Job satisfaction among mid-level collegiate campus recreation program administrators.

Zhang, James J. ; DeMichele, Douglas J. ; Connaughton, Daniel P. 等

In the past two decades, campus recreation has been a rapidly evolving system within the collegiate environment. What was once referred to as the "intramural" program has expanded extensively in the late 1990's to encompass an array of recreational pursuits. Formal and informal recreational opportunities, such as intramural sports, fitness programs, sport clubs, outdoor recreation, aquatics program, and aerobic dance classes, have created a comprehensive campus recreation program. The national movement toward understanding the importance of fitness and wellness has also contributed to the rapid growth of campus recreation. College and university administrations have endorsed this progressive movement and acknowledged the importance of campus recreation (Miller & Evans, 1991). To an extreme extent, some colleges and universities such as the University of Baltimore eliminated intercollegiate athletics in favor of campus recreation, lifetime sport, and student activities. The university administrators determined that all appropriations and facilities previously allocated to intercollegiate athletic programs were to be transferred to recreational programs. Following the restructuring, the university administration concluded that the entire student body, especially women and non-traditional students, benefited from this change (Pelletier & Peterson, 1986).

Institutional administrators, such as the directors of admissions, often utilize campus recreation facilities and programs to promote the university when recruiting prospective students and retaining current ones. Bryant, Banta, and Bradley (1995) found that over 30% of university students considered recreational facilities and programs as important factors in deciding to attend or continue at their chosen institutions. The researchers further stated: "other than the occasional freshman course required of all students, recreation may constitute the single most common experience of college students" (p. 159). Interestingly, Mallinackrodt and Sedlacek (1987) found that the number of hours spent in the campus gymnasium was a significant predictor of black student retention.

Due to the fast growth of campus recreation programs, college and university administrators must provide the necessary resources to enhance facilities, and to hire, train, and retain staff members. Proactive institutions have developed master plans and insightfully allocated resources for the construction of recreation facilities and for the professional growth of their staff. On some campuses, construction projects may be supported by student referendums; while on other campuses, new multi-million facilities may be supported through legislative funding systems. In addition to building state of the art facilities, colleges have been challenged to develop campus recreation professionals with particular knowledge and experience in intramural sport, club sport, fitness, outdoor recreation, aquatics, and/or informal recreation. These individuals are known on the campus as mid-level administrators. Mid-level administrators are between the senior administrators (e.g., director of athletics or director of campus recreation department) and the first level of supervision (e.g., staff supervisors) in the administrative hierarchy and are responsible for supervising campus recreation programs. Although the responsibilities for mid-level campus recreation programs vary among institutions, the job span is usually immense. They are generally responsible for the development and implementation of recreation programs, planning and budgeting for program enhancement, staff development, supervision of staff and student employees, management of recreational facilities, and organizing social opportunities for students and even sometimes the university community (Todaro, 1993). Stiefvater (1994) noted that mid-level campus recreation program administrators are expected to offer a variety of recreational sports experiences while maintaining strict fiscal responsibility. Today's successful mid-level campus recreation professional must be a responsible leader, an educator, and an administrator. The development of multi-million dollar facilities, an ever-changing student body, and diverse recreational activities require competent professionals who are able to provide leadership and guidance. Lamke (1991) and McIntosh (1991) emphasized that the job nature of campus recreation programs necessitates that program administrators be high-achievers with well-developed management skills and strong commitment to success and accomplishment.

In reality, mid-level campus recreation program administrators generally have very demanding jobs. Faced with the challenge of carrying out the directives of senior administrators, mid-level managers often have more responsibility than their senior level administrators in leading the day-to-day operations of their segments of the institution (Scott, 1979). Jamieson, Ross, and Swartz (1994) pointed out that the responsibilities and competencies of mid-level recreation administrators continue to expand in width and depth. They regularly face job challenges in many aspects. For instance, although they are responsible for daily operations, students and institutional administrators in fact often make decisions impacting their responsibilities. With the increasing comprehensiveness of collegiate campus recreation organizations, there exists anxiety and pressure to perform beyond the expectations of the students and the university administration. Currently, there is also a concern that many mid-level campus recreation professionals are leaving the field due to reasons such as changing job roles, excessive hours and workloads, and inadequate compensation. Carroll and Tarasuk (1991) explained that trends of state budgetary cuts in student affairs organizations have caused extremely heavy workloads with a decreasing number of staff. In fact, many mid-level campus recreation administrators have been forced to assume additional responsibilities due to staffing cutbacks (Weese, 1994). As general phenomena for mid-level administrators, many of them complain of not having enough time and energy to carry out their assigned responsibilities (Mackenzie, 1990). With respect to career orientation, many of these managers view their current position as a temporary step on an upwardly mobile path. The mid-level administrator must make a conscious choice about whether to remain in middle management or continue to climb the professional ladder (Belch & Strange, 1995).

The well-being and work effectiveness of mid-level administrators are affected by the organizational and personal factors within which they function. To remain effective, higher education institutions must analyze the role of mid-level administrators and seek procedures to ensure their job satisfaction (Austin, 1985; Levy, 1989; Palmer, 1995; Parks, Russell, Wood, Roberton, & Shewokis, 1995). The relationship between job satisfaction and job performance varies due to many contingent and mediating factors; however, these two types of variables are usually correlated positively (Katzell, Thompson, & Guzzo, 1992). Satisfied employees are more likely to continue to commit to the organization, set higher performance goals, maintain at better performance level, accept more responsibilities, and take leadership roles. On the other hand, dissatisfied employees are more likely to feel frustrated, experience reduced ambition, withdraw efforts, and even change jobs (Ansari, Baumgartel, & Sullivan, 1982; Joyce & Slocum, 1982). According to Locke (1976) and Locke, Fitspatrick, and White (1983), job satisfaction is the positive emotional state resulting from attaining what one wants or values from a job. Hulin, Roznowski, and Hachiya (1985) described job satisfaction as a function of the balance between work-role inputs and what the individual invests in the work role (e.g., education, time, and effort) in comparison with work role outcomes (e.g., pay, status, working conditions, or intrinsic factors). Job satisfaction is largely determined by an organization's ability to satisfy the needs, values, and expectations of employees.

The purpose of this study was to examine job satisfaction associated with mid-level campus recreation program administrators in the United States from the following three perspectives: (a) dimensions of job satisfaction, (b) current job satisfaction level, and (c) relationship between job satisfaction and institutional characteristics.

Theoretical Background

As summarized by Pardee (1990), job satisfaction has traditionally been studied based on one or more of the following motivation theories: (a) the hierarchy of needs theory (Maslow, 1954), (b) the motivation-hygiene theory (Herzberg, Mausner, & Snyderman, 1959), (c) the achievement theory (McClelland, Atkinson, Clark, & Lowell, 1976), and (d) the X and Y theory (McGregor, 1960). Maslow (1954) classified human needs into a hierarchy of five categories: physiological, safety, belongingness, esteem, and self-actualization. The least satisfied needs create the greatest motivation and humans are inclined to satisfy those needs according to the hierarchical order. Herzberg et al. (1959) distinguished between intrinsic and extrinsic job satisfaction factors and proposed that satisfaction and dissatisfaction are not diametrically opposed. Certain job content factors are motivators and they generally contribute to job satisfaction, such as achievement, recognition, work itself, responsibility, advancement, and professional growth. Other job context factors are identified as hygienes and they often contribute to job dissatisfaction, such as policy, administration, interpersonal relations, working conditions, salary, status, job security, and personal life. McClelland et al. (1976) proposed that needs are learned through the environment. When a person experiences a strong need, it serves as motivation to trigger behaviors that would satisfy that need. Individuals possessing a high need for achievement are satisfied when this need is fulfilled. Failure to achieve diminishes the motivation to work hard for an organization. McGregor's (1960) X and Y theory is based upon two distinct constructs of human behavior. Theory X assumes that people are passive and must be coerced at all times; while theory Y parallels much of Maslow's (1954) self-actualization level of motivation and is based on the assumption that self-direction, self-control, and maturity control behavior. Theory Y should be used to replace the old authoritarian style of management derived from theory X by which the intellectual potential of the average person is only partially utilized. Ego-satisfying and "self-actualizing" needs can be blended with organizational needs to produce creativity, commitment, and problem solving.

Following the aforementioned theories, recent studies have focused on identifying organizational and individual work environment factors associated with job satisfaction. According to Schneider (1990), organizational environment may be conceptualized as individual perceptions of the striking characteristics of the organizational context, and it responds to the shared pattern of perceptions among individuals about the major framework of an organizational operation. According to Bolman and Deal (1984, 1991), organizational environment may be categorized into four frames: (a) structural frame that is related to the chain of command, division of labor, communication, and responsibility, (b) human resource frame that is related to personnel development, empowerment, and meeting personal needs, (c) political frame that is related to the hierarchy of power, conflict solving, coalitions, and decision making process, and (d) symbolic frame that is related to organizational values and culture, commitment, and enthusiasm of members in the organization. Conversely, Davis and Newstrom (1985) referred to the immediate environment associated with the individual work unit as 'task environment.' Glick (1992) submitted a few specific variables that potentially affect individual satisfaction with task environment, including financial rewards, working conditions, supervisory practices, interaction with co-workers, independence, job content, and job effectiveness.

Several recent studies were related to job satisfaction of mid-level administrators in higher education institutions; however, none of them were directly relevant to mid-level campus recreation program administrators. For example, Chappell (1995), Levy (1989), and Palmer (1995) studied general mid-level administrators of community colleges in separate studies. They had similar findings which suggested that various organizational and individual work environment variables such as internal communication, organizational structure, political climate, participation in decision making, independence, benefits, and job effectiveness affected overall job satisfaction and were in need of improvement. Blank (1993) recently examined job satisfaction of mid-level student affairs professionals, using the motivation-hygiene theory by Herzberg et al. (1959) as a framework. Contrary to Herzberg et al.'s findings, the data suggested that recognition and advancement were identified as job dissatisfiers rather than satisfiers. Interpersonal relationship with students and peers was a job satisfier rather than a dissatisfier for collegiate student affairs staff. Somewhat relevant to the campus recreation setting, Phelan (1992) assessed the influence of personal and environmental variables on job satisfaction of mid-level public leisure service managers. The data suggested that worker's perceptions of their work environment were more significant in predicting job satisfaction than person-environment congruence. Kirkland (1989) studied job satisfaction issues of administrators of college student activities and found that job satisfaction was related to salary and administrative rank of the administrators. Middle and low-level administrators were under greater job stress and were less satisfied in their job when compared to upper-level administrators. Parks and Parra (1994) investigated job satisfaction of an undergraduate sport management program alumni and found that alumni employed in positions related to sport and unrelated to sport were similar in their satisfaction with the following job areas: work on present job, promotional opportunities, supervision, co-workers, and job in general. Yet, alumni employed in positions related to sport were less satisfied with present pay than alumni employed in positions unrelated to sport. In a more related study, Parks et al. (1995) studied job satisfaction of middle and first-line female intercollegiate athletic administrators and found that although female intercollegiate athletic administrators were paid significantly less than male administrators, they were highly satisfied with their jobs in general. Similar to male intercollegiate athletic administrators, female administrators were dissatisfied with promotional opportunities and pay.

Although research findings of previous investigations shed light on university recreation administration, no study on job satisfaction of mid-level campus recreation program administrators has been conducted. As Austin (1985) and Scott (1978) pointed out, mid-level administrators are crucial to the institution's successful operation because they handle routine activities and provide services that support learning and research; yet, mid-level professionals are generally an untapped resource critical to achieving a truly effective administration in which excellence can thrive. A systematic investigation is necessary to study organizational and individual work environment variables associated with job satisfaction of mid-level campus recreation program administrators. Moreover, several researchers have suggested that when studying job satisfaction, individual employment background should be taken into consideration (Bedeian, Ferris, & Kacmar, 1992; Berman, 1979; Katz, 1980; Kirkland, 1989; Parkhouse & Holmen, 1980; Parks et al., 1995; Parks & Parra, 1994). A number of background variables may potentially affect the job satisfaction of mid-level campus recreation program administrators, such as characteristics of an institution, job title, length of time in the job, and salary. When studying job satisfaction of mid-level campus recreation program administrators, differentiation of these background variables would provide specific information about various segments of this population and thus enhance the practical applicability of the research findings.

Method

To examine the research questions, survey research was carried out to collect information from a sample of mid-level campus recreation program administrators affiliated with the National Intramural Recreational Sports Association (NIRSA).

Participants

For this study, a mid-level campus recreation program administrator was operationally defined as a collegiate recreation administrator who is between the top administrators and the first levels of supervisors responsible for administering campus recreation programs and supervising professional and student staff members. Their job titles might include associate recreation director, assistant recreation director, and/or program director. To be considered a potential participant, the administrator must have supervised at least one professional staff member and coordinated one or more program components in the recreation organization, such as aerobic dance, intramural sports, fitness, club sports, aquatics, informal recreation, outdoor recreation, or a combination of the aforementioned.

The sample of this study was all 545 mid-level campus recreation program administrators listed in the Recreational Sports Directory (NIRSA, 1997). A total of 285 mid-level administrators voluntarily participated in the study, representing 52.3% of the defined sample. Respondents were representative of public and private higher education institutions of all geographical regions in the U.S.

Development of Questionnaire

To assess job satisfaction and employment background variables of mid-level campus recreation program administrators, a questionnaire with two sections was designed: the Scale for Campus Recreation Administrator Satisfaction (SCRAS) and the Employment Background Form. The questionnaire was developed through tour steps: (a) a review of literature, (b) interviews with specialists, (c) test of content validity, and (d) a pilot test.

According to Baumgartner and Jackson (1999), Disch (1989), and Nunnally (1978), the contents and measurement properties of affective domain measures are population specific. Even when a measure is available, its validity and reliability should be re-evaluated and reestablished over time due to social context change. Because no previous study was found to be directly related to job satisfaction of mid-level campus recreation program administrators, a decision was made to develop a scale for the measurement purpose.

A synthesis of relevant literature served as a framework of the SCRAS. Inputs from open-ended interviews were also obtained with four current, or former, university campus recreation directors, and they were incorporated into item writing and selection. Of the four specialists, three held a doctoral degree and the remaining person had a master's degree and 16 plus years of work experience in campus recreation programs. Overall, the review of literature and interviewing specialists provided a direction to generate items in two areas (organizational work environment and individual work environment) for assessing job satisfaction of mid-level campus recreation program administrators.

Specifically, Bolman and Deal's (1984, 1991) four frames of organizational environment (structural context, human resource, politics, and symbol) were used to guide variable identification for job satisfaction with organizational work environment. Illustrations on task environment by Davis and Newstrom (1985), Dawis and Lofquist (1984), and Glick (1992), as well as contents of the Job Descriptive Index (JDI) (Smith, Kendall, & Hulin, 1969) and the Job in General (JIG) (Ironson, Smith, Brannick, Gibson, & Paul, 1989) scales, were referenced to identify variables related to job satisfaction with individual work environment. The JDI comprises five job satisfaction dimensions: work, pay, promotion, supervision, and coworkers. The JIG measures overall job satisfaction. Additionally, research findings by other researchers as documented earlier were also considered when developing the SCRAS, including Blank (1993), Chappell (1995), Kirkland (1989), Levy (1989), Palmer (1995), and Phelan (1992).

With the intention of keeping the questionnaire brief to obtain better cooperation from the respondents, a total of 14 items were generated for the preliminary SCRAS scale. The generated items were phrased into Likert 5-scale (highly satisfied to highly dissatisfied) and were arranged in a random order. Of the items, 7 fell into the satisfaction with organizational work environment area, covering organizational structure, internal communication, political climate, professional development opportunities, evaluation process, promotion and advancement, and regards for personal concerns. These items reflected Bolman and Deal's (1984, 1991) frames of organizational environment as well as indications of other researchers on task environment (Dawis & Lofquist, 1984; Glick, 1992, Schneider, 1990) as documented earlier. Two items were related to overall contentment with the institution and the job, which were a reflection of the JIG scale (Ironson et al., 1989). The remaining five items fell into the satisfaction with individual work environment area, including participation in decision-making, independence, relationships with colleagues, salary and benefits, and professional effectiveness. These items represented the concepts of individual work environment (Davis & Newstrom, 1985; Dawis & Lofquist, 1984; Glick, 1992; Smith et al., 1969).

Formulation of the Employment Background Form was based on the indications by numerous researchers who have conducted studies related to job satisfaction of administrators (Bedeian, Ferris, & Kacmar, 1992; Berman, 1979; Katz, 1980; Kirkland, 1989; Parkhouse & Holmen, 1980; Parks et al., 1995; Parks & Parra, 1994). These researchers emphasized that it is necessary to look into the employment background when studying job satisfaction of administrators. A total of 7 relevant employment background variables were identified and phrased into multiple-choice items. Of them, 4 were related to institutional background (total student enrollment, classification of institution, NIRSA affiliation, and budget source) and 3 were related to individual job background (reporting structure, service years as mid-level administrator, and annual salary).

Content validity of the questionnaire was tested by a panel of experts including four members who were university professors specialized in higher education administration and had held major administrative positions such as dean of student affairs. Each panel member was asked to examine the questions in terms of item relevance, clarity, and representativeness, as well as to make open-ended comments for improvement. Using a standard of 75% agreement among the panel members, all items in the questionnaire were retained after improvements were made. The questionnaire was then pilot tested by five mid-level collegiate campus recreation program administrators. Each administrator represented a different geographical region of the U. S. Suggestions from this review group were further incorporated into the final version of the instrument.

Procedures

Prior to data collection, approval was obtained from the institutional review board for research with human subjects. A mail survey packet including a cover letter, informed consent form, the questionnaire, and a self-addressed and self-stamped envelope was mailed to all of the 545 mid-level campus recreation program administrators identified in the NIRSA directory. The participants were asked to respond to the survey within a four-week period. As follow-up procedures, two electronic mail messages requesting cooperation were distributed during the study with the first message sent three days after the original mail-out and the second two weeks later. A second packet was sent to those who did not return the survey within a maximum of four weeks. The second mail out rendered only 12 additional responses. A total of 285 completed surveys were returned, rendering a 52.3% return rate.

Data Analyses

Procedures from the SPSS for Windows (SPSS, 2000) were utilized to conduct statistical analyses. Descriptive statistics were calculated for the employment background and the job satisfaction variables. A factor analysis with principal component extraction and varimax rotation was conducted to examine the dimensions of the job satisfaction variables. One sample t-tests with adjusted alpha level were conducted to examine the current job satisfaction level of mid-level campus recreation program administrators. Multiple regression analyses, MANOVA, and discriminant function analyses were conducted to examine the relationship between the employment background variables and the job satisfaction dimensions of mid-level campus recreation program administrators.

Results

Research findings are presented in the following four sections: (a) descriptive statistics, (b) factor analysis, (c) current job satisfaction, and (d) relationship between job satisfaction and employment background.

Descriptive Statistics

Descriptive statistics for the employment background variables are presented in Table 1. The sample represented mid-level recreation program administrators from different student enrollment sizes of U.S. higher education institutions. Close to 70% of them were from institutions with student enrollments of 10,000 or more, which makes practical sense in that campus recreation programs of institutions with a large number of students may have a greater need to have mid-level managers. Three quarters of the subjects were representative of public institutions and the remaining 25% were from private institutions of all geographical regions in the U. S. The 75% to 25% ratio represented the proportions of public and private institutions affiliated with the NIRSA. The campus recreation programs were generally funded by student fees, user fees, institutional budget, or a mixed format. Most of the programs reported to a student affairs unit (65%) or an athletics unit (19%) within their institutions.

The mid-level campus recreation program administrators generally had responsibilities in one or more of the following areas: intramural sports, informal recreation, outdoor recreation, aquatics, club sports, fitness and wellness, aerobics, and other activities. About 30% of the subjects had responsibilities in one area whereas the remaining 70% had responsibilities in two to four areas, indicating the magnitude of job span. The sample also represented mid-level administrators of different service experience and salary categories. More than 40% of the subjects had over 10 years service experience as a mid-level campus recreation administrator. Close to 50% of respondents had an annual salary of less than $35,000. However, over 35% of the respondents earned an annual salary of $40,000 or more.

Factor Analysis

Descriptive statistics for the SCRAS variables are presented in Table 2. Although the review of literature provided some guidelines for the formulation of the SCRAS, there has not been a well-developed theoretical structure for studying job satisfaction of mid-level campus recreation program administrators. Therefore, an exploratory factor analysis, instead of a confirmatory factor analysis, was deemed appropriate to examine the dimensions of these job satisfaction variables. Kaiser-Meyer-Olkin (KMO) measure of sampling adequacy (Kaiser, 1974) was .86, indicating that the sample was adequate for factor analysis. Bartlett Test for Sphericity was 1061.813 (p = .000), indicating that the hypothesis of variance and covariance matrix of the variables as an identity matrix was rejected; therefore, a factor analysis was appropriate (Stevens, 1996). From a principal component analysis, two factors had an eigenvalue equal to or greater than 1.0 explaining a total of 56% variance. The extracted factor matrix was then rotated by using varimax rotation technique. Final decisions on the factors and the items were based on the following criteria: (a) a factor had an eigenvalue equal to or greater than 1.0, (b) an item had a factor loading equal to or greater than .40 without double loading, (c) a factor was interpretable, (d) a loaded item on a factor was interpretable, and (e) a factor had at least three items (Disch, 1989; Nunnally, 1978; Tabachnick & Fidell, 1996). Consequently, two factors were determined to represent the dimensions of job satisfaction of mid-level campus recreation administrators, with all 14 items retained: (a) 'Satisfaction with Organizational Environment' (9 items), covering items related to communication channel, organizational structure, political climate, opportunity for professional development, job evaluation, promotion and advancement, care for employees, and contentment with the job and the institution; and (b) 'Satisfaction with Individual Environment' (5 items), covering items related to personal power, participation in decision making, interpersonal relationship, benefits, and overall work effectiveness. Items within a particular dimension generally loaded very low on the other dimension and no item was double loaded, indicating that the two factors were mutually independent (Table 3). The factor structure and loadings of the items showed high face validity in accordance with the frameworks proposed by Bolman and Deal (1984, 1991), Davis and Newstrom (1985), Dawis and Lofquist (1984), and Glick (1992). Alpha reliability coefficients (Cronbach, 1951) were .86 and .68 for the 'Organizational Environment' and 'Individual Environment' factors respectively, indicating that the factors were internally consistent (Baumgartner & Jackson, 1999).

Current Job Satisfaction

To conduct one sample t-tests to assess difference of item ratings from the neutral rating of 3.0 on the Likert 5-point scale, the alpha level of .05 was adjusted using the Bonferroni approach for items within a job satisfaction dimension to avoid an inflated type I error in the statistical testing. The alpha level for 'Satisfaction with Organizational Environment' items was set at .006 since there were a total of 9 items in the factor. The alpha level for 'Satisfaction with Individual Environment' items was set at .01 since there were a total of 5 items in the factor. One sample t-tests revealed that except for the variable 'promotion and advancement opportunities', the mean scores of all the job satisfaction variables under the two dimensions were significantly (p < .05) greater than 3.0 (a neutral value in a Likert 5-scale), suggesting that mid-level campus recreation administrators were generally satisfied with their current job environments. The mean score for the variable 'promotion and advancement opportunities' was not significantly (p > .05) different from 3.0, suggesting that mid-level campus recreation administrators were experiencing a lack of satisfaction in this area. The mean composite score for the 'Satisfaction with Organizational Environment' factor was significantly (p < .05) greater than 27 (the composite neutral value) and the mean composite score for the 'Satisfaction with Individual Environment' factor was significantly (p < .05) greater than 15 (the composite neutral value), further supporting the findings associated with the specific items. Because the factor solution for the job satisfaction variables was generated from an orthogonal rotation, there was no need to make an adjustment in the alpha level for the composite scores (see Table 2).

Factor scores, instead of composite scores, were calculated and used in further analyses. According to Baumgartner and Jackson (1999), using factor scores enhances the explanation of systematic variance while reducing measurement errors. Considering the fact that a mid-level campus recreation program administrator may possess a different combination of the two job satisfaction dimensions, an interaction model was developed to illustrate the work environments of different institutional settings. This model is presented in a diagram in Figure 1. Using mean factor scores of the two factors as the cut-off standards, an individual was classified into one of four quadrants: (a) high satisfaction in both organizational and individual work environments, which was labeled as the 'promising commitment' type since this group of individuals were more likely to continue to contribute with enthusiasm; (b) high satisfaction in organizational work environment yet low satisfaction in individual work environment, which was labeled as 'redefined focus' type since this group of individuals were internally constrained and more likely to explore alternative opportunities for professional development in other parts of the institution; (c) low satisfaction in organizational work environment yet high satisfaction in individual work environment, which was labeled as 'suppressed ambition' type since this group of individuals were often externally frustrated and more likely to experience a reduced ambition for further development; and (d) low satisfaction in both organizational and individual work environments, which was labeled as 'probable abandonment' type since this group of individuals were not satisfied with the entire job environment and are more likely to withdraw efforts or change jobs. Participants of this study were accordingly classified into the four groups: 28.47% were of the 'promising commitment' type, 25.55% were of the 'suppressed ambition' type, 20.44% were of the 'redefined focus' type, and 25.55% were of the 'probable abandonment' type (Table 4).

[FIGURE 1 OMITTED]

Relationship Between Job Satisfaction and Employment Background

Depending on whether an employment background variable was continuous or categorical in nature, a multiple regression analysis or MANOVA was conducted to examine the relationship between a job satisfaction factor and an employment background variable. Multiple regression analyses revealed that the four continuous employment background variables (i.e., number of recreational components, institutional size, years being a mid-level administrator, and annual salary) were not significantly (p > .05) related to 'Satisfaction with Organizational Work Environment.' Yet, two of the items (institutional size and years being a mid-level administrator) were positively (p < .05) related to 'Satisfaction with Individual Work Environment' (Table 5). MANOVA revealed that out of the four categorical employment background variables (i.e., institutional classification, NIRSA affiliation, budget source, and reporting structure), institutional classification was significantly (p < .05) related to the job satisfaction factors (Table 6). A discriminant function analysis was conducted as a post hoc procedure to identify contributing variables. According to Stevens (1996), the number of discriminant functions is equal to the number of dependent variables, or the number of categories of independent variables minus 1, whichever is smaller. Each formulated function was tested for statistical significance. When a function is statistically significant, a structural coefficient equal to or greater than .30 was used to define a function, and a standardized coefficient equal to or greater than .30 was used to examine the redundancy. For institutional classification, one function was formulated and it was statistically (p < .05) significant. Both job satisfaction factors, 'Satisfaction with Organizational Work Environment' and 'Satisfaction with Individual Work Environment', contributed to the difference. Examining the descriptive statistics revealed that mid-level campus recreation program administrators from private institutions were more satisfied with their organizational work environment than those from public institutions; conversely, mid-level program administrators from public institutions were more satisfied with their individual work environment than those from private institutions (Table 6).

Discussion

Mid-level collegiate recreation administrators generally carry immense responsibilities to lead the day-to-day program operations and they are key to the success of campus recreation programs. In order to retain them as employees and maintain their high work productivity, it is necessary for institutions to seek procedures to ensure their job satisfaction. However, a review of literature reveals that to date no research investigation has been found that specifically addressed this issue. This study has, to a great extent, filled the void by identifying dimensions of job satisfaction, evaluating current job satisfaction level, and examining the relationship between the job satisfaction dimensions with the employment backgrounds of mid-level campus recreation program administrators.

Development of the SCRAS scale was guided by Bolman and Deal's (1984, 1991) frames of organizational environment, and Davis and Newstrom's (1985), Dawis and Lofquist's (1984), and Glick's (1992) explanations on individual work environment. The resolved factor structure revealed two dimensions, 'Satisfaction with Organizational Work Environment' and 'Satisfaction with Individual Work Environment.' These factors are consistent with the cited theoretical indications, implying the relevance of the SCRAS scale for assessing job satisfaction of mid-level campus recreation administrators. Through rigorous testing procedures, the scale displayed sound measurement characteristics in terms of validity and reliability, which further supports its potential usage for future research investigations. Nevertheless, the segment on scale development in this study was exploratory in nature. Future study may continue to strengthen it through confirmatory factor analyses.

Identification of job satisfaction dimensions of mid-level campus recreation program administrators through a factor analysis has provided scientific evidence to support existing theoretical concepts proposed by Bolman and Deal (1984, 1991), Davis and Newstrom (1985), Dawis and Lofquist (1984), and Glick (1992). This is particularly important when the theories by previous researchers were developed in settings other than recreation, sports, and/or exercise. In an extended note, many so-called 'theories' in the field of recreation, sport, and exercise program management have been directly adopted from general business or other settings, or have been developed by previous professionals based on their personal experiences and intuitions. Substantiating these 'theories' through empirical evidence and modifying them when necessary would help make those hypothetical statements into useful theories to guide practice. It is believed that the current study has contributed to this original intention.

Between the 'Satisfaction with Organizational Work Environment' and 'Satisfaction with Individual Work Environment' factors, the first one accounted for more variance and is deemed to be somewhat more important in the assessment of job satisfaction of mid-level campus recreation administrators (Disch, 1989; Tabachnick & Fidell, 1996). This is particularly evidenced by the fact that the two general items, regarding contentment with the institution and contentment with the job, loaded on the organizational work environment factor. The 'Satisfaction with Organizational Work Environment' factor covers general satisfaction issues in the work environment including organization structure, internal communication, political climate, professional development policies, evaluation procedures, promotion and advancement opportunities, and caring for personal concerns. It makes practical sense that these organizational work environment variables tremendously influence an individual's professional well-being and they would ultimately set the limit for professional growth. On the other hand, the 'Satisfaction with Individual Work Environment' factor is also a very important aspect of job satisfaction for mid-level campus recreation program administrators. This factor covers local issues that the mid-level administrators may have to face on a daily basis, such as participation in decision-making, independence, relationships with colleagues, salary and benefits, and perceived professional effectiveness.

These two dimensions and their specific items provide direction for higher education administrators to find motivational procedures to maintain and/or increase the job satisfaction of their mid-level campus recreation program administrators. Satisfied employees are more likely to continue to commit to the organization, set higher performance goals, and maintain better performance levels. Senior administrators of campus recreation programs have great potential to influence the job satisfaction levels of mid-level administrators, and they may want to encourage communications and discussions with mid-level administrators to understand factors that yield high levels of job satisfaction with both organizational and individual environments. Austin (1985) suggested that senior administrators work hard to find ways to motivate and reward mid-level administrators, to promote and support their work, autonomy, and opportunity for growth, and to express appreciation and recognition. When possible, the senior administrator may work with other higher level administrators in the institution to design an organizational environment that facilitates effective management, empowers by providing information, supports by providing resources and salary, and promotes a positive tradition of involvement.

Several recent studies related to recreation or collegiate athletics have examined the relationship between the leadership style of supervisors and the job satisfaction of subordinates. Wallace and Weese (1995) studied the influence of leadership on organizational culture and employee job satisfaction in Canadian YMCA organizations and found that transformational leadership positively facilitates cultural-building activities, management of change, goal achievement, teamwork coordination, and customer orientation. Following Bolman and Deal's (1984, 1991) frames of organizational environment (structural context, human resource, politics, and symbol), Scott (1999) found that athletic directors and coaches had different perceptions about leadership emphasis on the four frames. Through a path analysis, Snyder (1990) found that the consideration-type of leadership style of athletic directors was positively predictive of coach's job satisfaction level. Although these studies were not directly relevant to the campus recreation program setting, they have all pointed to the importance of leadership quality. Since this study was not intended to look into the relationship between administrative leadership and the job satisfaction of mid-level campus recreation program administrators, it should be the focus of future studies.

Identification of the two job satisfaction factors for the mid-level campus recreation administrators has made it possible to examine the two-dimensional interaction directly. The interaction model is particularly advantageous to identify problem areas associated with the work environment. This is evidenced by the fact that except for the 'promotion and advancement opportunities' variable, mid-level campus recreation administrators were generally satisfied with their current job settings in all other areas according to the results from one-sample t-tests. The interaction model was able to identify over 25% of respondents who were not satisfied in both dimensions of the job environment and were thus classified as 'probable abandonment.' Because the factor scores for establishing the interaction model were derived from varimax rotation, an orthogonal rotation technique (i.e., the correlation was zero between the two factors), it was reasonable to diagram the two dimensions perpendicularly in this study. In future investigations, there could be situations that the combination of the two factors do not produce even classifications. Then, a cluster analysis may be more appropriate for classification purpose according to Stevens (1996).

Where a mid-level campus recreation program administrator belongs in the four satisfaction quadrants (promising commitment, redefined focus, suppressed ambition, and probable abandonment) is contingent upon his/her job satisfaction. The naming of these quadrants was purely based upon the potential actions that a mid-level administrator may take when making a combined consideration of job satisfaction with organizational and individual environments. When respondents were satisfied in both environment dimensions, they were labeled as 'promising commitment' for they were likely to continue to pursue higher professional goals within the organization. Based upon Maslow's (1954) needs theory and McGregor's (1960) Y theory, the 'promising commitment' group of mid-level administrators may start to focus on higher level needs, such as esteem and self-direction. A challenging issue here is for the senior administrator to identify ways to maintain their high job satisfaction level.

When respondents were of high satisfaction in organizational work environment yet low satisfaction in individual work environment, they were labeled as 'redefined focus' since they might feel internally constrained and more likely to explore alternative opportunities for professional development, perhaps in other parts of the institution. This is consistent with Herzberg et al.'s (1959) and McClelland et al.'s (1976) explanations that certain job content elements are dissatisfiers (such as interpersonal relationship and failure to achieve) and diminish the motivation to work hard in related aspects. In this situation, it would be a challenge for the senior administrator to seek solutions to enhance the individual work environment, possibly by improving the opportunities to get mid-level administrators involved in decision making, maintaining certain leadership power and control, communicating among colleagues, increasing salary, and achieving greater professional effectiveness. On the contrary, when respondents were of low satisfaction in organizational work environment yet high satisfaction in individual work environment, they were labeled as the 'suppressed ambition' type since they might feel externally frustrated and more likely to experience a reduced ambition for further development. Herzberg et al.'s (1959) and McClelland et al.'s (1976) theories also apply here. In this situation, the institution may have to make necessary improvement in areas such as organizational communication, professional development, and promotion and advancement in order to meet the needs and expectations of the mid-level campus recreation program administrators. Since changing an organizational work environment is a much more difficult task than changing an individual work environment, higher education institutions may choose to match selected individuals for the situation according to the matching leadership theory proposed by Fiedler (1967). When the respondents were of low satisfaction in both organizational and individual work environments, they were labeled as the 'probable abandonment' type since they were not happy with the entire job situation and more likely to withdraw efforts or change jobs. Apparently, this is the most challenging type for senior level administrators. Making improvements in both dimensions appears necessary in order to keep these mid-level administrators somewhat motivated or to motivate them at all. Joint efforts and effective dialogue among the institution, the senior administrator, and the mid-level administrator would extremely important.

That three employment background variables were found to be related to the job satisfaction factors suggests that when evaluating mid-level campus recreation program administrators, it is necessary to take the contingent variables into consideration. This notion is consistent with Koehler (1988) who studied job satisfaction of corporate fitness managers, Parks et al. (1995) who compared the job satisfaction of female and male athletic administrators, and Pastore (1993) who evaluated job satisfaction between male and female college coaches. Although the 'Satisfaction with Organizational Work Environment' factor was the primary factor in the factor analysis, it was the 'Satisfaction with Individual Work Environment' factor that predicted the retention of mid-level campus recreation program administrators. Undoubtedly, it is an important factor for higher education institutions and their senior level administrators to focus upon. Furthermore, findings that institutional size and classification were related to the job satisfaction factors may indicate that public institutions with higher student enrollments may have a better arrangement for individual work structure and more resources for campus recreational activities; thus, the mid-level campus recreation program administrators experience greater job satisfaction. Conversely, the mid-level administrators in private institutions may have to rely more on the organizational work environment. Nevertheless, these speculations deserve further investigation. Finally, a number of researchers (Bedeian et al., 1992; Berman, 1979; Katz, 1980; Kirkland, 1989; Parkhouse & Holmen, 1980; Parks et al., 1995; Parks & Parra, 1994) indicated that the well-being and work effectiveness of mid-level administrators are possibly affected by their demographic characteristics, such as age and gender. Future studies should examine the relationships between demographics and job satisfaction of mid-level administrators.

Table 1
Descriptive Statistics for Employment Background Variables

Variable Category N % Cumulative

Institutional Size Less than 1,000 6 2.1 2.1
 1,000-1,999 23 8.1 10.2
 2,000-4,999 19 6.7 16.9
 5,000-9,999 44 15.4 32.3
 10,000-14,999 50 17.5 49.8
 15,000-19,999 36 12.6 62.4
 20,000-24,999 35 12.3 74.7
 25,000-29,999 20 7.0 81.7
 30,000-34,999 11 3.9 85.6
 35,0000Tmore 41 14.4 100.0

Institutional Public two year 2 0.7 0.7
Classification Public four year 210 73.9 74.6
 Private two year 1 0.4 75.0
 Private four year 71 25.0 100.0

NIRSA Affiliation Region I (northeast) 49 17.2 17.2
 Region II (southeast) 48 16.8 34.0
 Region III (midwest) 64 22.5 56.5
 Region IV (southwest) 53 18.6 75.1
 Region V (northwest) 31 109.0 86.0
 Region VI (pacific west) 40 14.0 100.0

Budget Source Student fees 38 13.5 13.5
 User plus student fees 110 39.2 52.7
 Institutional budget 57 20.3 73.0
 User plus institution 43 15.3 88.3
 Other 33 11.7 100.0

Reporting Structure A student affairs unit 183 65.1 65.1
 An academic unit 18 6.4 71.5
 An athletics unit 54 19.2 90.7
 Other 26 9.3 100.0

Recreational
Components One 86 30.2 30.2
(M=2.48; SD=1.20) Two 59 20.7 50.9
 Three 59 20.7 71.6
 Four 80 28.1 99.6
 Five 1 0.4 100.0

Number of years Less than 1 year 13 4.6 4.6
being mid-level 1-5 years 74 26.3 30.9
administrator 6-10 years 73 26.0 56.9
 11-14 years 42 15.0 71.9
 15 years or more 79 28.1 100.0

Annual Salary Under $25,000 27 9.5 9.5
 $25,000-$29,999 41 14.4 23.9
 $30,000-$34,999 68 23.9 47.7
 $35,000-$39,999 43 15.1 62.8
 $40,000-$44,999 46 16.1 78.9
 $45,000 or more 60 21.1 100.0

Table 2
Descriptive Statistics and One Sample T-Tests for the Satisfaction
Variables

Variable M SD SE

1. Internal communication 3.55 0.87 0.05
2. Organizational structure 3.46 1.00 0.06
3. Political climate 3.19 1.05 0.06
4. Professional development opportunities 3.87 1.07 0.06
5. Evaluation procedures 3.40 1.09 0.06
6. Promotion and advancement 3.06 1.15 0.07
7. Regard for personal concerns 4.03 1.00 0.06
8. Contentment with the institution 3.72 0.83 0.05
9. Contentment with the job 3.95 0.86 0.05

TOTAL--Satisfaction with
 Organizational Environment 32.17 6.01 0.36

1. Participation in decision-making 4.07 0.84 0.05
2. Autonomy, power and control 4.08 0.87 0.05
3. Relationships with colleagues 4.23 0.83 0.05
4. Salary and benefits 3.81 0.98 0.06
5. Professional effectiveness 4.21 0.75 0.04

TOTAL--Satisfaction with
 Individual Environment 20.40 2.80 0.17

Variable t p

1. Internal communication 10.766 .000 (a)
2. Organizational structure 7.807 .000 (a)
3. Political climate 3.063 .000 (a)
4. Professional development opportunities 13.749 .000 (a)
5. Evaluation procedures 6.155 .000 (a)
6. Promotion and advancement 0.882 .378
7. Regard for personal concerns 17.363 .000 (a)
8. Contentment with the institution 14.710 .000 (a)
9. Contentment with the job 18.679 .000 (a)

TOTAL--Satisfaction with
 Organizational Environment 14.346 .000 (c)

1. Participation in decision-making 21.559 .000 (b)
2. Autonomy, power and control 20.798 .000 (b)
3. Relationships with colleagues 25.171 .000 (b)
4. Salary and benefits 13.945 .000 (b)
5. Professional effectiveness 27.302 .000 (b)

TOTAL--Satisfaction with
 Individual Environment 32.285 .000 (c)

(a) Significant at .006 level. (b) Significant at.01 level.
(c) Significant at.05 level

Table 3
Factor Solutions from Principal Component Extraction and Varimax
Rotation

Variable Factor Loading

 F1 F2
Satisfaction with Organizational Work Environment

1. Internal communication .671 .109
2. Organizational structure .659 .071
3. Political climate .718 .029
4. Professional development opportunities .587 .225
5. Evaluation procedures .679 .077
6. Promotion and advancement .669 .003
7. Regard for personal concerns .606 .222
8. Contentment with the institution .800 .010
9. Contentment with the job .647 .198

Satisfaction with Individual Work Environment

10. Participation in decision-making .049 .593
11. Autonomy, power and control .097 .657
12. Relationships with colleagues .164 .693
13. Salary and benefits .070 .607
14. Professional effectiveness .083 .720

Table 4
Frequency Distribution Classifying Respondents into Four Types
of Work Environment

 Organizational Work Environment

Satisfaction Category
 Factor
 Below Mean Above Mean

 N (%) N (%)

 Above Mean 58 (20.44%) 81 (28.47%)

Individual Work
Environment

 Below Mean 73 (25.55%) 73 (25.55%)

Table 5
Multiple Regression Analyses Examining the Relationship Between
Continuous Employment Characteristic Variables and the Satisfaction
Factors

Variable a SE a

Satisfaction with Organizational
 Work Environment

Number of recreational component -.043 .051
Institutional size -.029 .027
Years being a mid-level administrator .026 .059
Annual salary .057 .049
Constant -.023 .237

Satisfaction with Individual
 Work Environment

Number of recreational component .048 .050
Institutional size .075 .027
Years being a mid-level administrator .141 .057
Annual salary -.043 .048
Constant -.867 .231

Variable a t p

Satisfaction with Organizational
 Work Environment

Number of recreational component -.051 -0.838 403
Institutional size -.071 -1.058 .291
Years being a mid-level administrator .032 0.436 .663
Annual salary .091 1.161 .247
Constant (R=.112; [R.sup.2]=.013)

Satisfaction with Individual
 Work Environment

Number of recreational component .058 0.966 .335
Institutional size .183 2.798 .006 *
Years being a mid-level administrator .178 2.463 .014 *
Annual salary -.070 -0.914 .362
Constant (R=.259; [R.sup.2]=.067)

* Significant at .05 level.

Table 6
MANOVA Examining the Relationship Between Categorical
Employment Background Variables and the Satisfaction Factors

 Satisfaction Factors

Variable Category Organizational Individual
 Work Work
 Environment Environment
 M (SD) M (SD)

Institutional Classification (Wilks' e = 0.966; p =.009)
 Public -0.09 (0.98) 0.06 (1.00)
 Private 0.26 (1.02) -0.19 (0.99)

NIRSA Affiliation (Wilks' e = 0.958; p = .321)
 Region I (northeast) -0.04 (1.06) -0.06 (1.06)
 Region II (southeast) -0.03 (0.91) 0.10 (0.92)
 Region III (midwest) -0.20 (1.05) -0.01 (0.98)
 Region IV (southwest) 0.05 (0.98) 0.04 (1.03)
 Region V (northwest) 0.29 (0.97) -0.34 (1.01)
 Region VI (pacific west) 0.13 (0.99) 0.20 (1.01)

Budget Source (Wilks' e = 0.989; p = .940)
 Student fees -0.05 (1.02) 0.06 (0.95)
 User plus student fees 0.06 (0.93) 0.04 (1.01)
 Institutional budget -0.05 (1.03) -0.16 (1.06)
 User plus institution -0.07 (0.94) -0.03 (1.11)
 Other -0.11 (1.10) 0.06 (0.90)

Reporting Structure (Wilks' e = 0.958; p =.073)
 A student affairs unit 0.10 (0.96) 0.06 (0.96)
 An academic unit -0.12 (1.05) -0.16 (1.15)
 An athletics unit -0.34 (1.14) -0.20 (1.14)
 Other 0.09 (0.86) 0.10 (0.80)

References

Ansari, M.A., Baumgartel, H., & Sullivan, G. (1982). The personal orientation: Organizational climate fit and managerial success. Human Relations, 35(12), 1159-1178.

Austin, A. E. (1985). Factors contributing to job satisfaction of university mid-level administrators. Paper presented at the Association for the Study of Higher Education Annual Meeting, Chicago, IL.

Baumgartner, T. A., & Jackson, A. S. (1999). Measurement for evaluation in physical education and exercise science (6th ed.). Dubuque, IA: Wm. C. Brown.

Bedeian, A. G., Ferris, G. R., & Kacmar, K. M. (1992). Age, tenure and job satisfaction: A tale of two perspectives. Journal of Educational Behavior, 40(1), 33-48.

Belch, H. A., & Strange, C. C. (1995). Views from the bottleneck: Middle managers in student affairs. NASPA Journal, 32(3), 208-222.

Berman, M. (1979). A comparative study of job satisfaction and role conflict in men and women, full and part-time faculty at the University of Maryland (Doctoral Dissertation, University of Maryland), Dissertation Abstracts International. 40, A2459.

Blank, W. R. (1993). Factors associated with job satisfaction and dissatisfaction among college student affairs professional staff (Doctoral dissertation, University of Northern Colorado). Dissertation Abstracts International. 54, A3273.

Bolman, L. G., & Deal, T. E. (1984). Modern approaches to understanding and managing organizations. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

Bolman, L. G., & Deal, T. E. (1991). Leadership and management effectiveness: A multiframe, multi-sector analysis. Human Resource Management, 30(4), 509-534.

Bryant, J. A., Banta, T. W., & Bradley, J. L. (1995). Assessment provides insight into the impact and effectiveness of campus recreation programs. NASPA Journal, 32(2), 153-160.

Caroll, B., & Tarasuk, P. (1991). A new vision for student development services for the 90's. Community College Review, 19(2), 32-41.

Chappell, S. K. (1995). The relationship between organizational climate and job satisfaction as reported by chief instructional officers (Doctoral dissertation, University of Florida). Dissertation Abstracts International, 56, A4290.

Cronbach, L. J. (1951). Coefficient alpha and the internal structure of tests. Psychometrika. 16, 297-334.

Davis, K., & Newstrom, J. (1985). Human behavior at work: Organizational behavior. New York: McGraw-Hill.

Dawis, R. V., & Lofquist, L. H. (1984). A psychological theory of work adjustment. Minneapolis, MN: University of Minnesota.

Disch, J. (1989). Selected multivariate statistical techniques. In M. J. Safrit & T. M. Wood (Eds.), Measurement concepts in physical education and exercise science (pp. 155-179). Champaign, IL: Human Kinetics.

Fiedler, F. E. (1967). A theory of leadership effectiveness. New York: McGraw-Hill.

Glick, N. L. (1992). Job satisfaction among academic administrators. Research in Higher Education, 33(5), 625-640.

Herzberg, F., Mausner, B., & Snyderman, B. S. (1959). The motivation to work (2nd ed.). New York: Wiley.

Hulin, C. L., Roznowski, M., & Hachiya, D. (1985). Alternative opportunities and withdrawal decisions: Empirical and theoretical discrepancies and integration. Psychological Bulletin. 97, 233-250.

Ironson, G. H., Smith, P. C., Brannick, M. T., Gibson, W. M., & Paul, K. B. (1989). Construction of a Job in General scale: A comparison of global, composite, and specific measures. Journal of Applied Psychology, 74, 193-200.

Jamieson, L. M., Ross, C. M., & Swartz, J. E., (1994). Research in recreational sports management: A content analysis approach. NIRSA Journal, 19(1), 12-14.

Joyce, W. F., & Slocum, J. (1982). Refining concepts of psychological and organizational climate. Human relations, 35(11), 951-972.

Kaiser, H. F. (1974). An index of factorial simplicity. Psychometrika, 39, 31-36.

Katz, R. (1980). Time and work: Toward and integrative perspective. Research in Organizational Behavior, 2, 37-71.

Katzell, R. A., Thompson, D. E., & Guzzo, R. A. (1992). How job satisfaction and job performance are and are not linked. In C. J. Cranny, P. C. Smith, & E. F. Stone (Eds.), Job satisfaction: How people feel about their jobs and how it affects their performance (pp. 195-217). New York: Lexington.

Kirkland, R. J. (1989). Study of job satisfaction among college union/student activities administrators (Doctoral dissertation, The Ohio State University). Dissertation Abstracts International, 50, A3656.

Koehler, L. S. (1988). Job satisfaction and corporate fitness managers: An organizational behavior approach to sport management. Journal of Sport Management, 2, 100-105.

Lamke, G. G. (1991). Personnel management. NIRSA Journal. 15(1), 12.

Levy, S. G. (1989). Organizational climate and job satisfaction as reported by Pennsylvania community college middle-level administrators (Doctoral dissertation, Leigh University). Dissertation Abstracts International, 50, A1509.

Locke, E. A. (1976). The nature and causes of job satisfaction. In M. D. Dunnette (ed.), Handbook of Industrial and Organizational Psychology (pp. 1297-1349). New York: Weily & Sons.

Locke, E. A., Fitspatrick, W., & White, F. M. (1983). Job satisfaction and role clarity among university and college faculty. Review of Higher Education, 6. 343-365.

Mackenzie, L. (1990). The time trap. New York: American Management Association.

Mallinackrodt, B., & Sedlacek, W. E. (1987). Student retention and the use of campus facilities by race. NASPA Journal 24(3), 29-32.

Maslow, A. (1954). Motivation and personality. New York: Harper & Row.

McClelland, D. C., Atkinson, J. W., Clark, A. & Lowell. B. (1976). The achievement motive. New York: Irvington.

McGregor, D. (1960). The human side of enterprise. New York: McGraw Hill.

McIntosh, M. (1991). The cowering inferno: Burnout and the NIRSA professional. NIRSA Journal 15(1), 34-38.

Miller, G. & Evans, E. (1991). Just what the doctor ordered. In J. Bryant, R. Boucher, D. Dutler, & G. Mass (Eds.), Advancing recreational sports practices (pp. 30-35). Corvallis, OR: National Intramural-Recreational Sports Association.

National Intramural Recreational Sports Association. (1997). Recreational Sports Directory. Corvallis, OR: Benton.

Nunnally, J. C. (1978). Psychometric theory (2nd ed.). New York: McGraw-Hill.

Palmer, C. (1995). Organizational climate and job satisfaction as reported by Florida community college health occupations program directors (Doctoral dissertation, University of Florida, 1995). Dissertation Abstracts International 56, A4231.

Pardee, R. (1990). Motivational theories of Maslow, Herzberg, McGregor and McClelland: A literature review of selected theories dealing with job satisfaction and motivation. ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. 316767. Washington, DC.

Parkhouse, B., & Holmen, M. (1980). Differences in job satisfaction among urban and inner-city high school physical education faculty. Research Quarterly for Exercise and Sport, 51, 654-662.

Parks, J. B., Russell, R. L., Wood, P. H., Roberton, M. A., & Shewokis, P. A. (1995). The paradox of the contented working woman in intercollegiate athletics administration. Research Quarterly for Exercise and Sport, 66, 73-79.

Parks, J. B., & Parra, L. F. (1994). Job satisfaction of sport management alumnae/i. Journal of Sport Management. 8, 49-56.

Pastore, D. L. (1993). Job satisfaction and female college coaches. Physical Educator, 4, 216-221.

Pelletier, D. M., & Peterson, K. E. (1986). Intercollegiate athletics or student activities and recreation programs: One college's decision. NASPA Journal 23(3), 51-57.

Phelan, C. M. (1992). An exploratory study of the influence of personal and environmental variables on the job satisfaction of mid-level public service leisure service managers (work environment, person environment congruence) (Doctoral dissertation, University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign). Dissertation Abstracts International 54, A0315.

Schneider, B. (1990). Organizational climate and culture. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

Scott, D. K. (1999). A multiframe perspective of leadership and organizational climate in intercollegiate athletics. Journal of Sport Management, 13, 298-316.

Scott, R. A. (1978). Lords, squires and yeomen: Collegiate middle managers and their organizations. AASH-ERIC Higher Education Research Report No. 7. Washington, DC.

Scott, R. A. (1979). Robots or reinsmen: Job opportunities and professional standing for collegiate administrators in the 1980's. Paper presented at the Association for the Study of Higher Education Annual Meeting, Washington, DC.

Smith, P. C., Kendall, L. M., & Hulin, C. L. (1969). The measurement of satisfaction in work and retirement. Chicago: Rand McNally.

Snyder, C. J. (1990). The effects of leader behavior and organizational climate on intercollegiate coaches' job satisfaction. Journal of Sport Management, 4, 59-70.

SPSS. (2000). SPSS 10.0: Guide to data analysis. Upper Saddle River, NY: Prentice Hall.

Stevens, J. (1996). Applied multivariate statistics for the social sciences (3rd ed.). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.

Stiefvater, R. E. (1994). Stress levels of NIRSA professionals. NIRSA Journal, 19(1), 36-37.

Tabachnick, B. G., & Fidell, L. S. (1996). Using multivariate statistics (3rd ed.). New York: Harper & Row.

Todaro, E. (1993). The impact of recreational sports on student development: A theoretical model. NIRSA Journal, 17(3), 23-26.

Wallace, M., & Weese, W. J. (1995). Leadership, organizational culture, and job satisfaction in Canadian YMCA organization. Journal of Sport Management, 9, 182-193.

Weese, J. W. (1994). The ABC's of time efficiency for campus recreation administrators. NIRSA Journal, 18(3), 16-19.

James J. Zhang, Douglas J. DeMichele and Daniel P. Connaughton

University of Florida

Address Correspondence To: Dr. James J. Zhang, Dept. of Exercise and Sport Sciences, P.O. Box 118205, University of Florida, Gainesville, Fl. 32611-8205. Phone: 352-392-0584-ext 1274, E-mail: jamesz@hhp.ufl.edu