College and Research Libraries Job Satisfaction among Support Staff in Michigan Academic Libraries Julie Voelck In a partial replication of a 1989 study conducted by Coleen Parmer and Dennis East in Ohio, a job satisfaction questionnaire was distributed in 1994 to support staff in thirteen state-supported academic libraries in Michigan. Results indi- cate that while support staff are satisfied with supervision, the nature of their work, coworkers, and benefits, they are dissatisfied with opportunities for promotion, pay, and contingent rewards. The means of several dimensions of job satisfaction varied significantly by the staff variables of experience, educa- tion, position title, union representation, full- or part-time work, and working directly with users. There are some notable differences in the results of this study as compared to the resul~s reported by Parmer and East. Based on the results, some. ways to improve support staff job satisfaction are suggested. • he contributions of parapro- fessionals, technical assis- tants~ and other support staff are vital to the successful op- eration of academic libraries in carrying out service missions. In many academic libraries, support staff comprise a major- ity of all staff, while librarians are in the minority. In a national study of parapro- fessional staff in college and university libraries reported in 1992, Larry R. Oberg and others found that libraries are employing more paraprofessionals and fewer librarians than in the past. 1 The most recent data published by the Asso- ciation of College and Research Libraries (ACRL) and the Association of Research Libraries (ARL) support this finding. Of 106 reporting ACRL libraries, nonpro- fessional staff comprised a median of 44 percent of the total staff, and, combined with student staff, a median of 72 per- cent of the totaP In ARL libraries, the median percentage of nonprofessional staff was 51 percent of the total, and, with student staff, the median percent- age was 73 percent.3 At the same time, the overall number of staff-in all posi- tions-appears to be declining steadily. Beverly P. Lynch and Jo Ann Verdin found in their study of two ARL libraries that the total number of full-time library staff decreased throughout the 1980s, and this pattern seems to be continuing for many academic libraries in the 1990s.4 The problem of declining budgets in an era of rising costs for subscriptions, automation, and other library materials is often cited as a cause of staff reduc- tions, and all indications are that the eco- nomic uncertainty faced by academic libraries will continue for some time to come. This situation, combined with such factors as the increase in quantity and complexity of technology and the demands of teaching, research, and gov- ernance activities for librarians in many academic libraries, has led to an increase in the number and level of essential tasks and duties that have become primarily the responsibility of support staff. Al- though this has been reported often in Julie Voelck is Head of Reference Seroices at the University Library, Central Michigan University, Mount Pleasant, Michigan 48859. 157 158 College & Research Libraries technical services, it is also happening in public services, where support staff are frequently the first (and sometimes the only) contact with patrons and fulfill an exigent and critical information-provid- ing and public relations role for their libraries. In his article on job satisfaction in a changing library environment, Jack A. Siggins provides three compelling argu- ments to justify making the job satisfac- tion of library staff a primary concern. First, some research has shown a rela- tionship between job satisfaction and staff performance and productivity. Sec- ond, staff who are chronically dissatis- fied with their jobs may manifest such negative behaviors as chronic absentee- ism and high turnover. Third, library ad- ministrators should concern themselves with job satisfaction simply because they care about the well-being of the people with whom they work. 5 Given that support staff comprise a large percentage of the total staff and hold a significant degree of responsibil- ity for carrying out essential duties and providing primary services in most li- braries, and given the assumption that the effectiveness of a library in fulfilling service goals and objectives depends to some extent on the morale of its staff, it is important to gain an understanding of the areas of job satisfaction and dissatis- faction for support staff and to use this knowledge to develop ways to improve or enhance the work environment. LITERATURE REVIEW Since the mid-1970s, several studies on job satisfaction in libraries have been reported. William J. Vaughn and J. D. Dunn carried out a comparative study of six university libraries in Texas using the Job Description Index (JDI). They found that the scores of neither a particular library nor of a specific department dif- fered significantly from the rest on the total index or on five job dimensions- pay, the work itself, supervision, people, and promotion. 6 Steven Seokho Chwe compared the satisfaction score results of reference li- brarians and catalogers on the Minne- March 1995 sota Satisfaction Questionnaire (MSQ) in ninety-one university libraries. Al- though he found no difference in overall job satisfaction, he did find that the cata- logers were significantly less satisfied than reference librarians with the oppor- tunities inherent in their work for crea- tivity, variety, and social service.7 George P. D'Elia analyzed 288 MSQs completed by recent library school graduates. He found that the supervi- sory climate and factors intrinsic to the work itself, such as opportunities for achievement, creativity, and recogni- tion, were most closely related to job satisfaction.8 In 1983 Beverly P. Lynch and J o Ann Verdin reported the results of their sur- vey of full-time staff in three research libraries. Among the findings were that staff in reference departments reported significantly more satisfaction than staff in all other departments but acquisi- tions, and that staff with more experi- ence reported more ~atisfaction than staff with less experience. 9 In 1987 Lynch and Verdin reported on the results of a replication of their study. They again found staff in reference departments were relatively more satisfied with their jobs.1° Circulation staff, however, re- ported higher job satisfaction in the sec- ond study than in the first.U Ilene F. Rockman surveyed California State University system faculty and li- brarians using the MSQ. She found that decision making (which was positively influenced by years of experience) and autonomy were highly correlated with job satisfaction, but that gender was notP Carol D. Billings and Betty Kern inter- viewed fifty paraprofessionals in eleven Louisiana libraries. Respondents were most dissatisfied with their salaries; pressure brought on by increases in tech- nology, lack of opportunity for promo- tion, and inadequate fringe benefits were also sources of dissatisfaction. They expressed satisfaction with intrin- sic rewards, the physical and intellectual environment of the library, supervision, and working with patronsY A number of studies of job satisfaction in libraries have been reported just since 1990. Donna K. Fitch administered the JDI to support staff in Alabama academic libraries. One of her findings was that staff with ten or more years of experience were the least satisfied and staff with less than a year of experience were the most satis- fied with their chances for promotion. 14 The results of a survey of librarians and library assistants conducted by Pa- tricia A. Kreitz and Annegret Ogden indicated that library assistants were dis- satisfied with the "reward structure" of their jobs. Respondents also expressed a need for more intrinsic rewards, such as the appreciation of others for one's work.15 Margaret S. Schneider surveyed and interviewed the staff of a large urban public library system, the majority of whom were paraprofessionals and worked in public services. They re- ported satisfaction with the nature of the work itself, coworkers, immediate su- pervisors, and working directly with pa- trons.16 They reported dissatisfaction with communications between staff and management, and a majority identified heavy workloads and understaffing as serious problems. 17 Leigh Estabrook, Lisa Mason, and Sara Suelflow distributed question- naires and conducted selective focus group interviews with 1,371 ARL library staff, 801 of whom were support staff. Communication was identified as an area of dissatisfaction for support staff; some respondents specifically noted thinking that they were not given the same level of feedback on matters re- lated to their work as were librarians. They also thought they were not given the chance to optimally use their talents and education in their work. 18 To gather data on the roles, status, and working conditions of library staff, Oberg and others conducted a national survey of library directors. Among their findings: paraprofessionals were often more qualified than required for their positions; and high-level skills were often expected of support staff, many of whom carried out duties that were in the past performed by librarians. 19 In a survey of more than two hundred academic library support staff in Wis- Job Satisfaction 159 consin, Cathleen C. Palmini found that automation was a source of job satisfac- tion for over half of the respondents, although 38 percent said the training they received was inadequate.2° Causes of job satisfaction identified by the re- spondents included working with pa- trons, aspects of the work itself, coworkers, and working with comput- ers. Causes of dissatisfaction included computer downtime and slow response time, heavy workloads, and under- staffing.21 In 1989 Coleen Parmer and Dennis East distributed a questionnaire to sup- port staff in twelve state-supported aca- demic libraries in Ohio. 22 Using as part of their questionnaire the Job Satisfac- tion Survey GSS) developed by Paul E. Spector for employees of human service, public, or nonprofit organizations, Par- mer and East examined scores on a scale measuring overall job satisfaction, as well as scores on nine satisfaction di- mensions or subscales: benefits, commu- nication, contingent rewards, coworkers, operational procedures, pay, promotion, supervision, and the work itself.23 They also examined the influence on the mean satisfaction scores of eleven li- brary support staff variables: area of work, experience, work with patrons, job classification, full- versus part-time work, gender, commitment, education, library size, promotions received, and · supervisory responsibility. Support staff respondents scored as satisfied on the overall job satisfaction scale and on the subscales of supervision, coworkers, the work itself, benefits, and pay; they scored as dissatisfied on the subscales of promotion, contingent rewards, proce- dures, and communication.24 Other find- ings include that public services staff were significantly more satisfied on the overall scale and four subscales than technical services staff; staff with less experience scored higher on overall sat- isfaction and four subscales than staff with more experience; staff who work with patrons were significantly more satisfied than those who do not on the overall scale and four subscales; library assistants and office workers were the 160 College & Research Libraries most satisfied and technical assistants the least on the overall scale and three subscales; and part-time staff were significantly more satisfied on the overall scale and three subscales than full-time staff.25-29 As Parmer and East point out, the different instru- ments and methodologies used to ex- amine job satisfaction in previous studies make comparisons difficult. 30 Their own research, by introducing the use of the JSS-which appears to be well- suited to the measurement of job satis- faction of library personnel-provides an opportunity for further study and meaningful comparison. DEFINITIONS OF CONCEPTS Support Staff Several different titles and general po- sition designations have been used over the years to identify library employees who do not hold librarian positions, in- cluding paraprofessionals, associates, technical assistants, and nonprofession- als. As in the Parmer and East study, the designation support staff was chosen be- cause it is general enough to encompass most library personnel except librarians, student assistants, and maintenance or custodial staff. Also, it seems to be pre- . ferred by nonlibrarian staff themselves, as indicated by the subtitles of Library Mosaics: The Magazine for Support Staff and Associates: The Electronic Library Sup- port Staff Journal. Specific support staff position titles for this study are based upon the three cate- gories recommended by the American Library Association: • Library Associate or Associate Special- ist-in general, requires the minimum of a bachelor's degree, or the equiva- lent in education and library experi- ence; may involve a high level of responsibility, normally within estab- lished procedures and techniques and with some supervision by a librarian, but with a significant degree of inde- pendent judgment; and may involve the supervision of other staff. • Library Technical Assistant (LTA) or Technical Assistant-normally requires at least two years of library experi- March 1995 ence; responsible for carrying out du- ties supportive to associates and/ or librarians, following established poli- cies and procedures; and may involve the supervision of other LTAs or cleri- cal staff. • Clerk or Secretary-normally requires the minimum of a high school di- ploma, often supplemented with busi- ness or commercial courses and on-the-job training and experience; in- volves carrying out assignments as de- fined by the individual library or library department.31 Job Satisfaction Spector defined job satisfaction as a staff member's "emotional~affective re- sponse to a job or specific aspects of the job."32 He further described job satisfac- tion as representing "a cluster of feelings about the job" as well as an overall atti- tude that is a combination of the individ- ual feelings that make up the cluster.33 He then selected nine specific individual feelings or job satisfaction dimensions because they were most commonly cited in the literature and he found them to be most meaningful.34 They are broadly de- fined for this study as follows: 1. Promotion-opportunities for and perceived fairness in awarding them. 2. Pay-amount of salary and per- ceived fairness or equity. 3. Contingent rewards-recognition, ap- preciation, and praise given by oth- ers (especially one's supervisor) for work well done. - 4. Communication-interchange of in- formation verbally or in writing. 5. Operational procedures-policies, pro- cedures, rules and regulations, "red tape." 6. Benefits-medical coverage, pen- sion, paid vacation, other paid leaves · of absence. 7. Coworkers-perceived competence, helpfulness, and friendliness of peo- ple with whom one works. 8. Nature of the work itself-intrinsic inter- est level, variety, amount, and op- portunity for achievement and creativity. 9. Supervision-perceived competency, fairness, and administrative and man- agement skills of one's immediate supervisor. METHODOLOGY This study of the job satisfaction of support staff in Michigan in part repli- cates the Ohio study conducted by Par- mer and East. As did Parmer and East, the author used Spector's Job Satisfac- tion Survey GSS) as part of the question- naire. On the JSS, the nine dimensions or subscales of job satisfaction are opera- tionalized into four items each, for a total of thirty-six items, some of which are worded in_ a positive and some in a nega- tive direction. For example, the subscale "pay" is represented by four items and placed inconsecutively on the question- naire: (1) "I feel I am being paid a fair amount for the work I do" (positive); (2) "Raises are too few and far between" (negative); (3) "I feel unappreciated by the organization when I think about what they pay me" (negative); and (4) "I feel satisfied with my chances for salary increases" (positive). The author revised Spector's wording in two ways: references to "su- pervisor" were ·changed to "immediate supervisor" to avoid confusion for respon- dents who have more than one supervisor; and references to ''benefits" were changed to ''benefits package" to avoid the possibil- ity that respondents may think of the term as referring to other kinds of nonfringe job benefits. Each one of the thirty-six items is measured on a Likert-type scale of six re- sponse choices: (1) disagree very much, (2) disagree moderately, (3) disagree slightly, (4) agree slightly, (5) agree moderately, (6) agree very much. After inverting the codes for the negatively worded items (i.e., on the negatively worded items 1 becomes 6, 2 becomes 5, etc.), the score on each item ranges from one to six points. Since each subscale consists of four items, scores for a subscale range from 4 (indicating lowest satisfaction) to 24 (indicating highest satisfaction). With a midpoint score of 14, scores in- dicating some degree of dissatisfaction range from 4 to 14, and scores indicating some degree of satisfaction range from Job Satisfaction 161 14 to 24. An overall job satisfaction score consists of the sum of all thirty-six subscale scores and ranges from a low of 36 to a high of 216. With a midpoint of 126, scores indicating overall dissatisfac- tion range from 36 to 126, and scores indicating overall satisfaction range from 126 to 216. Originally, Spector administered the JSS to over 3,000 public and human serv- ice employees. He compared his results to those of other studies and concluded that there is evidence for the instru- ment's reliability and construct validity; because it was normalized on data ob- tained from public service employees, the JSS is better suited to respondents who work in public service occupations than other job satisfaction surveys.35 The JSS further appears to fulfill the instru- ment selection criteria identified by Vaughn and Dunn: it measures several dimensions of job satisfaction as well as the overall concept; it applies to a variety of public and human service occupa- tions; it is sensitive to variations in atti- tude (by using the Likert-type scale); it has been tested for reliability and valid- ity; it is relatively brief and easy to score; and normative data-from Spector's large sample--are available.36 One weak- ness of the JSS is that some respondents do not complete all thirty-six items because they think they have already provided an answer on another similar- sounding item. Spector, as well as Parmer and East, reported experiencing this problem. In an attempt to avoid it, an instruction in bold-face type at the top of the appropriate section of the question- naire cautions respondents to answer all of the questions, even if they think they have already provided the answer with another response. In this study, the slightly revised JSS is the second part of the two-part question- naire. The first part consists of nine ques- tions designed to gather information about nine characteristics of library sup- port staff and their positions: job classi- fication (based on the standard titles recommended by the ALA, in order to avoid the difficulties of trying to com- pare local titles that vary considerably 162 College & Research Libraries from library to library); full-time or part- time status; union representation; expe- rience in current position; experience in all library positions; level of education; primary work area; direct contact with library patrons; and use of computers. (The author will provide a copy of the questionnaire upon request.) To obtain permission to conduct the survey, the author sent letters to the chief administrators of the fifteen state-sup- ported academic libraries in Michigan and followed up by telephone. She also asked in the letter for the number of support staff employed in each library and the name of a contact person who would be willing to. distribute the ques- tionnaires. Thirteen of the fifteen state- supported academic library systems participated in the study. The overall re- sponse rate was about 62 percent. RESULTS Table 1 presents the job satisfaction mean scores and standard deviations for all respondents on the nine subscales and overall scale for three data sets: the Michigan study; Parmer and East's study in Ohio; and Spector's public and human service employees. The overall job satisfaction scores are similar for each study; academic library support staff, like March 1995 public service employees in general, find their jobs generally satisfying. The mean scores in table 1 indicate . that Michigan respondents are most sat- isfied with the immediate supervision they receive and are also quite satisfied with the nature of the work itself and with their coworkers. Benefits and op- erational procedures are only somewhat satisfying areas. The mean score for com- munication is very close to the midpoint, indicating that some respondents are dissatisfied and some satisfied on this subscale. Michigan respondents are most dissatisfied with their chances for promotion and level of pay. They are also somewhat dissatisfied with sontingent rewards. As Parmer and East pointed out, staff who lack an M.L.S. degree and consequently cannot pass from support staff ranks to librarian positions may feel unhappy with the lack of opportunity for promotion and with salaries which may be low, especially in comparison to the pay received by the librarians with whom they work.37 The mean score on contingent rewards indicates that they may think their work is unappreciated and perhaps undervalued at times be- cause they are not librarians. The mean score on communication may indicate that, for some of the same reasons, some TABLE1 COMPARISON OF JOB SATISFACTION MEANS AND STANDARD DEVIATIONS Ohio Spector Michigan (N=422) (N= 3,067) Overall Satisfaction and Subscales ValidN Mean SD Mean SD Mean SD Supervision 368 19.13 4.74 18.41 5.57 19.9 4.6 Work itself 371 18.56 4.35 16.58 4.27 19.2 4.4 Coworkers 362 17.02 4.28 17.44 4.02 18.8 3.7 Benefits 364 16.11 4.78 16.29 4.40 13.1 5.0 Operational procedures 366 14.85 4.11 14.19 4.47 12.5 4.6 Communication 368 14.09 4.50 14.07 4.77 14.0 5.0 Contingent rewards 363 13.16 5.00 13.90 5.35 13.4 5.1 Pay 368 11.93 5.16 14.93 4.26 10.5 5.1 Promotion 367 9.28 4.20 10.15 4.85 11.5 5.1 Overall 325 134.13 26.05 135.96 29.22 133.1 27.9 Job Satisfaction 163 TABLE2 JOB SATISFACTION BY YEARS OF EXPERIENCE IN ALL LIBRARY POSITIONS: SIGNIFICANT SUBSCALES AND OVERALL SCALE Years of Experience Overall scale 11-15 6-10 16+ 0-5 F ratio 4.91 Work itself 11-15 16+ 6-10 0-5 F ratio 8.67 Operational procedures 16+ 11-15 6-10 0-5 F ratio 7.01 Communication 0-5 16+ 6-10 11-15 F ratio 4.92 Coworkers 11-15 16+ 6-10 0-5 F ratio 3.16 Benefits 11-15 16+ 6-10 0-5 F ratio 3.00 respondents perceive themselves as out- side the communication loop in their li- braries, and perhaps they feel excluded from planning, decision-making, and problem-solving activities that can di- rectly affect them and the services they are responsible for providing. An analysis of variance run on the Michigan data set using SPSS/PC+ shows that seven of the nine support staff characteristics have within their categories statistically significant differ- ences in the mean scores on specific subscales and the overall job satisfac- tion scale. The F ratios, significance ValidN Mean 65 134.34 82 131.60 77 131.48 101 128.10 p < .01 71 19.84 86 19.72 94 18.24 120 17.20 p < .001 85 14.47 69 14.43 95 14.14 117 12.64 p < .001 119 15.37 86 13.56 92 13.38 71 13.51 p < .01 71 17.31 82 16.85 91 16.64 118 16.24 p < .05 70 16.91 85 16.60 93 16.38 116 15.05 p < .05 levels, and mean scores for these seven variables are presented in tables 2 through 8. Whether looking at all library posi- tions held by respondents or at the currently held position only, library ex- perience is strongly related to job satis- faction. Tables 2 and 3 show that the fewer the years of experience, the less satisfied support staff are overall and with the work itself, operational proce- dures, coworkers, and benefits. On the operational procedures subscale, 0-5 years is the only category to have a mean score in the dissatisfied range on 164 College & Research Libraries March 1995 TABLE3 JOB SATISFACTION BY YEARS OF EXPERIENCE IN CURRENT POSITION: SIGNIFICANT SUBSCALES AND OVERALL SCALE Years of Experience Overall scale 11-15 6-10 16+ 0-5 F ratio 5.00 Work itself 16+ 11-15 6-10 0-5 F ratio 6.18 Communication 0-5 16+ 11-15 6-10 F ratio 4.44 Operational procedures 6-10 11-15 16+ 0-5 F ratio 4.32 Contingent rewards 0-5 16+ 11-15 6-10 F ratio 3.32 Benefits 11-15 6-10 16+ 0-5 F ratio 2.92 both experien~e in current position and experience in all library positions. Per- haps this finding can be explained by the difficulty and complexity of many li- brary support staff positions; with more experience staff may become more comfortable with procedures. How- ever, respondents with the least experi- ence are most satisfied with organ- izational communication. In fact, re- spondents with 0-5 years' experience in all library positions are the only ones to score in the satisfied range on this subscale; and respondents with 0-5 years' experience in their current posi- ValidN Mean 42 134.38 79 133.63 41 130.49 162 129.05 p < .01 47 20.66 46 19.22 89 18.71 187 17.80 p < .001 186 14.85 47 14.21 46 13.37 87 12.87 p < .01 89 14.52 44 14.36 47 14.30 184 13.16 p < .01 182 13.82 45 13.60 46 12.78 88 11.85 p < .05 46 17.46 88 16.78 46 16.04 182 15.47 p < .05 tions are one of only two groups to score in the satisfied range. All other groups with more experience score in the dissat- isfied range. This may reflect the unful- filled expectation of support staff that they will be included in policy, proce- dure, and decision-making activities as they gain experience and become more proficient in their work. Union representation is another vari- able that is related to the job satisfaction of the respondents, as shown in table 4. Support staff whose positions are repre- sented by a formal, organized union are significantly more satisfied on the over- Job Satisfaction 165 TABLE4 JOB SATISFACTION BY UNION REPRESENTATION: SIGNIFICANT SUBSCALES AND OVERALL SCALE Overall scale Communication Benefits Operational procedures Promotion Contingent rewards Union Representation Yes No F ratio 5.63 No Yes F ratio 15.69 Yes No F ratio 10.57 Yes No F ratio 10.07 No Yes F ratio 8.97 No Yes F ratio 4.36 all scale as well as on the benefits and operational procedures subscales. Both union and nonunion staff score in the satisfied range on benefits, but on opera- tional procedures union staff are slightly satisfied while nonunion staff are dissat- isfied. However, staff represented by a union are significantly less satisfied on the subscales of promotion, contingent rewards, and communication, although both groups score in the dissatisfied range on promotion and contingent re- wards. On communication, the mean score for nonunion staff is in the satisfied range, while the mean score for union staff is in the dissatisfied range. These results refute the assumption that un- ionization always provides opportunity for greater job satisfaction, but they are difficult to explain. It may be that prac- tices designed to safeguard jobs for un- ion employees can at the same time lock them into job ranks and make promotions to other positions unlikely. Also, union employees sometimes find themselves in adversarial relationships with library administrators, and this may lead to Valid N Mean 229 131.85 93 128.76 p < .05 108 15.49 256 13.48 p < .001 255 16.64 105 14.87 p < .01 255 14.15 107 12.92 p < .01 108 12.62 255 11.54 p~-·--- 109 13.96 250 12.77 p < .05 some dissatisfaction with communica- tions. Then, too, the union may offer its members opportunity for communica- tion and participation in decision mak- ing, setting up the expectation that the library will offer similar chances for par- ticipation; if this does not happen, dis- satisfaction may occur. Job satisfaction is related to the full- time or part-time status of the employ- ees, as table 5 shows. In three significant subscales-benefits, the work itself, and operational procedures-full-time staff are significantly more satisfied than part-time staff. On the benefits and op- erational procedures subscales, full-time staff score in the satisfied range, while part-time staff score in the dissatisfied range. Since many part-time staff do not receive fringe benefits and may not have gained the experience or received the training to become familiar and comfort- able with complex departmental proce- dures, these mean scores are not surprising. On the communication subscale, however, not only are part- time staff significantly more satisfied 166 College & Research Libraries March 1995 TABLES JOB SATISFACTION BY FULL-TIME AND PART-TIME WORK: SIGNIFICANT SUBSCALES AND OVERALL SCALE Overall scale Benefits Full- or Part-Time Full-time Part-time F ratio 9.17 Full-time Part-time ValidN Mean 257 131.94 68 127.59 p < .01 287 16.85 77 13.35 ························-····-····-·--.. ··-· ·---··-··-········--·---········-·-··-········· · ······-···L~~!~.?.-~.~:~?. ....... -············-··········-·-···--··-·················-··--···-········-··--·-··-··E._::: __ :9_Q! ... -····-··-···- work itself Full-time 288 19.02 Part-time 83 16.94 F ratio 15.33 Operational procedures Full-time 286 Part-time 80 12.54 F ratio 14.31 p < .001 Communication Part-time 81 15.36 Full-time 287 13.73 F ratio 8.42 p < .01 TABLE6 JOB SATISFACTION BY STANDARD JOB TITLE: SIGNIFICANT SUBSCALES Communication Standard Title Clerical Technical Associate F ratio 6.01 ValidN Mean 116 14.70 140 14.52 110 12.85 ·-·--·- -··---·---·--··-··········-····--········-····-·---------·----- .E..~.:.Q.~·--·---···· Operational procedures Work itself Benefits Ass~ciate Technical Clerical F ratio 5.74 Associate Technical Clerical F ratio 4.16 Associate Technical Clerical·. F ratio 3.71 than full-time staff, but the mean scores are in the satisfied range for part-timers and in the dissatisfied range for full-tim- ers. Again, this may reflect an unmet expectation that full-time support staff will be included more in organizational communications. Table 6 shows that on three of the sig- nificant subscales-operational proce- 110 14.42 140 13.89 113 12.93 p < .01 111 19.46 141 18.47 116 17.86 p < .05 110 17.15 141 15.67 110 15.65 p < .05 dures, the work itself, and benefits-the ranking of job titles from most to least satisfied is associate-technical-clerical. Yet again, the opposite is found with the coll}I11unication subscale, where cleri- cals are most satisfied and library asso- ciates least, and where the library associates are the only group with a mean score in the dissatisfied range. The Job Satisfaction 167 TABLE7 JOB SATISFACTION BY LEVEL OF EDUCATION: SIGNIFICANT SUBSCALES Level of Education Communication High school · College degree Some college Some graduate Graduate degree F ratio 3.18 Benefits College degree Some graduate High school Graduate degree Some college F ratio 3.06 Work itself High school Some college Some graduate College degree Graduate degree F ratio 2.72 Promotion College degree High school Some college Graduate degree Some graduate F ratio 2.45 results for the first three subscales reflect the common-sense assumption that sat- isfaction will increase with the increas- ing level of the position. That staff in associate positions are significantly less satisfied with communication may indi- cate again an unfulfilled expectation for greater participation in communication at that classification level. Satisfaction by education has mixed results, as shown in table 7. Supporting the generalizations posited for other variables, those with the highest levels of education are least satisfied with com- munication and the rewards of the work itself; in both of these subscales, staff with a high school education are the most satisfied. While respondents in all education categories show dissatisfac- tion with the opportunity for promotion, those with the highest education levels show the most dissatisfaction. These ValidN Mean 19 16.58 106 14.49 131 14.15 56 13.73 56 12.70 p < .05 105 17.09 55 16.62 18 16.39 57 16.23 129 15.01 p < .05 19 21.58 131 18.66 56 18.41 107 18.23 58 18.05 P< :~--- 105 12.31 18 12.11 131 12.07 57 11.70 56 10.77 p < .05 findings suggest that there is a conflict among staff with higher levels of educa- tion between the expectation for partici- pation in organizational communications and for promotion opportunities and the actual level of participation and oppor- tunity for promotion in the organization. In contrast to other studies on job sat- isfaction in libraries, table 8 shows that support staff who spend the greatest per- centage of time working directly with library patrons are significantly less sat- isfied overall and with operational pro- cedures. While it is true that working with users provides positive rewards and opportunities for immediate gratifi- cation, there are also times when public services staff have less control of their work environment. The stress of de- mands for immediate service and expe- riences with confused, frustrated, and occasionally even hostile patrons are 168 College & Research Libraries March 1995 TABLES JOB SATISFACTION BY WORKING DIRECTLY WITH USERS: SIGNIFICANT SUBSCALE AND OVERALL SCALE Percent Time with Users Overall scale 0-25 26-50 76-100 51-75 F ratio 5.05 Operational procedures 0-25 26-50 51-75 76-100 F ratio 5.78 part of the job. The dissatisfaction with operational procedures may reflect a feeling that the procedures support staff must follow (though not necessarily par- ticipate in formulating) are viewed with less than enthusiasm by some patrons. Comparison to the Ohio Results There are a number of interesting dif- . ferences in the results of the Michigan study as compared to those of the Ohio study. As discussed, Parmer and East (and others) found that support staff who work in public services and who work directly with patrons were signifi- cantly more satisfied than those em- ployed in technical services. In contrast, the Michigan data show that, overall. and on operational procedures, the greater the percentage of time spent working directly with patrons, the lower the level of support staff satisfaction. Parmer and East found that satisfaction was signifi- cantly lower for staff with more years of experience. Except for the communica- tion subscale, the Michigan data show instead that satisfaction increases with years of experience. Parmer and East found that library assistants and office workers were most satisfied and LTAs least satisfied, while in Michigan library associates are most satisfied and clericals least, except on the communication subscale. Finally, Parmer and East were surprised to find that part-time staff in Ohio were significantly more satisfied ValidN Mean 207 132.37 50 131.18 30 127.17 36 126.17 p < .01 232 14.25 55 13.64 38 13.10 39 11.97 p < .001 than full-time staff on the overall scale and four subscales; but in Michigan, with the exception of communication, full-time staff are more satisfied than part-time on the overall scale and signifi- cant subscales. One possible reason for some of the differences may be that, in coding their data, Parmer and East replaced each item to which staff failed to provide a response with the mean response to the other three items in the subscale. In ana- lyzing the data for the Michigan study, the author used only the completed re- sponses. An examination of Ohio and Michigan support staff position descrip- tions and salaries may suggest other pos- sible reasons for the differences in findings. Replication of the study in other states may also prove enlighten- ing. Perhaps neither the Michigan data nor the Ohio data are completely repre- sentative nationally, but rather some dif- ferences may be typical and even inevitable from state to state. CONCLUSIONS The results of this study suggest some possible ways to improve the job satis- faction of support staff. First, whenever organizationally and fiscally possible, efforts can be made to try to ensure the fair compensation of support staff, whose pay levels-no less than those of librarians-should accurately reflect the education and experience requirements of the positions they hold. In some librar- ies where inequities are obvious or seri- ously suspected, pay equity studies could be conducted in which the com- pensation for support staff positions is compared to that of other positions within the library, to other campus de- partments, or to positions outside the university. In other libraries, reclassifica- tion studies may be advisable. Librarian supervisors who encourage and work alongside support staff in such endeav- ors send a clear message to support staff that they are highly valued as important contributors to the library organization. As an occupational group, librarians frequently find themselves in the unen- viable position of having to defend their professionalism to people on the out- side. Even when professionalism per se is not an issue, librarianship is often con- sidered a relatively low-status profes- sion, which helps explain why some institutions offer low salaries and why many academic librarians so highly value their faculty status and/or redun- dantly refer to themselves as "profes- sionallibrarians." However, in attempting to raise public consciousness about their own professional role, it is possible that librarians inadvertently send a negative message about the status and value of support staff. Indeed, if librarians them- selves sometimes feel undervalued, how much more so might the support staff feel? Librarians must not become so in- Job Satisfaction 169 valved in their own cause that they ap- pear to these employees to discount their dedication and commitment. This study suggests that insufficient participation in organizational commu- nications and too few contingent re- wards, particularly in the form of sincere, positive feedback, are sources of job dissatisfaction for many support staff. R~gardless of the management cul- ture of their libraries, whether the Total Quality Management (TQM) model, management by objectives, or another, many support staff seem to feel that they are excluded from the process of deci- sion making and policy development, even when it directly affects them. To remedy this perception, librarians must make every effort to include them in both formal and informal work-related communications. Support staff are right to think that librarians should genuinely appreciate and value their experiences, points of view, ideas, and opinions. Library ad- ministrators must make a concerted ef- fort to ensure that commitment to service and efforts toward problem solv- ing are shared by all staff in their librar- ies. When such a philosophy of shared responsibility pervades the library or- ganization, this study suggests that the job satisfaction of support staff may in- crease. As a result, service excellence and growth may be achieved, even in times of budget reductions. REFERENCES AND NOTES 1. Larry R. Oberg and others, "The Role, Status, and Working Conditions of Paraprofessionals: A National Survey of Academic Libraries," College & Research Libraries 53 (May 1992): 221. 2. Association of College and Research Libraries, ACRL University Library Statistics, 1990-91 (Chicago: ACRL, 1992), 20. 3. Sarah M. Pritchard and Eileen Finer, comps., ARL Statistics, 1990-91 (Washington, D.C.: ARL, 1992), 34. 4. Beverly P. Lynch and JoAnn Verdin, "Job Satisfaction in Libraries: A Replication," Library Quarterly 57 (Apr. 1987): 193. 5. Jack A. Siggins, "Job Satisfaction and Performance in a Changing Environment," Library Trends 41 (Fal11992): 304. 6. William J. Vaughn and J.D. Dunn," A Study of Job Satisfaction in Six University Libraries," College & Research Libraries 35 (May 1974): 177. 7. Steven Seokho Chwe, "A Comparative Study of Job Satisfaction: Catalogers and Reference Librarians in University Libraries," Journal of Academic Librarianship 4 Guly 1978): 143. 8. George P. D'Elia, "The Determinants of Job Satisfaction among Beginning Librarians," Library Quarterly 49 Guly 1979): 300. 170 College & Research Libraries March 1995 9. Beverly P. Lynch and JoAnn Verdin, "Job Satisfaction in Libraries: Relationships of the Work Itself, Age, Sex, Occupational Group, Tenure, Supervisory Level, Career Commitment, and Library Department," Library Quarterly 53 (October 1983): 442. 10. Lynch and Verdin, "Job Satisfaction in Libraries: A Replication," 195. 11. Ibid., 198. 12. Ilene F. Rockman, "Job Satisfaction among Faculty and Librarians: A Study of Gender, Autonomy, and Decision Making Opportunities," Journal of Library Administration 5 (Fall 1984): 55. 13. Carol D. Billings and Betty Kern, "Sources of Satisfaction and Dissatisfaction among Library Paraprofessionals: A Study Based on Fifty Interviews," LLA Bulletin 52 (Spring 1990): 174-77. 14. Donna K. Fitch, "Job Satisfaction among Library Support Staff in Alabama Academic Libraries," College & Research Libraries 51 (July 1990): 317. 15. Patricia A. Kreitz and Annegret Ogden, "Job Responsibilities and Job Satisfaction at the University of California Libraries," College & Research Libraries 51 (July 1990): 310-11. 16. Margaret S. Schneider, "Stress and Job Satisfaction among Employees in a Public Library System with a Focus on Public Service," Library and Information Science Research 13 (Oct./Dec. 1991): 393-98. 17. Ibid., 395. 18. Leigh Estabrook, Lisa Mason, and Sara Suelflow, "Managing the Work of Support Staff," Library Trends 41 (Fall1992): 245. 19. Oberg and others, "The Role, Status, and Working Conditions of Paraprofessionals," 232. 20. Cathleen C. Palmini, "The Impact of Computerization on Library Support Staff: A Study of Support Staff in Academic Libraries in Wisconsin," College & Research Libraries 55 (Mar. 1994): 122-23. 21. Ibid., 124-25. 22. Coleen Parmer and Dennis East, "Job Satisfaction among Support Staff in Twelve Ohio Academic Libraries," College & Research Libraries 54 (Jan. 1993): 43. 23. Paul E. Spector, "Measurement of Human Service Staff Satisfaction: Development of the Job Satisfaction Survey," American Journal of Community Psychology 13 (June 1985): 694. 24. Parmer and East, "Job Satisfaction among Support Staff," 47-48. 25. Ibid., 49. 26. Ibid., 52. 27. Ibid. 28. Ibid. 29. Ibid., 53. 30. Ibid., 56. 31. The Personnel Manual: An Outline for Libraries, 2d ed., ed. Charles E. Kratz and Valerie A. Platz (Chicago: ALA, 1993): 52. 32. Spector, "Measurement of Human Service Staff Satisfaction," 695. 33. Ibid. 34. Ibid., 694. 35. Ibid., 708. 36. Vaughn and Dunn, "A Study of Job Satisfaction," 165-66. 37. Parmer and East, "Job Satisfaction among Support Staff," 48.