The climate of job satisfaction: The relationship between extrinsic job factors and satisfaction among community rehabilitation program professionals.
The study of job satisfaction among rehabilitation practitioners/professionals has spanned more than half a century (e.g. Bluett, 1945; DiMichael, 1949; Stout, 1984; Wright & Terrian, 1987; Szymanski & Parker, 1995; Barett, Riggar, Crimando, Flowers, & Baily, 1997; Faubion, Palmer, & Andrew, 2001; Armstrong, Hawley, Lewis, Blankenship & Pubsley, 2008; Tabaj, Pastirk, Bitenc, &Masten, 2015). Job satisfaction is considered a key component in attracting and retaining qualified rehabilitation professionals to ensure that people with disabilities are effectively served in the community. Research findings have shown that satisfied professionals provide better services to the clients and are more important contributors to the agencies than dissatisfied rehabilitation professionals (Capella & Andrew, 2004). Understanding what contributes to job satisfaction may help to increase the level of satisfaction among rehabilitation professionals.
Job satisfaction is a complex multi-dimensional concept, which has been studied from a wide range of disciplinary perspectives, such as organizational psychology, business, marketing, management, human resource, and sociology. The relationship between job satisfaction and a vast array of variables have been explored. Among several theories, Maslow (1954) and Herzberg's theories (Herzberg, Mausner, Peterson, & Capwell, 1957) are the two popular motivational theories applied in the job satisfaction research. Providing the theoretical base of extrinsic job satisfaction factors for this study, Herzberg's theory, often called the two factor theory, addresses both intrinsic and extrinsic factors. Job satisfaction and dissatisfaction were the products of two distinct, separate factors: satisfiers/motivators and dissatisfiers/hygienes. The intrinsic satisfiers refer to achievement, recognition, work itself and personal growth. Extrinsic dissatisfiers are related to the environment in which employees do their jobs: working conditions, salary, job security, company policy, administrative support, etc. Good extrinsic factors tend to minimize job dissatisfaction while the presence of positive intrinsic factors can motivate and result in superior performance. In combining Maslow's hierarchical order needs with Herzberg's bi-dimensional factors, unless lower-order needs (extrinsic factors) are met, higher-order needs (intrinsic factors) cannot be met (Wright & Terrian, 1987).
Job Satisfaction among Rehabilitation Professionals
Research on job satisfaction in the field of rehabilitation is not a new undertaking. Research has addressed the job satisfaction construct among rehabilitation counselors across a variety of variables such as organizational commitment, rural and urban context, a variety of employment settings, leadership styles, work motivation and job performances (e.g., Armstrong, Hawley, Lewis, Blankenship, & Pugsley, 2008; Arnold, Seekins, & Nelson, 1997; Biggs, Flett, Voges, & Alpass, 1995; Garske, 2000; Packard & Kauppi, 1999; Szymanski & Parker, 1995), with many studies being conducted during the 1990s. Literature reviews on job satisfaction among rehabilitation professionals indicate that extrinsic factors concerning working conditions play a significant role in job satisfaction.
In a national study, using stratified random sampling, researchers collected survey data from 315 state rehabilitation agency counselors to examine job satisfaction and extrinsic job factors (Andrew, Faubion, & Palmer, 2002). Rehabilitation counselors reported a high degree of job satisfaction. which correlated significantly with all six extrinsic job factors: Location, Safety, Healthy environment, Facility space, Comfort, and Professional Nature. Using the same data, another study investigated differences in perceptions of job satisfaction between rural and urban vocational rehabilitation counselors (Faubion, Palmer, & Andrew, 2001). Research findings indicated that rural rehabilitation counselors were more satisfied than urban counselors with extrinsic factors in regards to office location, safety at work, and comfort level in their working environment.
Szymanski and Parker (1995) examined worker motivation in vocational rehabilitation employees' performance and satisfaction. A mixture of extrinsic factors (e.g., pay, security, or working conditions) and intrinsic factors (e.g., need for autonomy, responsibility, or accomplishment) are reported as participants' primary and secondary reasons for joining the agency. About one fourth of participants reported the reasons for staying on the job were due to one intrinsic and one extrinsic factor; while close to one third of people reported two extrinsic factors as their reasons to stay at their jobs. This study illustrated the important role extrinsic factors play in determining the general job satisfaction level among rehabilitation professionals.
Research indicated health disorders, intention to quit, attempts to change jobs (Wright & Terrian, 1987), and academic degrees (Blankertz & Robinson. 1997) were associated negatively with job satisfaction among rehabilitation practitioners. Wright and Terrian's study noted that the areas with lowest reported job satisfaction were concerned with extrinsic factors. such as policies, administrative practices, rules and the physical aspects of work environment. Blankertz and Robinson (1997) investigated the relationship between job satisfaction and turnover (job quit) intentions of community mental health workers who engaged in the provision of psychosocial rehabilitation services. The variables that predicted the intention to quit included younger age, higher levels of emotional exhaustion, having a master's degree, and having previous experience working in the psychosocial rehabilitation field.
Gender Differences in Job Satisfaction
Gender differences have remained a great interest in job satisfaction research. On average, women experience more demands on balancing work and home requirements than men while receiving fewer work-related resources in terms of promotion, and autonomy. However, the research findings have been mixed. Some studies reported significantly greater female job dissatisfaction while others found that women have equal or greater job satisfaction than men. In a study investigating gender differences in job satisfaction. Mason (2001) studied a sample of over 13,000 U.S. employees and found that there was no difference between women and men in management in regards to their satisfaction at work. A more recent study in Canada, Magee (2013) concluded that anxiety-provoking experiences outside of the workplace may contribute to the gender difference in job satisfaction. Men are more susceptible to anxiety-provoking situations than women in terms of the quality of work and demoralization while women are more likely to counterbalance a decrease in job satisfaction.
Bogg and Cooper (1994) examined over 1,000 civil servants in the United Kingdom. Females were less satisfied with their job and suffered from poorer mental and physical health. The stress was associated with their job relationship to the home environment and the constraints of the job. Some studies indicate women tend to emphasize intrinsic rewards when it comes to job satisfaction whereas men placed more value on extrinsic rewards (Kim, 2005). In the Andrew et al. (2002) study of counselor satisfaction and extrinsic job factors among state rehabilitation agencies, gender differences concerning job satisfaction with these extrinsic factors were found. For examples, women likely emphasize more on the importance of job-related safety issues and healthy working environment than men. The differences of gender on job satisfaction among rehabilitation professionals warrants further exploration.
Physical Working Environment
For most organizations, the cost of acquiring and maintaining the physical environment for employees' work activity constitutes the second largest financial overhead expense after human resources (McCoy, 2005). Research findings have found the physical environment of a work place plays a powerful role in shaping social climate, image of the workplace. individual well-being, job satisfaction, and turnover rates (Carnevale, 1992; Thomsen, J. D., Sonderstrup-Andersen, H. K., & Miiller, R., 2011). According to Leaman and Bordass (1999), the impact of offices upon their occupants' personal productivity has been estimated to be around 20%. However, the complicated reciprocal relationship between working condition, specifically, characteristics of physical environment and the individual workers' behaviors, as well as organizational culture and productivity has not been given substantial attention over the years (Ashkanay, Ayoko & Jehn, 2014).
Evidence has been accumulating that the office comfort is positively associated with both job performance and job satisfaction (Clements-Croome, 2000; Jain & Kaur, 2014; Vischer, 2008). Research also indicates that the physical environment at work, such as indoor air quality, ergonomic furniture, and lighting, affects employee health (Dilani, 2004). Dul, Ceylan & Jaspers (2011) suggested creative team characteristics and social influences are linked to properties and attributes of the physical office environment. A study documented that ornamental plants were an integral part of the workplace (Thomsen, J. D., Sonderstrup-Andersen, H. K., & Miiller, R., 2011). They were perceived as important means to express organizational and personal values. The comfortable physical atmosphere increases socializing and communicating with colleagues, coping with work demands and stress, and promoting individuals' well-being. The physical environment was changed by the ornamental plants and became a social phenomenon, influencing the social climate and the interaction among the employees in different hierarchical positions. The image created and value expressed by the physical environment of the work place also helps to enhance the competitiveness of the workplace. Research findings seem to be consistent with Carlopio's (1996) theoretical argument that the facets of job satisfaction and their measurement need to consider the physical work environment as a construct that affects people's attitudes and behavioral outcomes.
A large number of research studies on job satisfaction have been devoted to exploring the complicated relationship between motivational/intrinsic factors and job satisfaction (e.g. Blankertz & Robinson, 1997; Decker, Harris-Kojetin, & Bercovitz, 2009; Magee, 2013; Packard & Kauppi, 1999; Szymanski & Parker, 1995; Winn, Chisolm & Hummelbrunner, 2014), but relatively fewer research studies address the impact of extrinsic factors on job satisfaction. Andrew, Faubion, and Palmer (2002) conducted the first national research among rehabilitation counselors on extrinsic factors and job satisfaction and reported significant correlations between physical environments of facilities and job satisfaction. No other research was located that looked at the important influence on job satisfaction resulting from the physical features of the work environment in the rehabilitation field since then. In addition, little research was found that addressed overall job satisfaction of the direct service workers at community rehabilitation programs that consists of teams of case managers, rehabilitation counselors, chemical dependency counselors, residential managers, vocational coordinators, nurses, and independent living specialists. The purpose of this study was to use the Andrew, et al. study as a basis to explore further the relationship between job satisfaction and extrinsic job factors among rehabilitation community program professionals, who are competent or skilled involving the provision of rehabilitation-related services to individuals with disabilities and the supervision of clients "in a private, non-profit program that provides rehabilitation service to individuals with disabilities" (Maryland Division of Rehabilitation Services, 2014).
In order to compare the findings of the 2002 national study, the same set of research questions were used for this study of the community rehabilitation professionals relating job satisfaction and extrinsic job variables. The research questions follow.
Q 1 Do male and female community rehabilitation professionals report different perceptions regarding:
1. satisfaction with extrinsic job factors;
2. the importance of extrinsic job factors;
3. overall job satisfaction;
4. the importance of job-related safety; and
5. satisfaction with job safety measures?
Q 2 Is there a relationship between community rehabilitation professionals' reported job satisfaction and the following variables?
1. extrinsic environmental job factors.
2. selected demographic characteristics (age, years of education, and years in office).
3. possession of a rehabilitation-oriented degree, licensure/certification, existence of a disability, or different ethnic/racial background.
4. attempts to change jobs and recent health disorders and
5. years of experience.
0 3 Do community rehabilitation professionals report extrinsic job factors as:
1. being an important part of the decision to accept a position as an agency rehabilitation professional;
2. being important;
3. being related to length of time employed as a rehabilitation counselor, or
4. being related to years in their current office location?
After obtaining the IRB approval from University of Maryland Eastern Shore, 30 community rehabilitation agencies from Wicomico, Somerset, and Worcester counties were contacted. "A community rehabilitation program is defined as a private, non-profit program that provides rehabilitation service to individuals with disabilities" (Maryland Division of Rehabilitation Services, 2014). Community rehabilitation professionals are defined as individuals competent or skilled in a particular rehabilitation activity, involving the provision of rehabilitation-related services to individuals with disabilities and the supervision of clients. The survey copies were hand delivered to agencies without knowing the exact numbers of staff in each place. The total of number of responses collected was 113. Five surveys were deleted due to missing data. The final sample contained 108 usable responses.
The Environment of Job Satisfaction Survey (EJSS; Andrew, Faubion, and Palmer, 2002) was used in this study. One agency was selected for the pilot testing of EJSS to obtain feedback regarding any suggested changes. EJSS contained 50 items: 15 items concerned demographic information; 20 items asked for information regarding satisfaction with, and importance of, extrinsic factors on the job; and 15 items focused specifically on job satisfaction and importance of job satisfaction. In the national study using EJSS, the researchers reported an internal consistency of .88. The internal consistency for this study was .90.
Characteristics of Respondents
The 108 respondents to this survey of community rehabilitation program professionals on the Eastern Shore of Maryland consisted of 86 (79.6%) women and 22 (20.4%) men. Fifteen respondents (14%) indicated that they had a disability. The ethnic breakdown of the group was as follows: 59 (52.6%) African Americans, 1 (0.9%) Asian American, 1 (0.9%) Native American, 47 (42%) Caucasians, 3 (2.7%) others, and 1(0.9%) not reporting. Highest educational degree attained was broken down as follows: 1(0.9%) with doctorate's degree, 12 (10.7%) with master's degrees, 28 (25%) with bachelor's degrees, 16 (14.2%) with associate's degrees, 47 (42%) with High School's diploma, 1(0.9%) with no degree, and 7 (6.2%) no reporting (See Table 1).
Extrinsic Job Factors
The means and medians for all 20 items reflected a large group of respondents who rated the extrinsic factors associated with their jobs in the acceptable range (See Table 2). The heat and cold items were negatively worded and drew the largest number of responses that suggest a problem, 43 and 49 respondents, respectively. Other items with high numbers of negative response suggesting problems were "adequate sound privacy" (30 responses) and "sufficient storage space" (29 responses). On the other 16 items, which identified perceptions of problems, responses ranged from a high of 19 responses for "well maintained" and "adequate visual privacy", to a low of 3 responses for "convenient client access to us."
The vast majority of the respondents found all 20 of the items to be important. Even where there was disagreement about the importance of the item, the numbers were low. There were twenty-two respondents who found "sufficient space for client contact" not important, and 8 indicated that "adequate storage space" and "attractive agency facility" were not important to them.
The items of health status and attempts to change employment have been found to be significantly associated with job satisfaction. Twenty-two (20%) respondents reported having a significant health problem; 15 (13.8%) reported an attempt to change jobs within the past year. Five items more directly addressed job satisfaction. On the item "I am satisfied with my job", eight respondents reported either "disagree with reservation" or "definitely disagree," with 2 finding it "impossible to give a definite answer." The remaining 90.8% responded to this item with either "agree with reservations" (n=40) or "definite agree" (n=59). Eighty-three percent (91) of the respondents planned to stay on the job for the near future, with 84% (92) reporting that their current job was one of the best when compared with past jobs. There were 92.4% (98) of the respondents reporting that the clients appreciate what the staff do for them. 92.5% (99) of the respondents reported looking forward to going to work. Forty-nine respondents (45.3%) reported that agency appearance affected their decision to accept employment; 59 (55.1%) reported that the agency location affected their decision to accept employment.
Research Questions 1-1 to 2-1
All statistical analyses were conducted using an alpha of .05 to determine significance. Research Question l-l(RQ1-1) addressed differences in perception between male and female respondents with respect to satisfaction with extrinsic job factors. Based on the face validity and findings of Andrew, Faubion and Palmer (2002), the 20 extrinsic job factors were clustered into groups labeled Location, Safety, Health, Facility Space, Comfort, and Professional Nature.
Results were analyzed using a one-way multivariate analysis of variance (MANOVA) between-groups design. This analysis revealed a significant multivariate effect for gender, Wilks's Lambda = .85, F (6, 81) = 2.46, p = .03. Univariate results indicated that the factor Comfort Environment F (1, 86) = 4.18, p = .04, adjust [R.sup.2]=.04, was statistically significant.
Research Question 1-2 (RQ1-2) addressed differences in perception between male and female respondents with respect to the importance of extrinsic job factors. Results were analyzed using a one-way MANOVA between groups design. This analysis revealed a significant multivariate effect for gender, Wilks' Lambda =. 84, F (6, 79) = 2.54, p =.03. Univariate results indicated that the issues of Safety, F(1, 84)=5.26, p =.02, adjusted [R.sup.2]=.05; Health Environment, F(1, 84)=4.29, p =04, adjust [R.sup.2] =.04; Comfort, F(l,84)=3.99, p =.05, adjust [R.sup.2]=.03; Professional Nature, F(1,84)=5.19, p =.03, adjusted [R.sup.2]=.05, were statistically significant.
Research Question 1-3(RQ1-3) examined differences between male and female respondents on overall job satisfaction. No significant differences were found using a t test (p =. 10).
Research Question 1-4 (RQ1-4) examined gender differences in importance for job-related safety factors in the environment. No significant differences were found using a t test (p =.14).
Research Question 1-5 (RQ1-5) examined gender differences on satisfaction with safety factors in the work setting. A t test found no statistically significant differences between men and women on reported satisfaction with job safety measures (p =.25).
The components of Research Question 2 focused on job satisfaction issues. Research Question 2-l(RQ2-l) examined the relationship between job satisfaction and extrinsic job factors. For the purpose of this analysis, job satisfaction was defined as the total score on the three items identified in the factor analysis as being components of a single factor labeled job satisfaction by using global measurement of general job satisfaction. For example, "I am satisfied with my job." The internal reliability of the job satisfaction is .81. Extrinsic job factors were the six previously identified as Location, Safety, Health Environment, Facility Space, Comfort, and Professional Nature.
Multiple Regression on Combined Factors
Results were analyzed using both bivariate correlation and multiple regression. Means, standard deviations, and Pearson product-moment correlations appear in Table2.
The bivariate correlations revealed all six predictor variables except one (Comfort) were significant related to satisfaction: Location (r = .35, p <.01), Safety ( r = .33, p <.01), Health Environment (r = .40, p <.01), Facility Space ( r = .23, p <.05), and Professional Nature (r = .30, p <01).
Stepwise multiple regression was used due to the exploratory nature of the study. Satisfaction scores were regressed on the linear combination of the six variables. Of these, only two, Healthy Environment and Location, were found to contribute statistically significant proportion of variance to the regression equation (adjust [R.sup.2] = .184).
Research Questions 2-2 to 3-4
Research Question 2-2 (RQ2-2) examined the relationship between job satisfaction and selected demographic characteristics (age, working hours per week, and years in office). Results were analyzed using both bivariate correlations and multiple regression. The bivariate correlations revealed that no predictor variables were significantly related to satisfaction.
Using multiple regression, satisfaction scores were regressed on the linear combination of age, working hours per weeks, and years in office. Because of the exploratory nature of the study, stepwise multiple regression was the variable entry method chosen for this analysis. As one would expect with no significant correlations between the predictor variables and the criterion variable, no predictor variable were retained in the model. No relationship was found between perceived job satisfaction and age, working hours per week, years in office.
Research Question 2-3 (RQ2-3) examined the relationship between respondents' perceived job satisfaction and highest educational degree attained, existence of a disability, and ethnic group. Different ethic categories were collapsed into two groups: white and non-white because of non-significance found among smaller ethnic groups. Using a one-way ANOVA, there was no significant differences among the respondents with different degrees (p =.37). (p = .94). Using t test, no significant difference was found between respondents with disabilities and those without disabilities (p = .07), or White and non-White respondents (p = .567).
Research Question 2-4 (RQ2-4) looked at the relationship between job satisfaction and two factors - attempts to change jobs and recent health disorders. Respondents who attempted to change jobs within the past year were less satisfied with their jobs (r = -.389, p<.01). The variable of health problems within the past year did not correlate significantly with job satisfaction.
Research Question 2-5 (RQ2-5) examined the relationship between job satisfaction and years of experience. No significant relationship was found. A scatterplot examination of experience versus satisfaction generally showed a high level job satisfaction, with a small spread for people with a greater number of years of experience.
The research questions in the third group dealt with the perceived importance of extrinsic job factors. Research Question 3-1 (RQ3-1) looked at the importance of agency appearance and location in the decision to accept a position as a staff of community rehabilitation program profession/agency. Forty-eight percent of the respondents reported that appearance was very important; 30% reported it as somewhat important. Agency location was very important to 50% of the respondents and somewhat important to another 31%.
Research Question 3-2 (RQ3-2) examined the importance of the 20 extrinsic job factors to the staff of community rehabilitation program (see table 2 for the mean and median ratings for each of the 20 factors.) On 18 of the 20 items, more than 50% of the respondents reported that the item was very important.
Research Question 3-3 (RQ3-3) examined the relationship between importance of extrinsic job factors and years of experience as a community rehabilitation program professional. The bivariate correlations revealed that only two of the six factors were significantly related to years of experience: Facility Space (r =.22, p <.05), Professional Nature (r=.24, p < 05).
Research Question 3-4 (RQ3-4) looked at the relationship between the numbers of years at current agency and importance scores for the six extrinsic job factors. Only one factor of Professional Nature correlated significantly with the number of years(r=.29, p <01).
The implications of this study affect not only community rehabilitation agencies, but also practicing rehabilitation professionals and the students who are interested in the rehabilitation field. Foremost among the findings of interest to all the stakeholders is that practicing rehabilitation professionals in non-profit, private programs who participated in the survey overall are finding satisfaction in their work. They look forward to going to work, have no plan to change jobs for the foreseeable future and feel appreciated by their clients. These results should be reassuring to students who are prepared to enter the rehabilitation practice.
Similar to the results of the national study done by Andrew, Faubion and Palmer (2002), which concluded rehabilitation counselors had a high degree of job satisfaction and high level of satisfaction with their physical environment at work, this study confirms community rehabilitation professionals also find a high level of satisfaction exists regarding both job satisfaction and working conditions. The degree of satisfaction plays a significant role in contributing to the retention of these valued employees. On the other hand, 11.8% of the rehabilitation professionals versus 15% of rehabilitation counselors in Andrew et al.'s study reported that they do not plan to stay on their position. Community rehabilitation agencies need to be aware of this potential high turnover and should make every effort to improve the attractiveness of their employment. Although many factors contribute to the dissatisfaction at work, according to this study, results have shown that physical environment does have a direct relationship with job satisfaction and warrant attention by the agencies.
Although age and having a higher degree were found to be associated with job satisfaction (Clark, Oswald, & Warr, 1996) this research draws the same conclusion as the Andrew et al.'s (2002) study that none of the demographic variables were related to job satisfaction. In terms of human resources recruiting and hiring qualified applicants, the implications are regardless of the demographic characteristics of applicants, they are equally likely to find satisfaction in rehabilitation professional jobs. Neither of the two studies found recent health problems associated with job satisfaction, but both documented the attempts to change jobs related to job dissatisfaction.
There were no gender differences in job satisfaction, but there were gender differences with respect to rehabilitation professionals' satisfaction with extrinsic job factors and with the degree of importance these professionals placed on these factors. Since the number of women working as rehabilitation professionals has increased steadily, community agencies should be especially attuned to the research findings that women reported lower comfort levels of their work environment than males in terms of attractiveness and sanitation of their working facilities. Women consider three extrinsic factors, i.e., safety, comfort, and professional nature of their work setting as more important than their male coworkers. In order to continue the high levels of satisfaction regarding employees' work environment, managers and supervisors should be aware of its importance and give it ongoing attention. Although community rehabilitation agency administrators have limited control over major building infrastructure improvement, they can address the issue by seeking the input of employees to improve their physical environment, give more autonomy to the employees to control their individual working space. Rearranging office furniture, adding extra plants or decorative posters that are in line with the agency's philosophy can possibly make positive changes in the work atmosphere without significant financial expenditure (Thomsen, J. D., Sonderstrup-Andersen, H. K., & Muller, R., 2011; Lee & Brand, 2005). Even though it remains very challenging to find a "just right" setting for everyone. office/ building managers are recommended to be creative and responsive to the needs of individuals and make appropriate adjustments to the thermostat control of the office if possible, or adding small fans or heaters to maximize individual's comfort level at work when it does not violate fire codes. It is also recommended to purchase adequate janitorial services to maintain clean facilities. Personal security concerns can be addressed by training programs to prepare employees regarding the possibility of violence in work-related situations.
These research findings are generally positive regarding the community rehabilitation agencies' efforts to address the extrinsic job factors which have an important impact on job satisfaction, but there is more work to be done. Many organizations realize the physical environment has a significant effect on how individuals or teams approach their work (Duffy, Jaunzens, Liang & Willis, 2003). Community rehabilitation agencies need to re-evaluate their facilities to ensure their work environment supports the rapid technology development, dynamic organization changes, and meets the needs of their employees for privacy and collaboration (Lee & Brand, 2005). Community rehabilitation agencies are encouraged to conduct their own internal surveys and listen to the input of their employees regarding the nature and extent of any issues raised. This will increase the likelihood of creating an optimal, pleasant working environment for these valued rehabilitation professionals which ultimately impacts the delivery of services to the agency's consumers.
Limitations in this study need be considered when interpreting the results. A convenience sample was used and the differences between community rehabilitation professionals who chose to participate in the study and those who declined are not clear.
Findings for this study suggest several areas for future research. The study of sophisticated person-environment interaction between physical work environment, productivity, job satisfaction, and individual characteristics call for more advanced theoretical development and more complex measurements. Few scales or instruments for assessing physical work environment, especially for evaluating office settings have been developed. Qualitative studies on the perspectives of community-based rehabilitation employees as well as clients will add more insights on this complex subject. The Environment of Job Satisfaction Survey (EJSS) was specifically developed for the 2002 national pilot survey on exploring the relationship between rehabilitation counselors' job satisfaction and extrinsic job factors. The expanding of the original EJSS, exploring and adding more dimensions, such as sense of control, assessing if employees' opinions are valued to make appropriate environmental changes or perceptions of their needs being met regarding work conditions (Carnevale & Rios, 1995) may decrease the variance unexplained to job satisfaction. Comparison studies of different work environments at community-based rehabilitation centers and the effects on job satisfaction and turnover can be also explored.
Andrew, J., Faubion, C, & Palmer, C. (2002). The relationship between counselor satisfaction and extrinsic job factors in state rehabilitation agencies. Rehabilitation Counseling Bulletin, 45(4), 223-232.
Armstrong, A. J., Hawley, C. E., Lewis, A. N., Blankenship, C, & Pugsley, R. A. (2008). Relationship between employment setting and job satisfaction among CRC personnel. Journal Of Vocational Rehabilitation, 28(1), 41-51.
Arnold, N. L., Seekins, T, & Nelson, R. E. (1997). A comparison of vocational rehabilitation counselors: rural and urban differences. Rehabilitation Counseling Bulletin, 41(1), 2-14.
Ashkanasy, N. M., Ayoko, O. B., & Jehn, K. A. (2014). Understanding the physical environment of work and employee behavior: An affective events perspective. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 35(8), 1169-1184.
Barett, K., Riggar, T R, Crimando, W., Flowers, C, & Baily, T. (1997). The turnover dilemma: A disease with solutions. Journal of Rehabilitation, 63(2), 36.
Biggs, H., Flett, R., Voges, K., & Alpass, F. (1995). Job satisfaction and distress in rehabilitation professionals: the role of organizational commitment and conflict. Journal of Applied Rehabilitation Counseling, 26(1), 41-46
Blankertz, L.E. & Robinson, S.E. (1997). Turnover intentions of community mental health workers in psychosocial rehabilitation services. Community Mental Health Journal, 33(6), 517-529.
Bluett, C. G. (1945). Vocational interests of vocational rehabilitation officers. Occupations, 24, 25-32.
Bogg, J., & Cooper, C. L. (1994). An examination of gender differences for job satisfaction, mental health, and occupational stress among senior UK Civil Servants. International Journal of Stress Management, 1(2), 159-172.
Capella, M., & Andrew, J. (2004). The relationship between counselor job satisfaction and consumer satisfaction in vocational rehabilitation. Rehabilitation Counseling Bulletin, 47(4), 205-214.
Carnevale, D. G. (1992). Physical settings of work: a theory of the effects of environmental form. Public Productivity & Management Review, 15 (4), 423-436.
Carnevale, D. G., & Rios, J. M. (1995). How employees assess the quality of physical work settings. Public Productivity & Management Review, 221-231.
Clark, A., Oswald, A., & Warr, P. (1996). Is job satisfaction U-shaped in age? Journal of Occupational And Organizational Psychology, 69(1), 57-81.
Clements-Croome, D. (Ed.) (2000). Creating the productive workplace. London: E & FN Spoon.
Decker, F.H., Harris-Kojetin, L.D., & Bercovitz, A. (2009). Intrinsic job satisfaction, overall satisfaction, and intention to leave the job among nursing assistants in nursing homes. Gerontologist, 49 (5), 596-610. doi: 10.1093/geront/gnp051
Dilani, A. (2004). Design and health III: Health promotion through environmental design. Stockholm, Sweden: International Academy for Design and Health.
DiMichael, S. G. (1949). Work satisfaction and work efficiency of vocational counselors as related to measured interests. Journal of Applied Psychology, 33, 319-339.
Duffy, F., Jaunzens, D., Laing, A., Willis, S. (2003). New environments for working. Taylor & Francis.
Dul, J., Ceylan, C, & Jaspers, F. (2011). Knowledge workers' creativity and the role of the physical work environment. Human resource management, 50(6), 715-734.
Faubion, C. W., Palmer, C. D., & Andrew, J. D. (2001). Rural/urban differences in counselor satisfaction and extrinsic job factors. Journal of Rehabilitation, 67(4), 4.
Garske, G. G. (2000). The significance of rehabilitation counselor job satisfaction. Journal of Applied Rehabilitation Counseling, 31 (3), 10-13.
Herzberg, F., Mausner, B., Peterson, R. O., & Capwell, D. F. (1957). Job attitudes: review of research and opinion. Pittsburgh, PA: Psychological Services of Pittsburgh.
Jain, R, & Kaur, S. (2014). Impact of work environment on job satisfaction. International Journal of Scientific and Research Publications, 4(1), 1-8.
Kim, S. (2005). Gender differences in the job satisfaction of public employees: a study of Seoul Metropolitan Government, Korea. Sex roles, 52(9-10), 667-681.
Leaman, A., & Bordass, W. (1999). Productivity in Buildings: The "Killer" Variables. Building Research and Information 27 (1), 4-19.
Lee, S.Y., & Brand, J.L. (2005). Effects of control over office workspace on perceptions of the work environment and work outcomes. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 25(3), 323-33.
Magee. W. (2013). Anxiety, demoralization, and the gender difference in job satisfaction. Sex Roles, 69(5-6), 308-322.
Maryland Division of Rehabilitation Services. (2014, July 15) Community Rehabilitation Programs. Retrieved from http://www.dors.state.md.us/DORS/AboutDORS/Vendors/CRPs.htm
Maslow, A. H. (1954). Motivation and personality. New York: Harper and Row.
Mason, E. S. (2001). Gender differences in job satisfaction. Journal of Social Psychology, 135 (2), 143-151.
Packard, S. H., & Kauppi, D. R. (1999). Rehabilitation agency leadership style impact on subordinates' job satisfaction. Rehabilitation Counseling Bulletin, 43(1), 5-11.
Stout, J. K. (1984). Supervisors' structuring and consideration behaviors and workers' job satisfaction, stress, and health problems. Rehabilitation Counseling Bulletin.
Szymanski, E. M., & Parker, R. M. (1995). Rehabilitation counselor work motivation, job performance, and job satisfaction: An exploratory study. Journal of Rehabilitation Administration, 19, 51-63.
Tabaj, A., Pastirk, S., Bitenc, C., & Masten, R. (2015). Work-Related Stress, Burnout. Compassion, and Work Satisfaction of Professional Workers in Vocational Rehabilitation. Rehabilitation Counseling Bulletin, 58(2), 113-123.
Thomsen, J. D., S0nderstrup-Andersen, H. K., & Muller, R. (2011). People-plant Relationships in an Office Workplace: Perceived Benefits for the Workplace and Employees. HortScience, 46(5), 744-752.
Vischer, J. C. (2008). Towards an environmental psychology of workspace: how people are affected by environments for work. Architectural Science Review, 51(2), 97-108.
Winn, C. S., Chisolm, B. A., & Hummelbrunner, J. A. (2014). Factors affecting recruitment and retention of rehabilitation professionals in Northern Ontario, Canada: a cross-sectional study. Rural & Remote Health, 14(2), 1-7.
Wright, G. N., & Terrian, L. J. (1987). Rehabilitation job satisfaction inventory. Rehabilitation Counseling Bulletin, 29, 159-176.
Lisa X. Zheng
University of Maryland Eastern Shore
William B. Talley
University of Maryland Eastern Shore
Clayton W. Faubion
University of Maryland Eastern Shore
Gail M. Lankford
University of Maryland Eastern Shore
Lisa Zheng, Assistant Professor, Room 1115, Richard Hazel Hall, Department of Rehabilitation, University of Maryland Eastern Shore, 11868 College Backbone Rd, Princess Anne, MD 21853.
Table 1. Participant demographics n Percent Gender Women 86 79.6% Men 22 20.4% Disability Yes 15 14% No 93 86% Ethnic African American 59 52.6% Asian American 1 0.9% Native American 1 0.9% Caucasians 47 42% Others 3 2.7% No reporting 1 0.9% Education Doctorate's Degree 1 0.9% Master's Degree 12 10.7% Bachelor's Degree 28 25% Associate's Degree 16 14.2% High School's Diploma 47 42% No degree 1 0.9% No reporting 7 6.2% Table 2. Mean. Standard Deviations, and Intercorrelations of Job Satisfaction and Six Extrinsic Job Variables Intercorrelations Variable M SD 1 2 3 1. Satisfaction 12.80 2.59 2. Location 8.76 1.69 .362 (**) n 105 3. Safety 17.17 3.58 .356 (**) .548 (**) n 101 101 4. Health Environment 4.29 1.18 .429 (**) .508 (**) .637 (**) n 106 105 100 5 Facility Space 16.79 3.81 253 (*) .452 (**) .610 (**) n 106 107 102 6.Comfort 18.66 3.86 .160 .351 (**) .339 (**) n 101 101 96 7.Professional Nature 16.59 4.14 .305 (*) .486 (*) .571 (*) n 104 106 100 Intercorrelations Variable 4 5 6 1. Satisfaction 2. Location n 3. Safety n 4. Health Environment n 5 Facility Space .597 (**) n 106 6.Comfort .342 (**) .403 (**) n 101 102 7.Professional Nature .469 (**) .588 (*) .365 (**) n 104 106 100 (*) p < .05. (**) p < .01.
|Printer friendly Cite/link Email Feedback|
|Author:||Zheng, Lisa X.; Talley, William B.; Faubion, Clayton W.; Lankford, Gail M.|
|Publication:||The Journal of Rehabilitation|
|Date:||Jan 1, 2017|
|Previous Article:||Factors affecting vocational goal acquisition of female immigrant clients: Rehabilitation counselor perspectives.|
|Next Article:||Future planning among parents and siblings of adults with acquired brain injury: A comparative analysis with intellectual disability.|