AD—Aol? 768 MILITARY ACADEMY lEST POINT ‘IV OFFICE OF THE DIRECTO— —ETC F/G 5/9

UNcLA;sz:xEn osl.ol—n—o:s

AMONG USMA GPADrIATES,UJ )

I END

LII. __ - —

I /‘~ Ih~ JL~ ~ 2.5

I.V L~_ _ _

LLt ~~II I~ ~ 2.OII H ~

MC~ WIl~• MICROCOPY RESOLUTION TEST CH~~T

NATKi èM. DUR(~U OF

______________ ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ ~~~~~~~~

LEVEL~~~~~~

’

~~~~~~~~

!L_ _

H 16F\2, U N I T E D~~~~ ~1~~~~~4flu1 STATES

_____ MILITA RY____ ACADE MYWEST POINT’ NEW YORK

I& MILITARYN- JOB SATISFACTION

• ui HI - AMONG

c..~ _ _ _ _ _ _

USMA GRADUATES

_ D DC_ _ _ — [~1IF~ tEfl~1 Ii DIs~àiiU’noN ~~~~~~~~~~~~~I ~~ o~c 10 1919 ~~~liii

U D’It~~~~ t3OSl ~!1~~~~~~~~III4

UUB~L~L 6 U U L 5• IL AOFFICE OF

___ ___ INSTITUTIONAL RESEARCH

) JUNE 1972

DUTY.HONOR-COUNTR~~’ 9

C~, ‘~~

F ______________________________

_______________ ______________ I

_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _

1_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ —

• _______-• —

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ -‘

MILITARY JOB SATISFACTION AMONG USMA GRADUATES~~~

Accession For

~~~~~~ic~~ rd P. Bu9er L NTIS GRAIl

UnannouncedJustificatiOfl._

By -~~~~~~~~~

D1stri~~~frOfl/

/ 7 I__Av~il8b

~~1t~

_~~~!

Avail ai~d/orD~~~~~

speci~al

— -‘ NOTE: Any conclusions in this report are not to be construed as official U. S.Military Academy or Department of the Army positions unless so designated byother authorized documents.

F

DISTRI 10 document is pr or fficial purposes only. Itscontents ay n reprod d or distri (in whole o i6cpermissi he Superintend t, U . Military Academy, in each instance.

OFFICE OF IN STITUTIONAL RESEARCH• UNITED STATES MILITARY ACADEMY

• WEST POINT, NEW YORK 10996

a _ _ _ _

_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _

•1r~ ~~~~~~ J~~~~ —. 1~~~~~~~~l~~~~ø ~~

..

5- ~~~~~~~~~ ~~~~~~~~ ....: .~~.... . -

~i.-

‘ ABSTRACT

This study measured and compared military job satisfaction amongformer company grade, field grade, and general officers. A13 item questionnaire that measured job satisfaction in fivedifferent areas was used to survey U.S. Military Academy graduatesfrom the Classes of 1920—1949. It was found that general officerswere more satisfied than were company and field grade officers,and that field grade officers were more satisfied than companygrade officers. It was also found that there was a consistenttrend for higher order needs to be less satisfied than lowerorder needs. Recommendations for change are given.

/

S

C)

~~~~~~ ____ •~~~ .4:;L. •-_~~~~~~~.

MILITARY JOB SATISFACTION AMONG USMA GRADUATES*

Like most large organizations the U.S. Army is concerned aboutretention of qualified personnel. The proposed elimination ofthe draft and reliance on an All-Volunteer force probably willmake this problem even more acute. One method of increasingretention of qualified personnel is to increase job satisfaction.

The benefits of having satisfied personnel are ably pointed outin numerous studies conducted in industrial organizations.Research studies have consistently found negative relationshipsbetween job satisfaction and turnover and absenteeism (Brayfieldand Crockett, 1955; Herzberg et al., 1957k Hulin, 1966; Rossand Zander, 1957; Speroff, 1959; Vroom, 1964). Other studieshave reported a positive relationship between satisfaction andperformance (Comrey, High, and Wilson, 1955a, 1955b), althoughtheir conclusions are not unequivocable. Thus, the individualwho is dissatisfied with certain aspects of his job is moreprone to resign, to be absent, and in some cases to perform ata level below his capacity.

•1 Several, studies investigating job satisfaction among Armyofficers also indicate the importance of this concept. Butlerand McLaughlin (1971), using graduates from the U.S. MilitaryAcademy Classes of 1963—1967, found that job satisfaction wasrelated to both the strength of military career commitment andretention on active duty. Johnson and Marcrum (1968) ,using a

• design very similar to the one used in the present study,except for a different target population and a slightlydifferent questionnaire, found that deficiencies in the satis-

• faction of various job characteristics tended to decrease asone moves from captain to major to lieutenant colonel andcolonel. They also found that deficiencies were greatest forthe ego and self-actualization job factors. The sample consistedof Regular Army officers who were attending Army service schoolsand who were in the combat branches of Armor, Artillery, andInfantry.

The present study is concerned with job satisfaction in relationto the amount and kinds of need fulfillment that the job affords.Maslow (1954) provides a most useful theoretical system forstudies of this type, and the present one uses his theory as

*The author would like to acknowledge the assistance of( \ Specialist Felton Cameron, US Army, who was the computer\ J programmer for this project.

1!

___________ - ——~ —

a starting point. He groups needs into a hierarchy of pre—potency, that is, as one need is satisfied the next higherlevel need emerges as the prime motivator of behavior. Thetheory states that there are basic needs, such as those forfood, water, and sleep, that an individual satisfies first,after which he turns to higher—order needs, such as those foraffiliation and esteem. Finally, if a person has achieved somedegree of satisfaction of these first—order and middle—orderneeds, he will then try to satisfy the highest-order need,

• that of self-actualization, which is the desire for self—fulfillment or the tendency to become actualized in what one is

• potentially. In order from lowest to highest, Maslow’s sixmain needs are physiological, security, social, esteem, autonomy,and self-actualization.

PURPOSE

The intent of the present investigation was to compare the extentof military job satisfaction of former Army officers at threedifferent grade or rank levels (company grade, field grade, andgeneral officers). In so doing, this study hoped to identifyareas in which recommendations for improving job satisfactioncould be made. The following hypotheses were tested: 1) thatgeneral officers would obtain more job satisfaction than fieldgrade and company grade officers; and 2) that field gradeofficers would be more satisfied than company grade officers.

METHOD

Subjects

The sample consisted of 740 graduates of the United States• Military Academy from the Classes of 1920-1949. This sample

represented a response rate of 75 percent to the mailed question-naire. Only those who were employed in a civilian capacity ona full-time basis were utilized. All the respondents had leftactive duty, the vast majority leaving between 1953 and 1970.In all, there were 106 company grade officers, 556 field gradeof ficers, and 78 general officers. A respondent was placed inthe proper rank grouping according to the highest rank that hehad attained in the service.

Questionnaire

Data were collected by means of a 13-item questionnaire developedby Porter (1961), who derived the items from Maslow’s theory.Respondents were asked to indicate on 7-point scales how muchof the job characteristics there was in their last miU~aryassignment, and how much of the j~

E’characteristic there shouldhave been in thetrlast military assignment. A sample item, asit was stated in the questionnaire, is as follows:

2

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ •~ ~- • -~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ T ~~~ T~~~~T ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

—~~~~

The feeling of worthwhile accomplishment:

a. How much was there in your last military assignment?

(Mm ) 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 (Max)

b. How much should there have been in your lastmilitary assignment?

(Mm ) 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 (Max)

The five major need categories and the 13 specific items usedto obtain information relevant to each category are presentedbelow. The items were arranged randomly in the questionnairebut are here listed under their respective categories. Thecategories are arranged in an hierarchical sequence from lowestto highest order. Maslow’s physiological needs are not includedsince it was thought that they are so well satisfied thatquestions concerning them would be irrelevant.

I. Security NeedsThe feeling of security in job.

( II. Social Needsa. The opportunity to give help to other people.b. The opportunity to develop close friendships.

III. Esteem Needsa. The feeling of self-esteem.b. The prestige inside the service.c. The prestige outside the service.

IV. Autonomy Needsa. The opportunity for independent thought and action.b. The feeling of authority.c. The opportunity for participation in the setting

of goals.• d. The opportunity for participation in the determina-

tion of methods and procedures.

V. Self—actualization Needsa. The opportunity for personal growth and development.b. The feeling of self—fulfillment.

• c. The feeling of worthwhile accomplishment.

0 3

V V • :

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ —

V_:V ~ V

V— V ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ ~~~~~ V~~~ V V

• Procedure • V

In March, 1971, the questionnaire was mailed to a one—third V

sample of all living graduates of the Military Academy (Classesof 1920—1949) who were employed on a full—time basis in civilianlife. The cover letter stated that the questionnaires were tobe returned anonymously in an inclosed return-addressed envelope,and that only group data would be analyzed.

The amount of satisfaction for each of the 13 needs was determinedas follows: the degree of perceived deficiency in fulfillmentfor each respondent on each of the items was obtained bysubtracting the answer to “How much of the characteristic wasthere in your last military assignment?” from the answer to “Howmuch of the characteristic should there have been in your lastmilitary assignment?” Thus, the smaller the difference, thegreater the satisfaction. This method of measuring perceivedneed satisfaction is an indirect measure derived from two directanswers by the respondents to each item. In line with thehypotheses, one-tailed t-tests were employed to test for signif i—cant differences between grade levels for each need.

RESULTS

Table 1 lists the average need deficiency or satisfaction scoresfor each need by rank groupings. It must be noted that thelarger the score in this table the greater the need deficiencyand the greater the dissatisfaction. In interpreting these data

~. )

the absolute values of these scores are not as important as therelative values. Certain trends are discernable between andwithin ranks. Between ranks there appears to be a fairly strongtendency, except for the feeling of security need, for generalofficers to be more satisfied than field grade officers, and forfield grade officers to be more satisfied than company gradeofficers. The t—values listed in Table 2 indicate that signif i—cant differences between rank groupings occurred in all cases,except for the feeling of security need for all three comparisons,and the company-field grade officers comparison on the opportunityto develop close friendships need. Overall, these findingsindicate that satisfaction is greater at each higher level ofrank within the military organization.

Within each of the rank groupings there is a trend for needsatisfaction to decrease at each successive higher need inMaslow’s hierarchy. The average of the items comprising eachneed category point this out rather clearly (see Table 3).Thus, the most satisfied needs are those listed under security,and the least satisfied are the self—actualization needs.Graphically, Figure 1 also shows these findings and furtherindicates that the differences between the three rank groupingsbecomes larger with each succeeding higher need.

4 (1

_ _ - -

Ji

~~~~~~ ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~—-“—

— - _ _ _ _ _ _ ____________ - V”.~ ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ _ ‘~~~~~‘ — — ._ . . — S S _ L~~.S J ~~~ - _~S~~~~ -~~_ V . — • . • ..._ •- .i..V-~.SVJ.;s.

0 N .-4 CD CD ,-4 i-I ~~~ (‘4 ~~~‘ N 0U~ ‘4 ~D ~O I’— I’— (“4 ,—4 ~—4 m r~ 0 ~~‘. A~ . . . . . . I I • ~ ~ • •CD ,4 0 0 00 ‘4 , 4 . 4 ~ 4 .4 ,4 r-4 i-I

Z I ’‘-I 0 r4 0 N P4 CD in in N C’) 0 ifl0 Z 0 m a m c”i a’. ~~~‘ in. . . I • ~ • . . I • ~ .

0 0 0 0 0 0 00 0 0 00 0

• 0 0 (“I .4 ‘0 0’. N .-4 Co in in in N Ifl• —. in ~~ 1’~ 0 m c”i ~~‘ m in ‘.o ‘.o

‘0 . . . . . . . . . . . . .in — .4 0 r4 r’I r4 I-I r4 r4 ,-l r4 .-4

i~~~~~~HU) Z H r-I ‘0 m ‘.0 ~~~‘ ‘ I 0’. 0’. r-I in (‘9 N0 Z ~4 ‘.0 P1 0’. in 0’. 0 in (“4 0 (‘I N ~~~‘1)4 • . . . . . . . . . . . .U 0 0 0 0 0 0 . 1 0 r4 i-I .-I i-I ,~~

V Hr~.

Iii 0 ~~~‘ 0’. (“1 ‘.0 .-4 CD Co in 0’. ~~~‘ N 0’.U) .4 ~~ CO ‘.o m in m ~~‘ in N N N— . I ~ I ~ I ~ ~ I ~

~~ >~~‘0 (“1 ~ I 0 ~ 4 .-4 .-4 .4 .-4 1-4 ~-I ~ I .4~~o

N v4 ‘0 0 0 CD 0 N ‘0 Fl ~~~‘ 0’. 0

~ 0 0 0 P4 0’. (9 ~~ ‘ CD 0 CD (“4 inFl ~~~~ U Z . . . . . . . . . . .

• U z “~~S~4 0 Fl 0 r-4 0 ~ l 0 ri Fl p~( 1 zr4VI

-~~~~~~~ H(J O

E” H~~~VVI VI0 .14

• ~~O .4• .rIIl u~ Q4)

• 0~ 14 VI VI V ~~O0 ~4 .,4~~~ 4) 4J 1Ø ~r~ ~~ ~~ I4 V ~ 5 0~ 1~~~4 0 .44 W 04 Q4~~WOi VI ‘i-I •r4 W . ~~ ,‘l

V~~\ V . E ’~~ “I QO G J V I 0 4 . • U O V I V 1~ -14 WI-i • VI C) W~~~~~ir $ •p4 I

~~ Ø~~ 144,4).. O W U ) ~~~~~~~ ‘0 0 4 ) 4 ) 4 ) 0 W o ‘-4 -144) ••4 > • Q~

U)~~~~4~ 4 .1 4 4 4 •~~4~~~U .14 V I Q ) .I4 Q) 4) ‘~~~~~~~~~ 0i~~~4)V $4 ~~~~~~ I VI 0OQ .~~ 04WU) 144WV 44 IU~~~ ‘14 5 0 4 4 144 4.)• 0- O O V r’I ’Ø ’14 0 4~O4’O4) 4 I4 )~~~ 4) .,4 W ‘MV~~ 4~4~ 4) b’. 4~’e4 4~~4 P Om ~~~ ~‘0 ~~~~ V~~~I IC ~~ UI~~ .p14 N~~ IVIt CI ’M 5) 4) 4) 44 UII4.i •r4 0 4) 4) 144 4) 4J~~~ .44J 5 ’44 1444 ) 0 ‘01,4 1,4 144 ‘00 W 0 r 4 .4 .4 r’l .r l D . Q O

Z 4) W a ) Z~~~~~ ~~ V I -~~~Ea” ~~~~~~~ w a ” a” a” ~~~~~~~~~~~~>,~~ Z4)4~ UI Z C r 4 r4 C4J~~ i4J 4) 4 ) 4~~4)~~~~C 4 ~4) 1,-I 14 )4 0 ~144) 4J E 1I O”4 $4 )4 4J 0II~~~~rI’r4~~.14 ,4 p.4 1-4 5 1 - 4 5 ) 5 ) o .~ ‘-s o~~oe 5)$ 4 4 1 5) 0 W C I W Q ) ~ 4~~W 0 I ’4 04’0 I ‘O W S E~~~~ .14 040 4 ) 4 ) 4 4 4 4 00 . 4) 0 . 0. “ 4 0 4 •wU~~4 0 0 0 4~O ~. O 0 ‘-‘4 0 ~~4~~~ 44) 0 U) 4)Cl) U) U)

S S S S

— P1 C’) ~~~‘ in

- -

~

-V- -

-

~~~~~~~~~~•

-S

~~~~

_____________ V — ~V V _ V- V —~~~ V V — ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ ~~~~ S•V-5•S~V~~ ’~—

~~~~~~~~~~ ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ - _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _

-- -~ -‘-V ~~~r- ‘-.~~ • - —~ -V —

~- --

~~~~~~- .

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ .-

~. -

~~ -

S

U) .5 . 5 . 5 5.5 .5 . 5 . 5 .5 .5 .5. .5• • .5.. .5.5 .5 .5 .5.5 .5

O~~ in 0’. N ~~~ 0’. ’d’ 0 0 CD in FlIo ‘014 ‘.0 C~ N (.4 ‘.0 0’. W N 0 C’) ma in ~iV 4Z • • . . . . . . . S I • • C’)

H 14 0 m €‘~ .0(1 .-4 (‘4 .-4 (“1 m in in C”. ‘.0

U)14

~~~~~ .5 .5 . 5 . 5 .5 .5 .5 . 5 . 5 .5.5 . 5 . 5 . 5 .5 . 5 .5 .5 .5. .5

~~ .5 .5 . 5 . 5 . 5 . 5 . 5 .5 .5 . 5 . 5 .5

O 4) .~ ~~~ P1 ~~ ‘ in ‘.0~~~ N 0 CD in 0 ‘0~~’ in14 ~ 14 m ~~~‘ (“1 00’. (.4 0’.’.O 0 (“1 P1 ~~~‘ in

p. z • . . . • • • . . . • . . CD0 ~~~‘ (.4 ‘ .om m m c~ in ‘.0 CD N ‘.0 Fl

m 00U

14Z 1 4

.5 .5 . 5 . 5 .5O~ &. I.,

~~~~ .5 . 5 . 5 . 5 5 .5 .5 . 5 . 5 .514 .14 .5.. .5.5 .5 .5 .5.5 .5H P4 ‘.0 P1 Fl ‘0~~~’ N Fl N ~~ ~~“ .0 ~~CD r’. 4”. ‘.0 In 4”. ~~~‘ CD ~~~‘ CD ~ “.0 0’. 0

• . . . . . . . . . . . . ‘.00 ~~ 0 P4 0 (“1 (‘4 N (.4 Fl in ~~ ‘.0U~~.

14(‘4 H Z

1140 .14 U)~~~ -U) VI

>4Z $40 IE’~ ~~~C0 ‘04) U)

0 ,~~~

(44 1o.I~ • Fl vI

4) . 4) . 1444 . 0 4I • Ø 4 ) 0 41 0. 4 ) 5

.0 4 ) 0 4) 4) ‘0V 0U 0 F l F l •rI~~~ VI 4) 4)V ~ 4)0ri g.o

•~~~ ‘0 5) 504) 04 0 4 5 )(1) 14 00. 5 4 1 5) 4) ‘14 .i’4 w.c ~1 1 1 U ..-I 0.0 0 5 ) 0 . . . 0 0 5 ) ‘0 4~Fl 4) Ci W~~~~,’14 “-I V aJ~~ Ie-1 Fl)‘. 0 4 4 ) .I J W.C ‘0 0 4 ) 4) 4 1 0 4 ) 0 ‘-4 .14

11 4) Fl~~~’ 5) ,~~ 4J ~~ ‘r4 ’-I $4 •4 4 . C Z 4 4 ~~.C4) 4) 4) 41 “44)44 -5)b’5)4) 0’. ‘44 kIi .~~‘0 t VI Q O 0 ~~~0.VI ~0 0 • F l ’ O l 0 4)04~~0 -i-t O • r-4 44

‘I -1WV 4 4 5 ) .~ “-4 5 0 1 4 (1-1 4)

4) 41 4 ) 5 ) 41.14 5) ‘MV ~~~ 4~~4 1 4) 0 ’ . 419 - i 4 ) W 05) 0. 5 ) 5 ) 4 ) U) ~~ 5) VI ~ 5)0 V ~~,~~ i’14 V~~,5) ~~~~~~~~~ t4~~iW4) 144 5 ) 4 ) 4 ) .~ 5) 9 4 . 1 40 W 4 J ‘4441 4)~~ ,14J I94 94

4 ) 0 ‘O ’ l I U ) ‘00 4 1r 1 4J 0 rl Fl ’rI ’rI Fl -rI 0 0Z VI~~~~~~’O 4) 4) 4)

a” ~ ~~~~Fla’.~~i. Fl ?~~~~ Z 4 1 4 ) 4 ) Z~~ -r4-.4

~~4)

~~~~~~4 )0

~4 J W 4 ) 4 ) V I~~~~~~41 0

41-i-I $4 44 -i-I “ 4 4 ) 4 ) 4 4 0 1 4 4 4 $4 4) 0 1~~~ ’ .1’I V 14~~~ 0

‘i-l i-I ~ I Q Q 1 - i 5 F l 5 ) 5 ) 0 VI 5 ) Q W F l r - I 4)$1 4) 5 ) 0 4 0 . 9 4 4 1 4 ) 4 ) 4 ) ~a~’~a.~a’0 I 0.V W W E i n r

‘1-1 0. 4 ) 4 ) O OV~~ ~~~ “ “.~~I~~~ °~~~‘

~& & ‘~~0 ~~~ v v 0 4

4)11.0. 0. 4)U)

U) U) 14 i~ U) 0. 0..5 -

‘S S I I S . 5 . ~i--I (“1 m ~~~‘ in • • • ‘.~

6

• .S • - • ls~~~

_. - . • 1. • -r ~. ,_ • •.•,• . -

~~—— - -——---—-..‘a-_V S ! ~~~~~~~~h.,~~~~~~~~ .,~~~.,d .. ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ ~~~~~ I , .

ICATEGORY NEED DEFICIENCY SCORES FOR

COMPANY, FIELD, AND GENERAL GRADE OFFICE&,

GRADECOMPANY FIELD GENERAL

Security Need —0.07 0.11 0.01

Social Needs 0.64 0.44 0.16

Esteem Needs 1.19 0.80 0.40

Autonomy Needs 1.54 0.98 0.61

Self—Actualization Needs 2.41 1.48 0.73

NOTE: These are aggregate scores for each of the five majorneed categories. The item scores for each category were

4 totaled and averaged to derive these scores. The lowerthe score, the higher the reported need satisfaction.

I’

_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ —,‘. ~~~~

.--S-

— ~~~ ... ~~~~~~ -~~

—S -S- ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

- —~ ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ - —

H

• 2.5 —

CompanyI GradeI Officers

2.0— —

V

-I

8 1.5_ ..

C’) ,‘Field/ Grade

Officers

1.0~- -

~—

.0 General.5 - ,/‘ .~~~~~~~ Officers

6’~~

’

~~~

’

6~~

c”

.0— -

— .5— . 1 I ISecurity Social Esteem Autonomy Self—

actualization

NEEDS

Figure 1. Graphical comparison of company, field, and generalgrade officers’ category need deficiency scores.

8 CL.-

I ~:L~

_______________________________________________ V ________________

.1 ~________________________________________

_ _ _ _ _ _ _

- _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _

- — - - - - S . ~~~~~~ — -~ - .- - --—~~~~~

—- - . ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ ~~~~~~~~~~~~

DISCUSSION

The purpose of this study was to compare the military jobsatisfaction of former company grade , field grade , and generalArmy officers. Both hypotheses were supported in that generalofficers were significantly more satisfied than company andfield grade officers, and field grade officers were significantlymore satisfied than company grade officers. Johnson and

V Marcrum (1968), using career Army officers currently on activeduty, found somewhat similar results in regard to more satisfac-tion at each higher rank. Together the findings of these twostudies indicate that job satisfaction is greater at each higherlevel of rank within the military organization. These resultsappear to be both pessimistic and optimistic at the same time.They are pessimistic in that company grade officers were the

• least satisfied, and it is at this level that the officer drainis the greatest. The results are optimistic in that the jobenvironment that the Army has created appears to be conduciveto expanded satisfaction of needs as one moves up the rankstructure, which allows for more and more of an officer ’s talentsto be more fully utilized. During the career guidance programsit should be emphasized that need or job satisfaction probablywill increase as the officers progress through their careers.However, the results of the present study are somewhat temperedby the impossibility of determining how similar the generalofficers were to the field and company grade officers when theywere themselves field and company grade officers. The same canbe said for the field grade officers in regard to their similari tyto the company grade officers when they were themselves companygrade officers. Naturally , the greater the similari ty thegreater the generality of the findings.

The lack of adequate norms makes it difficult to determine, inabsolute terms, what the need satisfaction scores really indicate.However, some very tentative comparisons can be made with the

• findings of Porter (1962) and Johnson and Marcrum (1968).Porter , using 2000 civilian managers from all levels of manage-ment and a wide variety of companies, divided his sample intocategories which were somewhat comparable to the company gradeand general officer categories used in the present study. Exceptfor the need concerning job security , Porter ’s managers appearto be as satisfied or more satisfied than the company gradeofficers sampled in the current investigation. The differenceswere largest for the self-actualization needs. No consistentdifferences appear to exist between the need satisfaction scoresof the general officers and Porter ’s comparable sample ofmanagers. In Johnson and Marcrum ’s study , for all the needsexcept self-actualization, the company and field grade officersappear to be less satisfied than their counterparts used in thepresent study. For the self-actualization needs Johnson andMarcrum ’s respondents were more satisfied. While they do notindicate if Military Academy graduates were included in their

9

~

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ V~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ •

~~~~ V V -

~V

~_7

~S VV-SV

~-S-V V-SSSVV ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ - ~~~~

.—— — _ •_.~ ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ ~~~~ -----—. -. .

~1

sample , it is likely that they were . However , it is extremelylikely that a substantial number of respondents were notgraduates of the Military Academy and it is this group that mayhave caused the differences in satisfaction scores.

While no firm conclusions can be drawn from the above comparisonsbecause of the lack of identical samples and time—frames , somevery tentative trends appear to be present. It seems that oncean individual reaches general officer he can expect to obtainas much job satisfaction as civilians at comparable levels ofmanagement. However , except for job security , company gradeofficers appear to be less satisfied than their civiliancounterparts, particularly with the self—actualization needs.Military Academy graduates who left the service were lesssatisfied with the self-actualization needs than were Armyofficers attending service schools. What this may indicate isthat Military Academy graduates at the company and field gradelevels may not at present have enough opportunities to satisfy

• their self—actualization needs . More occasions to fu l f i l l growthand development needs , along with worthwhile accomplishments,should be present. Adequate job security appears to be presentand further emphasis on this factor may be of little value.However, with the recent cuthacks in Army strength and tighteningup of promotion policies this need may have become less satisfiedsince the time when the respondents in the current study wereon active duty .

Another finding of some significance was that there was aconsistent trend within all three rank groupings for eachsuccessive need to be less fulfi l led, and thus less satisfied,than the ones below it in the need hierarchy. This result isclosely related to what could be expected from Maslow’s theoryof need satisfaction . Be postulated that because of the verybasic structure of large organizations it is much more diff icultto satisfy the needs that lie at the upper—end of the scale--theautonomy and self-actualization needs. Maslow also states thatgiven the structure of our society, with little deficiency inthe physiological and security needs, the most important taskof upper—level management is to arrange organizationalconditions and methods of operations so that individuals canachieve their own goals best by directing their own effortstoward organizational objectives. In essence this is a processof creating opportunities , releasing potential , removingobstacles, encouraging growth , and providing guidance . It iswhat may be referred to as “management by objectives” ratherthan “management by control”. More specific guidelines forimplementation can be found in the specific items listed underthe autonomy and self-actualization needs. For instance ,opportunities to participate in goal setting, independentthought and action, and worthwhile rather than make—work projectsshould be employed .

V ~ )

10

- . V ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ ~~ V - •~ - V

V .

- —-V V V V

1k . —---- - —--- — — --~~~~~~~~ -~~~~~~‘~

-- — V -

~~ _ _ _ _

A methodological note should be explained at this time. Itwill be recalled that the respondents in the present study wereno longer on active duty but were fully employed in a civiliancapacity. This might have meant that the findings wereirrelevant to those officers currently on active duty . Such ,however, does not appear to be the case, since the results are

• very similar to those of Johnson and Marcrum (1968), who usedcareer Army officers on active duty, and Porter (1961, 1962),who used civilian managers at several levels from widelydiffering organizations. Both studies found that job satisfac-tion opportunities are better at successively higher levels inthe organizational hierarchies. It seems that the findings of

• this study are part of a widespread phenomenon existing in bothcivi lian and military organizations. They also are similar towhat would be expected from Maslow’s theory of motivation, inthat each successive need in the hierarchy was found to be lessfulfilled than the one below it.

CONCLUS IONS

In conclusion , the three most pertinent findings were :

1. USMA graduates who became generals obtained more jobsatisfaction in the Army than did USMA graduates who left activeduty as company and field grade officers.

2. USI4A graduates who became field grade officers obtainedmore job satisfaction in the Army than did USMA graduates wholeft active duty as company grade officers.

3. A consistent trend existed for higher order needs to beless satisfied than lower order needs.

11

V ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ - -~~~--_

_ _ _ _

V

- —----- -S . - -S V~~~~~ _V V~ - . -V~~V •~ -V __ , _~ _~~~~~~~~

-

~~ REFERENCES

-V

Butler, R.P., and McLaughlin, G.W. Dimensions of job satisfactionand their relationships to milite~ry commitment and retentionamong U.S. Military Academy graduates. Office of InstitutionalResearch, U.S. MilLtary Academy, West Point, N.Y. 1971.

Brayfield, A.H., and Crockett, W.H. Employee attitudes andemployee performance. Psychological Bulletin, 1955, 52,396—424.

Combrey , A.L. , High , W., and Wilson , R.C. Factors influencingorganizational effectiveness: VI. A survey of aircraftsupervisors. Personnel Psychology, 1955a, 8, 79—99.

Coinbrey , A.L., High , W ., and Wilson , R.C. Factors influencingorganizational effectiveness: VII. A survey of aircraftsupervisors. Personnel Psychology, 1955b , 8 , 245—257 .

Herzberg, F., Mausner , B., Peterson , R. , and Capwell , D.R.Job attitudes: review of research and opinion . Pittsburgh: V

Psychological Services of Pittsburgh , 1957.

Hulin , C.L. Job satisfaction and turnover in a female clericalpopulation . Journal of Applied Psychology, 1966, 50, 280-285.

Johnson , P.V. , and Marcrum , R.B . Perceived deficiencies inindividual need fulfil lment of career Army officers. Journalof Applied Psychology, 1968, 52 , 457—461.

Maslow , A. Motivation and Personality. New York : Haper , 1954.

Porter , L.W. A study of perceived need satisfactions in bottomand middle management jobs. Journal of Applied Psycholo~gy,1961, 45 , 1—10.

Porter , L .W. Job attitudes in management: I. PerceivedV deficiencies in need fulf i l lment as a function of job level.

Journal of Applied Psychology, 1962 , 46 , 375-384.

Ross , I.C., and Zander , A. Need satisfaction and employeeturnover. Personnel Psychology, 1957 , 10 , 327-338.

Speroff , B.J. Job satisfaction study of two small unorganized V

plants. Journal of Applied Psychology, 1959, 43, 315.

Vroom, V.H. Work and Motivation. New York : Wiley , 1964.

-S.’

12

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ — — —-——

~~ .

— — - -U - - —- - - _ _

--V.- ~~~~~~~~~ ~ ~~~~~~~~~~~ .__V~V~~~ — —— ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

______________ .5- — -V -V.—---.~~~~~~~V-—- - ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ . PA7~_ . V~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ SV~ _________________________________________ -_

UNCLASSIFIED•

~~c~~~ty QsssI5 c.,~..‘ “ DOCUMENT CONTROL DATA . l &D

(S..wI~~ sI. i~SkiU.. ~~t 11U , ~ 4 .1 ~b , * 1 .nd ..d..M4 au,.I.ls~ SNal INN~~~ WM. ~~. .w. 11 ~~sM S•I. ONIS•NAYINS £CT~V• tV (Cl~~~~ IU au~~~~ a.. ~i~ o~~t s~ cu~~ivv c~~as .,c~~uow

Office of Institutional ResearchUnited States Military Academy a . s ~ ou~West Point, New York 10996

I. NEPONT YST LI

MILITARY JOB SATISFACTION AMONG USMA GRADUATES

• 4. DCICNuPt iv i NOTeS (TVj. .1 rsp~fl 4 M.hpi, . ~~ISa)

N. Au TNON~IJ (P~~ * ~~~~. l~~. MJU.t. MiS

Dr. Richard P. ButlerS. NIPONT OATS 7~~ TOtAL NO. OP PAStS * NO. OP P5.5

June 1972 14 13SS. CONY PACT ON SNANT NO. Is. ON$•SNA?OWS ASPONT NU~~~~ ENS~

b. PNOJSC?NO. OB 1.Ol—72 — 0 35C. No. OThCP NOPOPT 150414 fA~~ S 1 ~~~~~~. ~~~ ~s Isi

~s. ~~~~~~

\N. Office of Institutional Research

West Point, New York 10996V ~~~~~~ United States Military Academy

I$. ASITNA This study measured and compared military job satisfactionamong former company grade , field grade, and general officers . A 13item questionnaire that measured job satisfaction in five differentareas was used to survey U.S. Military Academy graduates from theClasses of 1920—1949. It was found that g~neral officers were moresatisfied than were company and field grade officers , and that fieldgrade officers were more satisfied than company grade officers. Itwas also found that there was a consistent trend for higher orderneeds to be less satisfied than lower order needs. Recommendationsfor change are given.

f~ DD ,~~‘..1473 i~~~~~~ -~-’ ~~“ “ “s” Unclaseif Led

A ______ _ _

_ _ _

_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ -- ——V--V

~1

Ia. LINK A LINK S LINK CKSV WOPOS

POL l St POLl UT ..~~s NT

Job satisfaction

USMA graduate

Retention

Need fulfillment

Li

IV

C

— — — — — -V

14 Unclassifieda~~ a~~~ —

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

— - - V - V

- — -V

-