MPP and the fairness with which MPP has been administered 

(Table 18). In both cases their ratings were higher than those of drafters 

and, in the evaluation of the concept, were higher than the ratings of those 

in other occupations as well. In the evaluation of the fairness of the 

MPP concept, the ordering was engineers, then technicians, then all others. 

There were no differences in the assessments of EEO programs as a 

function of occupation. 

5. Management and superVlSlon. Following the trend in the other areas, 

drafters were much more critical of management/supervisory effectiveness than 

were all other AF employees, at least on the items concerning use of talent 

and acknowledgment of employee suggestions and contributions by management 

(Table 18). 

Technicians gave higher ratings to managerial concern at the unit and 

sector field office level than did engineers or other occupational AF groups, 

with the engineers giving the lowest ratings (Table 18). At the regional 

office level, where most engineers are employed, the engineers gave the 

highest ratings of concern followed by technicians and then others. Again, 

the social distance hypothesis seems to account for this effect. 

6. Work schedule. Occupational status had no effect on the evaluation 

of work schedules. 

7. Workload. Technicians reported higher percentages of time well 

used than did engineers; however, neither of these groups reported as high 

a percentage as did those with other occupational identifications (Table 18). 

The only factor cited more often by one occupational group than by another 

as contributing to nonproductive time was the need for coordination of 

activities. Engineers cited this factor more than did technicians, but neither 

of these groups referred to this problem as much as did those in other groups. 

Judgments concerning staffing revealed that engineers and technicians were 

less likely to rate their units as being staffed to handle peak loads than 

were those in other occupations. 

8. Location. Occupation had little effect on the responses to items 

concerning location. The only noteworthy differences concerned the 

incentives to move for promotion opportunities and to move for increased pay 

with promotion (Table 18); both of these were endorsed more often by AF 

employees in occupations other than engineering or the technical fields. 

54 
management policies (Table 18). The same was generally true for ratings 

of knowledge of union policies, except that drafters provided the lowest 

ratings on this item. Drafters also gave lower ratings to the quality of 

employee-management relations at the regional and national levels than did 

the rest of the AF workforce. Drafters also judged fairness in these 

relationships to be lower than did those in other occupations. 

10. Discussion. It is clear from the foregoing that the two major 

occupational groups differed little in attitude or satisfaction; those 

moderate discrepancies that were noted seemed appropriate to the differences 

in job tasks and settings for the two groups. However, the drafters 

presented a far different picture. This occupational group was the singularly 

most dissatisfied employee group within all of AF. 

C. Specialty. The various specialties considered included plans and 

programing, communications, radar, navaids, automation, and environmental 

support. The remaining employees were grouped in a miscellaneous category 

that included such areas as training, engineering support, and equipment 

and/or facility design. 

1. Likes and dislikes ratings. The findings for these ratings were 

fairly complex, but certain trends did appear (Table 18). Employees engaged 

in plans and programing rated their liking of the challenge, difficulty, 

and variety of the jobs as well as the aspect of working in aviation more 

highly than did other respondents. They also provided some of the 

highest ratings given to salary and working environment. The only item for 

which plans and programing ratings were notably lower than the others was 

that of light workload days. 

Environmental support personnel responded with ratings higher than 

those of other specialties on the items concerning variety of work. However, 

the same group gave much lower ratings to salary than did the other 

respondents. 

Compared to personnel in other specialties, those represented in the 

miscellaneous specialty group gave higher ratings to their liking of 

established work procedures, promotion opportunities, and both regional 

and national management and lower ratings to job challenge, job difficulty, 

service to aviation, working in the Civil Service, working with equipment, 

and light and moderate workloads. There was one other specific finding 

of note in their ratings: the percentage of positive responses for working 

rotating shifts and evening shifts was substantially higher (28 percent 

and 48 percent respectively) for those in the radar specialty than for any 

other specialty group. 

55 
of the other specialty groups (Table 18). 

The ratings of importance of factors to job satisfaction were generally 

uniform across specialties except for the responses of the plans and 

programing group (Table 18). These persons rated salary and job security 

as less important, and independence on the job as more important, than did 

workers in any of the other specialty groups. Those in the miscellaneous 

specialty group also tended to rate the importance of salary low in 

relation to other respondents. 

The degree to which various job factors received adequate satisfaction 

ratings was variable across specialty groups. Only 52 percent of the 

environmental support group rated their salaries as adequate or better, 

compared to more than 76 percent giving such ratings in most of the other 

groups. The environmental support group was also not quite as well satisfied 

with respect to job security as were the rest of the AF employees. Those 

in the miscellaneous group also rated adequacy of satisfaction relatively 

low for the factors of job security and recognition from peers. Personnel 

both in plans and programing and in automation rated adequacy of satisfaction 

with working conditions higher than did other AF employees. Plans and 

programing ratings and the ratings from the miscellaneous group were relatively 

high on the management effectiveness items, while the miscellaneous specialty 

group also rated recognition from others higher than was typical for the 

majority of the participants. 

3. Salary. As would be expected on the basis of the findings described 

above, those in the environmental support specialty differed considerably 

from other AF employees in their judgments about salary. These respondents 

reported less satisfaction in the amount of salary received and more 

negative feelings about the fairness of the salary structure than did any 

other group (Table 18). Only two-thirds (66 percent) of the environmental 

support employees felt their salaries were adequate compared to more than 

80 percent in the other specialties. The environmental support personnel 

were also considerably more likely to feel that others in AF, others in the 

FAA, and others in industry received more equitable salary treatment than 

they. 

4. Personnel programs. Evaluations of training were relatively 

consistent across specialties, except that those in plans and programing 

and in communications judged consideration of needs in training less 

positively than did other AF personnel (Table 18). On the other hand, those 

in the miscellaneous specialty group had a higher opinion of the consideration 

given to the skills of the individual in training than was found for most 

AF employees. 

56 
ppgp py gp 

administration and fairness of administration of the MPP programs higher 

than did other respondents. 

Ratings of the EEO program indicated that those in plans and programing 

and in the miscellaneous specialty group rated the concept, administration, 

and fairness of administration of EEO more positively than did other 

specialty groups. Those in the environmental support group also rated 

both EEO administration and fairness of EEO administration at the same level 

as did those employees in plans and programing. 

5. Mana ement and su ervision. The miscellaneous specialty group 

rated managerial supervisory helpfulness, clarity of goal setting, and 

acknowledgment of employees more positively than did other specialty 

groups (Table 18). 

The evaluation of supervisory/managerial concern revealed that those 

in the miscellaneous group rated immediate supervision and regional-level 

management more highly in this regard than did other groups. Those in the 

plans and programing specialty rated unit- and sector-level concern less 

favorably than did others. 

Assessments of performance evaluation were similar for all specialties. 

6. Work schedule. No differences in work schedule ratings were 

noted as a function of specialty. 

7. Workload. Indications of the amount of worktime well used by 

the agency were slightly higher for those in the miscellaneous group than 

for others (Table 18). 

The principal causes of nonproductive time were seen somewhat differently 

by the various groups. Plans and programing personnel felt coordination 

requirements were a principal source of wasted time, more so than did those 

in other specialties. The environmental support group was more likely to 

indicate difficulties with supplies than were members of other specialties, 

while personnel concerned with automation or radar cited the erratic nature 

of the workload somewhat more often than did other types of employees. 

Ratings of staffing levels revealed that automation personnel were 

more likely to feel that their units were staffed to handle peak loads 

and that there were usually enough individuals on hand to accomplish the 

required tasks than were the respondents from other specialties. 

8. Location. There were no differences in satisfaction with location 

or desire to move that were associated with specialty. There were some 

57 
employees and more often by plans and programing and automation personnel 

than by those in other specialties (Table 18). The plans and programing 

group also was more likely than most to indicate changing to different 

work as an incentive to move. Those in environmental support more often 

endorsed promotion opportunities as a reason for moving than did other 

AF employees. 

9. Employee-management relations. As in several of the preceding 

sections, the plans and programing group differed from the other specialty 

groups on several of these items (Table 18). These respondents rated their 

own knowledge of FAA and union policy concerning employee-management relations 

higher than did those in other specialties. They also tended to give somewhat 

higher ratings to the quality of relations at the regional and national 

levels, although these ratings were equaled or exceeded by those of employees 

in the miscellaneous specialty group. These trends were also found in the 

ratings of fairness of FAA employee-management relations. 

10. Discussion. Clearly, the two specialty groups that differ most 

from the typical AF pattern are the plans and programing and the environmental support groups. Most of the differential effects associated with 

the plans and programing group are probably related to their principal 

location in regional offices and to the differences in their job tasks in 

comparison with most other AF employees. In most respects they seem to be 

upwardly mobile, management oriented, and somewhat more satisfied--or at 

least somewhat more optimistic--in their outlook than are other specialty 

groups in AF. 

On the other hand, the environmental support group was notable in 

being particularly more negative about one aspect of AF employment, salary, 

than were other groups of personnel. However, with the exception of salary 

matters, the environmental support personnel responded very similarly to 

most other AF employees. Thus, it does not appear that this group has an 

unusually low level of morale or job satisfaction; they appear to have 

generally good feelings about their work, with the exception of the salary 

area. 

V. Type of Facility. 

A. Likes and Dislikes Ratings. Of the four groupings of facility 

types, regional office personnel tended to give more extreme ratings than 

did those in other kinds of facilities; regional office employees had 

either the highest or the lowest average ratings on 10 of the 17 items for 

which significant differences were obtained (Table 19). The ratings by 

regional office personnel indicated the greatest degree of liking for 

heavy workloads, promotion opportunities, regional management, and national 

58 
Facility 

Questionnaire Items Significance a 

Regional Major Small 

Office Tower ARTCC Facility 

Likes-Dislikes Ratings 

Working With Equipmentb. .001 74 92 91 92 Retirement Benefits. .05 88 88 89 90 

Associating With Coworkers No effect 

Challenge of Work. No effect 

Service to Aviation. No effect 

AF Career. No effect 

Working in Civil Service No effect 

Working in Aviation. .001 84 82 77 81 

AF Job Tasks No effect 

Work Variety .05 81 76 79 79 

Working Dayshifts (0800-1600). .001 84 78 69 83 

Difficulty of Work No effect 

Salary No effect 

Moderate Workloads .05 62 71 70 73 

Physical Work Environment. .001 63 58 77 66 

Respect and Prestige No effect 

Number of Trained Coworkers. .01 60 54 66 61 

Quality of Supervision No effect 

General Workload .01 55 48 57 54 

Heavy Workloads. .05 60 48 56 48 

Established Work Procedures. .01 37 44 40 49 

Test Equipment .001 37 44 51 45 

Quality of Local Management. No effect 

Working With Controllers .01 28 43 32 34 

Miscellaneous Duties .001 23 31 38 30 

Promotion Opportunities. .001 44 32 37 41 

Working Evening Shifts (1600- 2400) .001 19 41 49 29 

Light Workloads. .001 15 24 22 25 

National Management. .01 28 18 17 21 

Regional Management. .001 38 19 17 25 

Rotating Shifts. No effect 

Working Mid Shifts (2400-0800) No effect 

.Job Satisfaction c 

Ratings 

Satisfaction With Occupation •. No effect 

Satisfaction With Working in AF. No effect 

Satisfaction With Working Conditions .001 72 70 80 77 

Satisfaction With Precut Position in AF. .05 67 66 70 71 

Rankings of Importance/Ratings of Adequacy 

of Satisfaction 

Job Security .001/-- 5.8/-- 4.3/-- 4.7/-- 4.3/--

Job Achievement. .05/-- 3.9/-- 4.8/-- 4.7/-- 4.6/--

Responsibility for Own Work. --/.05 --/67 --/78 --/82 --/78 

Salary .001/-- 5.4/-- 4.1/-- 4.3/-- 4.3/--

Work Itself. .05/-- 5.9/-- 7.0/-- 6.7/-- 6.8/--

Recognition From Coworkers No effect 

Supervision. --/.05 --/62 --/54 --/63 --/57 

Working Conditions .01/.001 7.1/61 6.1/50 6.1/72 5.9/52 

Possibility of Growth. --/.001 --/41 --/48 --/52 --/50 

Management Effectiveness --/.05 --/38 --/26 --/28 --/29 

Recognition From Others. --/.01 --/35 --/30 --/24 --/33 

Promotion Opportunities. .05/.001 5.9/23 6.4/18 6.2/21 6.8/26 

59 
Questionnaire Items 

Salary e Adequacy of Present Salary 

Appropriate Amountf. 

Fairness ofhSalaryg. 

Comparisons 

Other AF Personnel 

ATC Personnel. 

Other FAA Personnel. 

Private Industry 

Personnel Programs 

Traininge 

Quality of Resident (Academy) Training 

Consideration of Employee Training Needs 

Consideration of Employee Skills 

Quality of on-the-job Training 

Planning for Training •. 11eri t Promotion Plan (11PP )e 

Concept of MPP . 

Fairness of MPP Concept. 

Administration of MPP. 

Fairness of MPP Administration . Equal Employment Opportunity (EEO)e 

Concept of EEO . Fairness of EEO Concept. 

Administration of EEO. 

Fairness of EEO Administration 

Management and Supervision 

Managerial/Supervisory Effectivehesse 

Freedom to Discuss Work Problems 

Use of Employee Skills 

Acknowledgment by Supervisor 

Clarity of Task Explanation. 

Helpfulness With Technical Problems. 

Acknowledgment by Ma~agers 

Performance Evaluation 

Accuracy 

Fairness 

Thoroughness 

Indication of Needed Improvements. 

Detailing of Work Standards. 

Helpfulness in Improving Work. 

Managerial/Supervisory Concernl. 

Level 

Immediate Supervisor 

Unit (e.g., Sector Field Office) 

Sector 

Region 

Agency 

Work Schedule 

Satisfaction With Schedulec. 

Significance a 

No effect 

.01 * 

.001 

.001 

.01 

.001 

.001 

.05 

.001 

.001 

.01 

.01 

.001 

.05 

.01 

.05 

.05 

.05 

.05 

.001 

.001 

.001 

.001 

.001 

No effect 

No effect 

No effect 

No effect 

No effect 

No effect 

No effect 

No effect 

No effect 

No effect 

No effect 

No effect 

No effect 

No effect 

60 

Regional 

Office 

21.9 

31 

68 

34 

69 

46 

57 

52 

49 

65 

45 

77 

74 

83 

76 

70 

71 

62 

75 

70 

70 

55 

50 

Facility 

Major 

Tower 

22.1 

22 

69 

31 

88 

65 

63 

59 

60 

50 

34 

82 

69 

78 

74 

76 

75 

66 

77 

70 

61 

48 

39 

ARTCC 

21.8 

18 

67 

23 

81 

63 

63 

57 

61 

54 

36 

77 

78 

86 

81 

80 

75 

73 

83 

74 

65 

39 

31 

Small 

Facility 

20.4 

27 

60 

34 

88 

70 

69 

68 

66 

60 

43 

86 

75 

84 

80 

80 

80 

71 

77 

76 

65 

53 

57 
Questionnaire Items 

Workload 

Amount of Workloadj 

Light. 

Moderate 

Heavy .......• Preferred WorkloadJ 

Light, 

Moderate 

Heavy. . • •• 

Percent of Time Well Used, 'k' 

Causes of Nonproductive Time 

Erratic Workload 

Management/Supervision 

Paperwork. 

Travel to Sites. 

Miscellaneous. 

Staffing k 

To Handle 

Light Workloads. 

Moderate Workloads 

Peak Workloads • • • . 

Sufficient for Workload~ 

Location 

Satisfaction With 

Present Locationc 

Would Like to Move~. Incentives to Move 

Promotion With More Pay. 

Higher Pay . • • • . • • . ' . • . Increased Promotion Opportunities. 

Better Geographical Location 

Change of Work 

Promotion With Same Pay. 

Other. 

Employee-Management Relations n Knowledge of FAA Policies, 

Knowledge of Union Policies, 

Quality of Employee-Management 

Relations at: 

Unit Level 0 • 

Regional Level 

National Level . . • . • • • • . • . 6 Fairness in Employee-Management Relations. 

Significance a 

.001* 

.01* 

.001* 

.001* 

.05* 

.001* 

.001* 

.001 

.001 

.001 

.001 

.001 

.001 

.001 

.001 

.05 

.05 

.001 

.001 

.01 

.001 

.05 

.001 

No effect 

No effect 

No effect 

No effect 

No effect 

No effect 

No effect 

No effect 

Regional 

Office 

15 

41 

44 

10 

59 

32 

71 

20 

21 

13 

6 

16 

64 

20 

61 

79 

50 

24 

40 

74 

71 

71 

74 

Major 

Tower 

22 

43 

35 

19 

60 

21 

78 

33 

15 

9 

8 

18 

61 

21 

62 

78 

44 

24 

60 

69 

60 

64 

61 

a Refers to significance level of chi-square analyses except where an asterisk is shown in 

which case the value refers to the significance level of an analysis of variance. 

b Percentage liking. c Percentage satisfied. 

d First number indicates ranking; number following slash indicates percentage rating good 

or better. e Percentage rating adequate or better. 

f Dollars in thousands. 

g Percentage rating fair. ~ Percentage reporting others treated more favorably. 

Percentage rating high or moderate concern. j Percentage of workdays. 

k Percentage of respondents endorsing. 

1 Percentage indicating usually or always. 

m Percentage wanting to move. n Percentage indicating some or more knowledge. 

o Percentage indicating acceptable or better. 

61 

ARTCC 

25 

46 

29 

15 

63 

22 

73 

38 

11 

5 

1 

11 

55 

34 

76 

74 

48 

27 

58 

73 

56 

59 

60 

Small 

Facility 

22 

47 

31 

17 

64 

20 

76 

26 

10 

14 

17 

16 

56 

28 

69 

82 

40 

15 

50 

75 

66 

68 

72 
shifts, light workloads, and moderate workloads. (It should be remembered 

that this discussion refers to relative ratings and that the ratings 

generally were to the "like" side of the scale; the concern here is the 

standing of the rating relative to other groups.) An examination of the 

characteristics of these items suggests that they reflect many of the 

differences between regional office and field employment circumstances; those 

in the regional offices probably have more promotion options than do those 

in the field (and quite probably seek out regional office positions in part 

for that reason), they work less with equipment, and they are closer in most 

respects to regional and national managers. The preference for heavy workloads may reflect some of the ambitiousness that may be characteristic 

of those seeking promotional opportunities through the regional office setting. 

Employees at ARTCC's provided the highest ratings on five items: 

miscellaneous duties, the working environment, the quality of test equipment, 

number of trained coworkers, and working evening shifts. They provided 

the lowest ratings on the items of working in aviation and working day 

shifts. They also gave a relatively low rating to the item concerning 

promotion opportunities, but not so low as did personnel from major towers 

(level III and IV towers). The relatively high approval of the items 

concerning environment, test equipment, and staffing by these employees 

would seem to match well with the relative newness of the ARTCC facilities, 

in terms of the physical plants and equipment, and the large AF staffs in 

each. The remote contact with aviation associated with work at an ARTCC 

is reflected in the rating of work in aviation. 

Personnel at major towers gave the highest rating of the four groups 

on the single item of working in AF. They were lowest on liking for their 

overall workload and promotion opportunities. They were also relatively 

high in their ratings of liking of established work procedures and evening 

shifts but not as high as personnel from small facilities and ARTCC's 

respectively. On the item concerning day shifts they gave ratings lower 

than all but those of the ARTCC group. 

The ratings by personnel at small facilities were generally at an 

intermediate level with the exception of the item concerning established 

work procedures, to which they gave a higher rating than did employees at 

other types of facilities. Their ratings did tend to be higher for 

promotion opportunities, regional management, and national management; 

in each of these cases, only regional office employees gave higher ratings. 

They also gave a relatively low rating to working evening shifts but, again, 

not as low as that of the regional office groups. 

B. Job Satisfaction. There were differences between employees at the 

four types of facilities on two of the four scales concerning general 

62 
tion with working conditions was greatest for ARTCC employees, followed 

by those at small facilities, who were in turn followed by those at 

regional offices, and finally by employees at major towers. 

In terms of importance to satisfaction, most of the ratings were very 

similar. The significant exceptions were ratings by regional office 

personnel of the importance of salary, job security, and working conditions, 

each of which was rated as less important by them than by field facility 

personnel, and the factors of job achievement and work itself, which 

were rated as more important by the regional office group. It is also 

important to note that compared to the other groups, personnel at small 

facilities rated promotion opportunities as less important to satisfaction. 

In reference to ratings of adequacy of satisfaction, the regional 

office employees were again the most discriminating of the facility groups; 

they rated adequacy of satisfaction greater than did the others on freedom 

to do one's own work and management effectiveness and somewhat lower than 

the others on possibility of growth. The regional office group also rated 

adequacy of satisfaction for working conditions and promotion opportunities 

relatively high but not so high as did ARTCC employees for the former and 

small facility personnel for the latter. Those at ARTCC's rated the 

satisfaction from recognition lowest of all the groups and rated promotion 

opportunities next to lowest of the groups. Those at major towers gave 

the lowest ratings relative to the others on supervisory effectiveness 

and on promotion opportunities. 

C. Salary. Although, the four facility groups gave very similar 

ratings to adequacy of salary (Table 19), they did differ to some degree 

on the appropriate amount of salary for their work. Those at major towers 

indicated on the average an appropriate annual salary that was $200 higher 

than that indicated by those at regional offices, who in turn were $100 

higher in their estimates than were those at ARTCC's. However, the largest 

difference was between the ARTCC's and small facilities, as small facility 

employees reported a value $1,400 lower than that of the ARTCC group. 

The responses to the items concerning equity of salary showed that 

more regional office employees felt others in AF are treated more fairly 

in salary than they. At the other end, ARTCC personnel were least likely 

to indicate this. Employees at small facilities were somewhat less inclined 

than other AF respondents to indicate that air traffic personnel receive 

preferential treatment, although approximately 60 percent of this group 

still held that belief. The only other difference obtained on these items 

related to comparisons with outside industry; the ARTCC group was less likely 

to report better salary treatment outside the FAA than were employees at the 

other types of facilities. 

63 
field facilities (Table 19). This was true for assessments of onthejob 

and Academy training; it was also true for planning and for consideration of 

employee needs and skills. On the other hand, personnel at small facilities 

gave relatively higher ratings to the items concerning on-the-job training, 

planning, and consideration of needs and skills than did other respondents. 

There were also differences in the evaluation of MPP; regional office 

and small facility ~mployees indicated greater approval of the fairness 

of both the concept and administration of MPP than did employees at major 

towers and ARTCC's. 

Judgments of the EEO program did not differ as a function of the type 

of facility. 

E. Management and Supervision. Ratings for all levels of supervisory/ 

managerial concern except the national level differed as a function of 

facility type (Table 19). Regional office employees rated sector- and 

unit-level concern lower than did field facility employees; ARTCC personnel 

rated immediate supervisory concern higher and regional concern lower than 

did the other employees at other locations. Those at small facilities 

provided the highest ratings of unit-level concern. 

Two items concerning management effectiveness yielded differences between 

facility types. Both small-facility and major-tower personnel felt their 

talents were better used than did regional office or ARTCC employees. On 

the other hand, respondents from major towers reported less acknowledgment 

by supervisors than did those in other facilities. 

Ratings of performance evaluation reveal that regional office and majortower employees are more critical of management than are other employees. 

Regional office personnel gave the lowest ratings of the four groups to 

items concerning the presentation of areas of needed improvement, detailing 

of job expectations, and helpfulness of the evaluation process. Those at 

major towers gave relatively lower ratings on accuracy of evaluation and 

also on helpfulness of the evaluation, although regional office employees 

had an even lower average rating on this item. 

F. Work Schedule. Regional office and small-facility employees were 

substantially more satisfied with their work schedules than were those 

employed at major towers and ARTCC's (Table 19). These differences almost 

certainly reflect the higher incidence of rotating schedules at the latter 

two types of facilities. 

G. Workload. The estimates of workload were different for each of the 

four types of facilities (Table 19). The regional office estimates were 

64 
personnel again gave the heaviest estimates, followed by ARTCC and smallfacility employees, and then by those at the major towers. 

When asked what percentage of their time was well used, both majortower and small-facility respondents reported higher values than did the 

AF employees at ARTCC's and regional offices; however, the differences 

were not particularly large. 

The indications of causes of nonproductive time varied considerably 

as a function of facility type. Those in regional offices endorsed the 

items concerning coordination requirements and management/supervision more 

often, and erratic workload less often, then did those at field facilities. 

Employees at small facilities indicated travel as a major factor more 

often than did those employed elsewhere. Also, those at ARTCC's felt less 

inclined than other AF employees to cite paperwork as a cause of lost time. 

Estimates of staffing levels were generally similar, except that 

personnel at ARTCC's reported somewhat higher staffing levels than did 

those at other types of facilities. 

H. Location. Employees at small facilities tended to be more satisfied 

than other AF employees with their locations, while those at ARTCC's were 

clearly less satisfied (Table 19). Conversely, small-facility employees 

were least likely to want to move. The regional office group was most 

desirous of change of location, followed by ARTCC and then major-tower 

employees. 

There were almost no differences between types of facilities in terms 

of the attractiveness of various incentives to move. The only significant 

difference noted concerned the incentive of promotion to more responsibility 

at the same pay; a generally not-too-attractive proposition, it was seen as 

particularly less attractive by small-facility personnel. 

I. Employee-Management Relations. Awareness of FAA policies in the 

area of employee-management relations was highest at ARTCC's and major 

towers, the types of facilities that are most interested in these matters 

(Table 19). Regional office personnel, who may have little occasion to 

be involved in such matters, appeared to be least aware of these policies. 

The quality of employee-management relations at the unit level was 

judged lowest by major-tower respondents. These respondents also made 

relatively low assessments of such relationships at the regional and 

national levels but not as low as those of ARTCC employees. Regional office 

65 
Overall fairness of employee-management relations was judged best by 

regional office personnel, followed by small-facility employees, who were 

followed by employees at major towers and ARTCC's. 

J. Discussion. The findings for facility types are among the most 

interesting of the survey. The pattern of responses of regional office 

employees suggests they are more typically upwardly mobile, striving, and 

ambitious than are those at field facilities. They pay less attention to 

security and more to seeking out situations that offer opportunity for 

advancement and work variety than is typical of others in AF. They are 

more interested in moving and in general seem to be the most willing to take 

risks in order to advance. On the other hand, those at small facilities 

seem to have a considerably different view. They show little inclination to 

move and less interest in advancement, and they have a greater investment in 

"their" facility. This "pride of ownership" may be a factor in the 

attitudes of ARTCC and major-tower employees as well, in that the larger 

staffs and rotating shifts may serve to lessen investment in the facility 

itself. Thus, particularly for employees at ARTCC's, there seems to be 

less allegiance to the facility and a greater willingness to move to other 

locations than for other AF employees. It should be noted that these 

tendencies do not necessarily represent lower job satisfaction on the part 

of ARTCC employees; rather, the findings are suggestive of the nature of 

their identification with specific facilities. 

66 
1. Federal Aviation Administration: Summary Report on Systems Maintenance 

Program Evaluation Conducted in Southwest Region, 1971. 

2. Federal Aviation Administration: Report on a Special Agencywide 

Evaluation of Airway Facilities F&E Program Activities and Functions, 

Report No. AAF-73-1, 1973. 

3. Federal Aviation Administration: Summary Report on Airway Facilities 

F&E Program Evaluation Conducted in the Great Lakes Region, 1974. 

4. Federal Aviation Administration: Summary Report on Airway Facilities 

F&E Program Evaluation Conducted in the Southern Region, Report No. 

AAF-74-3, 1974. 

5. Federal Aviation Administration: Summary Report on Airway Facilities 

Maintenance Program Evaluation Conducted in the New England Region, 

Report No. AAF-75-5, 1975. 

6. Federal Aviation Administration: Airway Facilities Career Planning 

Program, Order No. 3410.12. 

7. Herzberg, F.: Work and the Nature of Man, Cleveland, World 

Publishing Co., 1966. 

8. Matt, P. E., F. C. Mann, Q. Mcloughlin, and D.P. Warwick: Shift 

Work, Ann Arbor, University of Michigan Press, 1965. 

9. Smith, R. C., B. B. Cobb, and W. E. Collins: Attitudes and Motivations 

of Air Traffic Controllers in Terminal Areas, AEROSPACE MEDICINE, 

43:1-5, 1972. 

10. Smith, R. C.: Job Attitudes of Air Traffic Controllers: A Comparison 

of Three Air Traffic Control Specialties. FAA Office of Aviation 

Medicine Report No. FAA-AM-73-2, 1973. 

11. Tifflin, J., and E. McCormick: Industrial Psychology, Englewood 

Cliffs, New Jersey, Prentice Hall, Inc., 1965. 

12. Young, K.: Social Psychology, 3d Ed., New York, Appleton-CenturyCrofts, 1956. 

67 
Instructions 

AF Employee Attitude Survey 

The purpose of this survey is to determine the overall attitudes of Airway 

Facilities employees toward their work in the FAA. 

Your name was selected randomly, along with many others to receive this survey; 

however, participation on your part is entirely voluntary. No record of 

participants will be kept; therefore, 

1. DO NOT PUT YOUR NAME ON THIS QUESTIONNAIRE. Since we are interested 

in your frank and candid answers to these questions, the survey is 

entirely confidential and anonymous. 

2. Please read the instructions for each part of the ~uestionnaire 

carefully. 

3. Work quickly, do not spend a long time on any one item--use your 

first impression to answer each item. It is important that you 

complete as much as possible of the questionnaire; however, you 

may omit questions you prefer not to answer. 

4. When you are through, seal the questionnaire in the preaddressed 

envelope and mail it directly to the Civil Aeromedical Institute. 

5. In order to insure timely completion of the survey project, 

please return this questionnaire within 10 days. 

Upon completion of the survey, the results will be analyzed, and a report 

prepared. Copies of the report will be available to all AF installations. 

68 
Basic Information--AF Employee Attitude Survey 

Age. __ _ Grade: WG ____________ _ GS -----------

Years FAA/CAA service ____ __ 

Occupation (please check) Primary specialty (check one) 

engineer __________________ __ Plans & programming 

technician ________________ __ Communications 

other (specify) Radar 

Navaids 

What percent of your work time do you 

spend in Automation 

F&E Environmental 

program engineering____ support 

installation Other (specify) 

planning, ______________ ~ 

Maintenance In which FAA Region are you located? 

program planning ______ _ 

engineering -----------

operation 

Other (specify) ________ _ 

Your usual work location 

Regional office ________ _ 

Field 

Major Terminal area 

(Level III or IV) 

ARTCC 

FSS, Combined Tower/ 

Station, other 

towers, etc. 

(one or more 

smaller facilities) 

NE EA.._._ GL so 

CE sw RM WE 

NW AL PC 

69 
Please indicate your likes and dislikes about AF work. List your comments in rank 

order, the most important first and so on. Please make your comments BRIEF and 

LEGIBLE. Answer first for AF work in general, then for this facility. 

----------------------------------AF WORK IN GENERAL-----------------------------------

A. Cite three specific aspects of AF work in·GENERAL which you like BEST. 

(1) --------------------

(2) --------------------

(3) -------------------------------------

B. Cite three specific aspects of AF work in GENERAL which you like LEAST. 

(1) 

(2) 

(9) 

-------------------------------AF WORK AT THIS FACILITY-----------------------------~-­

A. Cite three specific aspects of AF work which you like BEST at this FACILITY. 

(1) 

(2) 

(3) 

B. Cite three specific aspects of AF work which you like LEAST at this FACILITY. 

(1) 

-----------------

(2) ----------------------------------------

(3) 

70 
Job Satisfaction Questionnaire 

On the following four questions, please check the mark on each scale 

that most closely represents your feelings. 

1. How satisfied are you with being employed in the AF system? 

very 

satisfied satisfied indifferent dissatisfied 

2. How satisfied are you with your present position in AF? 

very 

satisfied satisfied indifferent dissatisfied 

very 

dissatisfied 

very 

dissatisfied 

3. How satisfied are you with your choice of occupation in general; that is, 

with being an electronic technician, engineer, inspector, or whatever? 

very 

satisfied satisfied indifferent dissatisfied 

very 

dissatisfied 

4. In general, how satisfactory are your working conditions in AF? 

very 

satisfactory satisfactory neither unsatisfactory 

very 

unsatisfactory 

a. What about your working conditions is most satisfactory? 

b. What about your working conditions is most unsatisfactory? 

71 
5. In the left-hand column please rank the following factors according to their 

order of importance in making a job satisfying to you (rank the most important 

factor with a 1, the next with a 2, the next with a 3 and so on, giving the 

least important factor an 11--use each rank only once). After ranking all 

factors, then rate each factor in the right-hand columns by placing a check 

in the column which most closely indicates the degree to which your present 

AF position provides adequate satisfaction for each of the factors. 

Rank Factor 

possibility for growth through 

improvement of skills, acquisition 

of new skills, self-development 

job security 

management effectiveness and 

competence 

working conditions (physical conditions, workload, environment, 

adequate equipment, etc.) 

salary 

competence and fairness of 

immediate supervisor 

promotion opportunities 

job achievement (success at job, 

solving problems, seeing 

results of work) 

freedom to use own judgment, 

responsibility for own work, 

opportunity to use initiative 

recognition for work 

(a) from fellow workers 

(b) from those outside AF 

the work itself (job tasks, job 

challenge, variety) 

72 

Adequacy of Satisfaction 

very very 

good good fair poor poor 
Rating AF Work 

Please rate each of the following aspects of working in AF in terms of whether 

it is a work factor which you like or dislike. Place a check mark in the column 

which most closely indicates your feeling for each factor. 

1. Challenge of AF work---------

2. Difficulty of AF work--------

3. AF job tasks (radar installation, communications maintenance, etc.)--------------

4. Variety of your job tasks----

5. Established work procedures--

6. Working in aviation----------

7. Amount of workload-----------

8. Miscellaneous duties (paper 

work, training, etc.)------

9. Working with controllers-----

10. Career in AF-----------------

11. Respect and prestige of 

being in AF as technician, 

engineer, etc.-------------

12. The service performed for 

aviation-------------------

13. Being in civil service-------

14. Retirement benefits----------

15. Promotion opportunities------

16. Level of salary--------------

17. Association with fellow 

workers--------------------

Like 

Very 

Much 

73 

Like 

Neither 

Like Nor 

Dislike Dislike 

Dislike 

Very 

Much 
18. Physical working environments----------------------

19. Working with the equipment---

20. Quality of test equipment----

21. Number of trained coworkers--

22. If you worked rotating shifts 

a. Changing work shifts---

Like 

Very 

Much 

b. Working day shifts 

(approximately 8:00-4:00) __ 

c. WorKing evening shifts 

(approximately 4:00-12:00) __ _ 

d. Working night shifts 

(approximately 12:00-8:00) __ _ 

23. Workdays with light workload24. Workdays with moderate workload-----------------------

25. Workdays with high workload--

26. Quality of immediate 

supervision----------------

27. Quality of local management--

28. Quality of regional management-----------------------

29. Quality of national management-----------------------

74 

Like 

Neither 

Like Nor 

Dislike Dislike 

6 

Dislike 

Very 

Much 
Various Work Factors 

I. Please rate the unit you work in on the following factors: 

A. Evaluation of your 

performance by 

your Supervisor 

accuracy of ratings 

thoroughness of 

evaluation 

fairness 

indication of areas of 

needed improvement 

detailing of specific 

work standards 

helpfulness in 

improving work 

B. Training and Development 

quality of on-job 

training 

quality of resident 

training (for example, 

at the FAA Academy or 

other school) 

planning for training 

opportunities 

consideration of 

employee training and 

development needs 

consideration of 

employee skills and 

potential 

Very 

Excellent Good Good 

75 

Very 

Adequate Poor Poor 

7 

Totally 

Inadequate 
II. Please rate 

Very Very 

Excellent Good Good Adequate Poor Poor 

A. The Merit Promotion 

Plan (MPP) 

concept of MPP 

fairness of MPP 

concept 

administration of MPP 

fairness of administration of MPP 

B. The Equal Employment 

Opportunity Program (EEO) 

concept of EEO 

fairness of EEO concept 

administration of EEO 

fairness of administration of EEO 

C. Miscellaneous Items 

use of my personal skills 

and abilities (talent) 

managerial helpfulness 

in solving my technical 

problems 

clarity with which work 

tasks and goals are 

explained to me 

freedom to discuss workrelated problems with 

supervisors and 

management 

acknowledgment by immediate 

supervisor of input by 

employees 

acknowledgment by management of input from 

employees and subordinate supervisors 

76 

Totally 

Inadequate 
III. Salary 

In terms of the work you now do, please check how you would rate your 

present salary. 

Very 

Good Good 

Very 

Adequate Inadequate Inadequate 

~fuat do you feel is an appropriate salary for 

your present position? $ ____ _ 

9 

Approximately how much of a change is this from 

what you now make? $ ______________ increase 

or 

$ _____________ decrease 

Please check the term which indicates how you feel about the fairness of 

the FAA salary structure for AF employees. 

Very 

Fair Fair 

Neither 

Fair nor 

Unfair Unfair 

Very 

Unfair 

Please place a check mark in the column that best describes your feelings 

about the salary you receive in comparison to the salaries paid to 

members of other employee groups. 

With Respect to Salary 

(a) other AF specialty groups are 

treated 

(b) personnel in air traffic control 

work are treated 

(c) other FAA employees in general 

are treated 

(d) personnel doing similar jobs in 

private industry are treated 

77 

More 

Favorably 

Equally 

Favorably 

Less 

Favorably 
IV. Work Schedule 

Do you work a rotating shift schedule? Yes No 

If yes--

(a) What is your shift rotation schedule? 

(b) How satisfied are you with this schedule? 

Very 

Satisfied Satisfied Neither 

Very 

Dissatisfied Dissatisfied 

(c) What shift rotation schedule would you prefer and why? 

V. SupeLvisory/Managerial Factors 

Please rate (by checking the appropriate column) the degree of interest 

you feel each level of FAA management has in your well being as an AF 

employee. Be sure to rate your immediate supervisor, then the next 

highest level and so on. Mark levels that do not apply by checking the 

"Does not Apply" column (e.g., if you are in the regional office you 

would rate your immediate supervisor, then regional management and 

agency management; if you are in a sector you would rate all levels). 

Rating of High 

immediate supervisor 

unit, SFO, etc. 

sector 

region 

agency (headquarters) __ __ 

Moderate 

78 

Low 

Does not 

Apply 
11 

VI. Location 

The following questions refer to the general geographic area in which you 

work, and not to a specific FAA facility or installation. Please check the 

term which best describes your satisfaction with the geographic location in 

which you now work. 

Very 

Satisfied Satisfied Neither 

Very 

Dissatisfied Dissatisfied 

Would you like to move to another location? Yes No 

If so, where would you like to be located? 

Which of the following incentives would encourage you to move (check as 

many as apply to you)? 

move to a better geographic area 

higher pay 

promotion to a position of more 

responsibility without a pay 

change 

promotion to a position of more 

responsibility with an 

increase in pay 

opportunity to do different 

work 

to a position with greater 

promotion opportunity 

other (please specify) 

79 
VII. 

Workload 

A. What percentage of your workdays would you classify as 

light workload % 

moderate workload % 

heavy workload % 

B. What percentage of your workdays would you like to be of light, heavy, 

or moderate workload? 

light ______ % 

moderate ______ .% 

heavy ______ % 

C. If you work on a rotating shift schedule, how do you classify your 

work experience on each of the various shifts? 

Light Moderate Heavy 

Day shifts (approximately 8-4) % % % 

Evening shifts (approximately 

4-12) % % % 

Mid shifts (~pproximately 

midnight to 8) % % % 

D. What percentage of your time do you feel is well used by the agency? % 

E. What is the most important cause of non-productive or free time in your job? 

F. In terms of the staffing (number of people in the unit) of your unit do you 

feel your unit is (check the most applicable statement) 

staffed to handle light workloads but inadequate for peak workloads 

staffed to handle moderate workloads but inadequate for peak workloads 

staffed to handle peak workloads 

G. Please check the term that best describes how often you have enough personnel 

to handle the workload in your unit. 

never rarely sometimes usually always 

80 
VIII. Employee-Management Relations 

To what extent do you have 

personal knowledge of FAA 

policies regarding employeemanagement relations? 

To what extent do you have 

personal knowledge of 

union policies regarding 

employee-management 

relations in the FAA? 

How do you feel about the 

quality of FAA employeemanagement relations: 

1. at your work setting 

2. at the Regional level 

3. at the national level 

How do you feel about the 

fairness with which the 

FAA deals with employeemanagement relations? 

81 

Thorough 

Very 

Good 

Considerable 

Good 

Some 

Acceptable 

13 

Little 

Poor 

None 

Very 

Poor 
Motivators 

Work Itself 

Achievement 

Responsibility 

Recognition 

Advancement 

Possibility of Growth 

Hygiene 

Company Policy and 

Administration 

Working Conditions 

Supervision--

Technical 

Interpersonal Relations 

Salary 

Other 

Job tasks, challenge, difficulty, variety. 

Success on the job, solving problems, seeing 

the results of one's work, vindication of ideas. 

Responsiblity for own work, new responsibilities, 

responsibility for safety. 

Recognition from peers, supervision, management, public for work. 

Change in status by promotion. 

Opportunity for development of skills and 

interests, potential for self-development, 

acquisition of new skills. 

Management, personnel policies, management 

quality and competence, organization, goals. 

Physical conditions, workload, adequacy of 

facilities available to accomplish work, 

environmental characteristics of job. 

Supervision competence, delegation of work, 

understanding of work, fairness, attitude. 

Cooperation between AF personnel, like or 

dislike of peers, honesty, friendliness of 

supervisors, working relationships with trainees. 

Compensation levels, salary increments. 

Effects on family relationships, job security, 

status. 

82